| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2007/9/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47938 Activity:nil |
9/7 Dems support the troops! (pre-emptively dismiss the Petraeus report)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/05/346444.aspx
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/09/democrats_pre-emptively_dismiss_bush_report
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1883904/posts
"... the left is doing its usual adept job of spewing treasonous
rhetoric over things that only exist in their Bush-hating
conspiracy-riddled minds." |
| 5/24 |
|
| firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/05/346444.aspx Web MSNBC First Read Search ABOUT FIRST READ First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often. Security From NBC's Mike Viqueira House Democrats are already dismissing the Petraeus findings -- which are not due for another five days -- while leaving the door open to a compromise with Republicans that would drop a deadline for troop withdrawal. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pointedly referring to the Petraeus testimony as "the Bush report presented by General Petraeus," as opposed to an independent assessment by the top military man in Iraq that has been billed for months now. "Progress is not being made," Pelosi insisted in a Capitol presser this afternoon, no matter how some people might want to "cherry pick" stories of success. But top Senate Dems Harry Reid and Carl Levin have hinted recently that they may be open to putting forward legislation with no end date for withdrawal, thereby putting Pelosi and House Democrats on the spot with core Democrats -- both in Washington and at home -- who would be angry at such a legislative outcome. Today, Pelosi would only say: "Whether people will go for (something) without a date certain for withdrawal remains to be seen." EMAIL THIS Comments Have already written to Levin in my state--he is wrong----big time---as far as the generals report ----so much Bush speak---will just be a whitewash of the bloodshed and more lies. HMT-MI (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:29 PM) Heh. was behind the NIE report,they say no such thing regarding the GAO ''study''which was headed up by Clinton appointees. Yet there is no evidence that Democrats politicized the GAO study any more than the GOP did with the NIE. which was admittedly used by both FR and the Democrat candidates as a bludgeon with which to beat Bush . Naccy shut your HOLE nad play horsey with your son on your lap... Jom does (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:48 PM) it IS the bush report, written by the white house, read by Betrayus. Pelosi and the rest of Al Qaeda's friends already dismissing the Petraeus before it's even filed. Iraq Vet (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:15 PM) Pelosi is going to bring the war into america, I think we should just stay and fight it over there. McCoy, Boise, ID (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:18 PM) Nancy Pelosi sucks SG Phoenix Az (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:20 PM) It is the Iraq Surge report. Petreus did not author it, direct it, vet it or approve it. nuanced (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:22 PM) pelosi and company would be welcome at jane fonda's house anytime. don dempsey timberville, va (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 7:06 PM) I cheered when Pelosi took the gavel. They took our trust and let us down by caving to Bush every time. To make matters worse, my party is determined to nominate another establishment loser with Hillary. no spine and bad taste and totally guillable to a dishonest, unappealing, outsourcing DLCer. hillary hangs out with Murdoch and yet my party thinks she is someone they trust and think is a real democrat. diane (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 7:23 PM) That is a cool quote: "The plural of anecdote is not data." That might be the only thing Pelosi has ever said that I really agree with. Nuance - another cool one: "rain on your charade" Independent, Texas (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 7:34 PM) Why are the democrats so against anything republican, if a republian said the sky was blue the democrats would say the sky was not blue but whatever they wanted the sky to be B Shaughnessy (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 7:48 PM) with all the fuss over the "petraeus" report, people tend to forget just what a miracle it is that any republican in the administration can actually read or write david bruce (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 7:51 PM) The speaker & her cronies are defeatists. American Voter (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 7:54 PM) Let's "clear the air" here.... Patreus are writing the report on the progress of "the Surge" in Iraq, ok? This has been reported over a week ago-- all over the press. Harold Walker, Memphis, TN (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 7:57 PM) Data on the war in Iraq is just that. Does anyone think you would know the whole story of why we are there. I know that if the violent 3rd World Countries are not kept in check, they spread their wings into neighboring Countries to grow into a larger fight group. If you think we are having a hard time in Iraq now, think of what it would be like if it wasn't controled, over there. You can take it to the bank, it would be hell over here in America. C Stover (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:09 PM) You can always tell when the Democrats are heading in the right direction by how many neo-cons start screaming, crying like babies, or calling people who disagree with them "terrorists". And for the record, I bet John Does above me has never heard a shot fired in anger either. John Doe, The Peanut Gallery (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:24 PM) The usual piliticking with Dems unable to commit to an action and the Repubs green washing it. Repubs serving their own best (corporate) interests in the name of God and Dems serving their own best (corporate) interests in the name of the People. I can't wait for the report, just like I can't wait to read how hard oil companies are working to save the environment. ffikralem (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:36 PM) Just another shrub flunky with a fairy tale written for the MOOT DECIDER. H P Boston (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:37 PM) It is clear to see that people will not allow the Petraeus report to be judged SOLELY on its content. Those who already believe that the report will be a sham will see plenty of evidence to support their view. And those who believe that the report will be fully indenpendent, factual and honest will see just as much evidence their way. James Lee, Chatsworth, GA (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:11 PM) If you really think about Dems and Repubs are all sleeping in the same bed of denial. I've been there and done that, so all of you well wishers can forget about Iraq's oil. I found it quit distrubing that you so called Americans can force feed your beliefs on people of a different time. Until you participate in day to day operation on Iraqi soil keep all comments to the Peanut Gallery........ A Concerned Vet (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:31 PM) Notice that the tone around here changes after 6pm. All the conservatives have come home from work, have had dinner with the family, and then login. All the liberals are out getting drunk on their welfare checks. Paul Malovich, Lexington KY (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:