Well, according to you, we didn't actually campaign on ending the war, so I think we're fine either way.
well - and you think it's NOT going to say the surge is working and we'll have more of the same??
Some of the Democrats have been claiming that before his term expires, President Bush will declare a national emergency, impose martial law, suspend the Constitution, and continue on as President.
Perhaps President Bush should give that some serious thought. Then we could...
AAR
"Perhaps President Bush should give that some serious thought. Then we could..."
AAR, how old are you? Why do you hate democracy?
"The real issue here is that the report is going to be a good one - Democrats know this, and they are trying to prevent the American people from understanding what is happening in Iraq."
Mark, the content of the report is not why Democrats are already denigrating it. Democrats take issue with the fact that Bush is actually writing the report for Petraeus...Hence why they're calling it the "Bush Report."
"Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,1634199,full.story?coll=la-home-center
Gar Wood
The nutroots have been promoting defeat, cut and run, and anything anti-America or anti-Bush for a very long time. Placing their political ambition and quest for power well in front of the GWOT.
As it will turn out they actually cut their own throats. Well deserved and good riddance. And they see it coming. Keep talking, idiots. And doing nothing.
The White House is going to write the Report? What a surprise!
Especially considering that's exactly what the democrats insisted on when they wrote the law.
(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.
And, once again, we see raw political gamesmanship as the only motivator of Democratic action - they don't care what actually happens; their only concern is their personal power.
Again, this should come as no surprise to anyone. As it is right now, the Democratic leadership will be in a "save-face" mode the more conditions on the ground improve, and this will fun to watch.
Pass the popcorn.
Perhaps President Bush should give that some serious thought. Then we could...
AAR, I wonder if you're being sarcastic.
If Dubya were to do what you suggest, the left would be yelling "I told you so" from the rooftops.
the problem is simple to understand. Everyone who has disagreed with Bush has simply been removed or forced out. All those retired generals who disagree with Bush? The Collin Powell? Bush just gets rid of people who refuse to tell him what he wants to hear.
Sure - the democrats are also probably doing things for personal politics. Like almost all politicians - they rarely do anything for the greater good.
Of course - that doesn't mean that Bush is right
All the Democrat Party is saying is:
Give Peace A Chance
:)
Posted by: Jetsoner at September 6, 2007 04:55 PM
Uhhhh first the 1/2 Hour News Hour and now this!!??
You conservatives really should just get out of the "comedy" business once and for all you're embarrassing yourselves.
navydad: Pass the popcorn.
Indeed. Last night I had a bout with insomnia so I tuned into C-SPAN (which, now that Imus is gone, is the best alternative to Sominex I've found). In this case, though, they were running Gen. Walker's testimony, the comptroller general of the GAO. And unfortunately, I found it very interesting. He and his questioners talked a lot about realistic decision processes -- the perception of goals, the development of procedures in pursuit of them, and of metrics and benchmarks to quantify progress toward them. They also talked about the fact that the benchmarks in place don't fully represent any of those things. It was very entertaining.
The take-home message I came away with was... this study should have been commissioned a couple of years ago, minimum. And there needs to be more.
Bigfoot,
I was just trying to get the thread moving, but...
I trust you have seen some of the comments on the Net. From some of those comments, I think the kooky Left actually believes President Bush will do something like that.
And you recall the recent thread entitled "Leftwing Insanity" where one Lefty proposes "General Pace, You Can Save the US - by Arresting Bush for 'Conduct Unbecoming.'"
If the Democrats are already resigned to it...
AAR
I think the reason that there is such skepticism is obvious. This administration has painted rosy picture after rosy picture only to have to back off later. What is the saying, fool me once..... Further, two reports out this week seem to contradict the impending Patreaus/Crocker Report. The Jones report, which indicates that the Ministry of Interior is a farce, the Iraqi police force should be disbanded and it will be 12-18 months before the Iraqi will have any level of real competence. The GAO report which says only three of the 18 bench marks have been met. Also, there are questions on levels of violence. The miliatry have their figures and there are other groups both governmental and non-governemntal with differing figures.
Clearly, there is a lot to debate. We can no longer just take their word for it.
Clearly, there is a lot to debate. We can no longer just take their word for it.
That's why all these other "reports" are coming out.
Who commissioned the "Jones Report?" Follow the money...
gene,
Debate, good; denigrating report before its out, bad.
The fact that Democrats are pre-emptively hammering the report shows that (a) it is likely the most credible report and (b) it is a good report...they want this report shoved down the Memory Hole double-quick.
Kiefer-
The US taxpayers paid for the report. Wasn't it commisioned by congress? If you have other info let me know, but as far as I can tell we paid for this sucker.
Further, two reports out this week seem to contradict the impending Patreaus/Crocker Report...
How do you know what's in the Patreaus?Crocker report?
The libbies are scared of this pending report. Not because it may bode well for the USA but that it will ruin them politically.
UpChuckie Schumer has got to be the most disgusting person in the Senate, if not on the face of the Earth. Did anyone hear what this traitor had to say about our troops?
Mark-
They are certainly politicking the report, calling it Bush's report etc... I wouldn't say hammering... but what has Bush done right before the report comes out, had a big photo op in Iraq without a full press corp to ask questions, polticking. Both sides are marshalling their forces for what they believe is right.
We all know what is going to happen though. The dems will cave and the slow withdrawl of troops will occur in early winter '08, because it has to per the military.
It's not pre-emptive when the administration keeps leaking (in Patreaus' interviews, for example) what it's going to say. Of course Patraeus will feature his successes - he's an intelligent man who clearly wants to show he's done the job he was sent to do. Any failure of "The Surge" will not be his fault, (his job is to execute his orders) the failure will be with the expectations of the civilian leadership that keeps throwing money and bodies at an untenable situation. The military has done their job, but the leadership has failed them, and us.
Did anyone hear what this traitor had to say about our troops?
I heard it, can't believe I heard it, and find it beyond the pale. The man should be impeached, and then charged with treason.
Wasn't he the one denigrating the Iraqis ability just a few months back? And now he attributes all the recent success to the Iraqs?
Seriously, where's a terrorist when you need one?
...he's an intelligent man who clearly wants to show he's done the job he was sent to do. - jayhay
He's an HONEST man, with integrity, who will present an HONEST assessment. Those traits elude liberals, so I know it's hard to understand for you.
"The White House is going to write the Report? What a surprise!
Especially considering that's exactly what the democrats insisted on when they wrote the law.
(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.
Posted by: Dasein Libsbane "
So, you agree that it will be spun.
OK, let's make this very clear. Petraeus was APPOINTED BY BUSH, and Bush is his COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Now, in light of these FACTS, do you really think that there might be a chance that Petraeus will say something Bush doesn't like?
But, as long as you agree that the report will be done up and spun up by the White House, I really can't argue with you, Libby-bane-thing.
ThELefTYFoOL
...do you really think that there might be a chance that Petraeus will say something Bush doesn't like? - fool
Yes, I do. Unlike the "march-in-lockstep" liberals, Patreaus is his own man, with honor and integrity. Traits that elude fools.
"[Patraeus]'s an HONEST man, with integrity, who will present an HONEST assessment. Those traits elude liberals, so I know it's hard to understand for you.
Posted by: neocon
You know neocon, you and the other six regulars here would do well to dial it down a notch. You think you own honesty and integrity? Or your Party? Or your nation? I doubt you'd listen to someone clearly lacking in honesty and integrity like me, but finding some humility would change your life.
"[Patraeus]'s an HONEST man, with integrity, who will present an HONEST assessment. Those traits elude liberals, so I know it's hard to understand for you.
Posted by: neocon"
You know neocon, you and the other six regulars here would do well to dial it down a notch. You think you own honesty and integrity? Or your Party? Or your nation? I doubt you'd listen to someone clearly lacking in honesty and integrity like me, but finding some humility would change your life.
The man should be impeached, and then charged with treason.
It'll be ignored, neocon, or he'll pull a Durbin, moisten his eyes, and do a "sorrowful" apology on the Senate floor.
I agree, neocon; he needs to be charged, tried, convicted, and fitted for a noose.
Disclaimer: By asserting that Schumer is a traitor and needs to be "fitted for a noose," I was in no way, shape, or form threatening to partake in such actions myself. That is for the authorities to do, but once they do, and they need someone to pull the lever on the trapdoor, I'm available. In the meantime, I'm a peace-lovin' lib-hatin' redneck who loves his God, his guns, his wife, daughter, dogs and cat. I mean liberals no ill will; I just hate 'em all...
Some of the Democrats have been claiming that before his term expires, President Bush will declare a national emergency, impose martial law, suspend the Constitution, and continue on as President.
Perhaps President Bush should give that some serious thought. Then we could...
AAR
Posted by: AAR
Well, AAR, that sounds a lot like Hitler's rise to power in Germany. And Stalin's in Russia.
Here are some warning signs of fascism:
1)Powerful and continuing nationalism
Well, the "patriotic" right wingers who question the patriotic-ness and loyalty of anti Iraq war people have this one down.
2)Disdain for human rights
Gitmo, Abu Graib, Haditha, secret prisons in Europe have this one down pat
3)Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
Well, the Bushies call pretty much all our enemies "terrorists" and generalize without giving thought to specific situations, so this one is pretty much being done
4)Supremacy of the military
Not exactly happening directly, but with the NSA surveillance, this is slowly but surely happening
5)Rampant sexism
Not really an issue
6)Controlled mass media
FOX makes this one kinda come into play, but then you have the liberal media and the middle of the road media to counterbalance that...so not really
7)Obsession with national security
HOOO boy. THis is a big one. The current gov't is so obsessed with national security that it doesn't CARE that our debt is sky high, our schools suck, the economy's going down, China is rising, etc.
8)Religion and gov't intertwined
Well, you righties are so for this one that it just barely sort of slips by as a not really. And that's only because Bush isn't really doing anything big. But your party is so for this one....
Also, gay marriage is a good example of this
9)Corporate power protected
Well, tax cuts for the rich, no nat'l health care, big lending to big companies, opposition to raising the minimum wage...I'd say this is pretty big for the Bushies.
10)Labor power suppressed
This goes hand in hand with the previous one. Again, no min wage raises, power to companies, etc
11)Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
Not really a big one. But Bush isn't doing anything to actively encourage these things either.
12)Obsession with crime and punishment
OK, death penalty advocates, torture advocates, capturing and imprisoning noncombatants without charge, NSA surveillance
This one is pretty huge too
13)Rampant cronyism and corruption
OOOOOHHHHHHHHH boy. This one is going on in the Bush gov't out the freakin WAZOO. Plamegate, NSA, Gonzo, Stevens, lying to get us into war.
This is massive
14)Fraudulent elections
Bush had to have Kathy Harris and co to invalidate Gore ballots in FLA, and Supreme court decision, and lots of luck, well placed cronies, confusing ballots, etc. to, despite losing the popular vote, become the prez, so this is up there too.
Great job, AAR. The government you advocate shows 10 out of fourteen signs of fascism, and several of the no's are very dubious ones.
In light of this, do you really think it's a good idea to give bush martial law and complete control?
Also, in light of this, do you think Bush is a good prez?
ThELefTYFoOL
OT:
"Once again, New Jersey's culture of corruption is national news."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070906/D8RG78A00.html
And they keep electing Donkaroaches in New Jerkey...
Fool,
The White House is going to write the Report?
Why do you think President Bush stopped in Iraq on his way to Australia?
Do you think he hand carried and dropped off "the report"!
Just kiddin'... I think! No... really, just kiddin'.
1H8L1BS,
From what little I've heard, I think some Democrats are involved in that!
But, isn't it true that behind any Democrat government -- from local to state to national -- there is a "Culture of Corruption"?
AAR
Or your Party? Or your nation? I doubt you'd listen to someone clearly lacking in honesty and integrity like me, but finding some humility would change your life. - jayhay
Well considering someone who undoubtedly supports people like Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi of whom values like integrity and honor are completely absent, I find it necessary to remind you.
So I'll consider the source. MMMM K?
Kiefer-
Why do you always issue that silly disclaimer when you call for politicians to be hanged? It is obvious that you are not really threatening harm.
In the case of Liberals -- If truth should so happen to get in the way of power? Deny!
Jeremiah
"You know neocon, you and the other six regulars here would do well to dial it down a notch."
You and the six liberal regulars should stop being such useful idiots. If you don't know what that means, look it up.
Hi, I'm a Democrat. I'm going on to this site to see what the other side thinks. Please do not flame me. I would like to have an informative and polite conversation on any non-religion, gay marriage, immigration, or abortion topic. Look forward to it!
This is sort of paraphrasing, trying to convey a message to another candidate, but not exactly to the tee, from a man in last night's debate and who has his head on his shoulders. Ok, here goes, I'll do the best I can--
(My interpretation)
Liberals do not see the consequences of a withdrawal from a World-Wide War on Global Jihad, what they do not understand, is that, Radical Jihad is not confined to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Africa, or Russia, or Germany, it is not a war confined to one single country, It is GLOBAL, Radical Jihad has it's factions in every country, including America, and if we pull out now, that would mean putting the eyes of the whole entire world on America, because they have the most hate for America because of our Freedom and more so, for our Prosperity and richness of living conditions (Food, Clean Water, Shelter, and added necessities for comfort).
If we would pull out now, that would mean victory for the Terrorists, and dis-honor to our Awesome Military men and women!!
Think about it Libs -- Do we want to sacrifice our A#1 Class rate, to a Third world Nation, and to the entire world in fear of Jihad on the doorstep of America?
Hint: 'When we make a mistake, we make it as One Nation, Under God, Indivisible ... and do the best we can to fix it, AS one Nation.'
Jeremiah
"Just 39% Believe Iraq Report Will Honestly Present Petraeus Views; 35% Say It Will Not"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/just_39_believe_iraq_report_will_honestly_present_petraeus_views_35_say_it_will_not
Apparently a lot of Americans aren't sure whether or not to believe General Petraeus.
Jeremiah: "because they have the most hate for America because of our Freedom and more so, for our Prosperity and richness of living conditions"
Completely incorrect, that's what Bush says, but that's not real. The reason is because of the USA giving three billion in grants to Isreal to kill 3 times of many Palestinians as the Palestinians kill Isrealis. The entire mid-east knows this, but you don't. This has been going on for decades. Educate yourself!
Just a quick correction, I made a mis-statement if you will--
I would like to re-state this sentence--
"and to the entire world in fear of Jihad on the doorstep of America?"
May it be said, thusly ... 'and to the entire world in the assumption, that Radical Jihad won't reach the doorstep of America?'
Jeremiah
If I was wrong then there would be no problem debating me would there? It seems to me you are trying to keep Jeremiah ignorant by acting as a middle man, why keep this man a fool? Do you gain from it?
It is obvious that you are not really threatening harm.
It may be obvious to you, sleepy, but two of the other troll pukes took an opinion I had on AlGore entirely out of context, and insisted that I was threatening his sorry arse. As if I'd want to get locked up for threatening such a waste of oxygen...and carbon.
Let me ask you something, sleepy: Why do you insist on misspelling my nickname? It's "keefer," dude. What's up with "kiefer?"
Wow. Well the talking points have been well distributed. Bush wrote the report. The General is going to swear before that oh so friendly Congress that it's HIS report and just hope no evidence to the contrary ever comes to light? Yep, well that seem reasonable to you moonbats.
Well if slander and libel are your tactics of choice then so be it. Obviously you don't REALLY want to debate. Whatever. You want to cut-and-run and damn the consequences. Admit it. Embrace it. Make it yours.
Casper - and what percentage thinks Tag and Axe actually make women fall all over you? Polls represent the effects of propaganda.
And besides 74% of statistics are just made up on the spot.
The reason is because of the USA giving three billion in grants to Isreal to kill 3 times of many Palestinians as the Palestinians kill Isrealis.
USA,
By no means, the reason for this, is to create peace pact between Israelis and Palestinians, an act of diplomacy, if you will, in order to come to agreement on both sides ... If your scenario was correct in this, the Palestinians would not exist at this time, Agree?
Jeremiah
You know that the report isn't actually being written by the general, right? Bush basically said that it was going to be written by the White House... Are they going to make it an honest assessment? I think not...
Are they going to make it an honest assessment? I think not...
That's because you're a biased lefty troll puke, rainy.
You may think, because your leaders tell you to, that the good news from the war zone is fabricated, but rational minds realize that it's impossible to lie when there are 160,000 folks over there who can blow any lies out of the water. And what kind of mind would accuse someone of playing games with so many lives?
Oh, I forgot--you're a lemming, like plainbrainjane, CO, jayho, constripper, Broder, NJLibtard, Zeroballs, stevomoron, and in many cases lately, Casper the Whiner. Never mind...
Hey Keif, I'm just going by the past behavior of this administration... Such as firing generals who disagreed with them (Shinseki), and touted a decline in violence last summer when they didn't include suicide bombings in their statistics. Bush has already said that he intends to set the plan for a long-term presence that would be carried out by his successor (in an interview with his biographer). Not only that, but now we are getting this:
On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
...
On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."
Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it.
They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert. So... you can either draw a conclusion from past behavior... or you can believe whatever Bush says... I insist on the former... Who's the lemming again?
Better yet... if I'm a lemming, who am I following? I hate Democrats, I hate Republicans, and now that I think of it... I can name two people in congress that I may consider liking in the least.
It's just normal for you keefer... idiotic rhetoric with nothing to back it up... again I ask... who's the lemming?
” Petraeus was APPOINTED BY BUSH, and Bush is his COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Now, in light of these FACTS, do you really think that there might be a chance that Petraeus will say something Bush doesn't like? ”
Who was ALSO confirmed by a Democrat controlled congress. Why don’t you just come right out and call him a liar even before YOU hear what he has to say. That would be too obvious. Mark’s point amplified all over again. The left have no problem ignoring facts and make up whatever they feel they need to score points.
Rana,
What's your point? Still on the WMD issue?
That was just ONE of the reasons to enter Iraq and bring down the brutal, murderous dictator. And five years later, you're still finding low level CIA agents with their proof that AT THAT ONE MOMENT IN TIME, Saddma did not possess WMD.
Well Done.
Bush has already said that he intends to set the plan for a long-term presence that would be carried out by his successor - Rana
Ye of short term memory. He has been saying that since the beginning there Rana. Pay attention.
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. President Bush, September 2001
Neocon-
My point was that the President and the administration has a history of being dishonest when it comes to intelligence or any military evaluation of the Iraq War. As I said before, I'm basing my predictions of the report's authenticity on the Administration's past behavior, which I think is a fair thing to do.
On that quote you posted... That was not referencing the invasion of Iraq... So... it's not at all applicable. In fact, the Invasion of Iraq was promoted as being quick and cheap, with new oil revenues paying for most of the reconstruction (I believe that that was Wolfowitz that said that part). In fact, the President declared that major combat operations were finished more than four years ago (approximately 4 years and counting before major combat operations will be finished).
Yet another case of short-sightedness or outright deception by this president.
My point was that the President and the administration has a history of being dishonest when it comes to intelligence or any military evaluation of the Iraq War.
No, they haven't. Only to someone who despises the President and is against this war, do you glean from every speech attempts to mislead. Everytime Bush has spoke on the Iraq effort, he speaks with opitmism that our mission can be accomplished, and that is what you find misleading, meaning you are invested in defeat.
In fact, the President declared that major combat operations were finished more than four years ago
And they were, at the time. We have had to ramp back up because of the mistake of post war planning and the liberals continuance of encouraging our enemies.
I believe that the liberals are the ones misleading and spinning their way to defeat.
neocon-
You can not believe what you write. Maybe not dishonest, but he is overly optimistic that certainly warrants healthy skepticism. Skepticism is defeatism.
Mark: Basic fairness is not something Democrats understand - until they have the actual report, is is absurd for them to cast even the slightest doubt on it...but, there they go.
Would it matter if Petraeus doesn't intend to submit a report? To anyone?
Skepticism is [not] defeatism. - sleepy
Skepticism is not defeatism, I agree. But if you call what the left is doing purely skepticism, you're being dishonest. The left is attempting to force surrender, pure and simple.
Rico,
I’m shocked, shocked to find that Petraeus won’t actually be writing the Report! SHOCKED I TELLS YA!
Did you even bother to read the law that requires the report? It clearly states that the President prepares the Report and submits it to Congress.
(B) The President [...] will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress".
It further states that Petraeus is to present himself to Congress for public and private briefings.
Democrats insisted this is what they wanted and now are feigning indignation that the President, ambassador, Secretary of State and Commanding General are complying with the Law.
My point was that the President and the administration has a history of being dishonest when it comes to intelligence or any military evaluation of the Iraq War.
You write this tripe, and I'm the lemming? Then you're the double dog-d*ck lemming. And a liar...
Dasein: Did you even bother to read the law that requires the report?
Actually, I did. So I found it rather curious that, until about 3 weeks ago, Dems and Reps alike (including the President) kept referring to "the Petraeus report". So I thought maybe he was going to deliver one even though he wasn't required to. Then the story changed -- and along with it indications that the WH wanted Petraeus to testify only in closed session. Now he'll be testifying in both open and closed sessions, and he'll submit no report at all, even to the WH. Consequently, I think it's perfectly appropriate to refer to the report they'll get as "the Bush report", because that's what it is.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blogsforbush.com/nav-commenters.gif)
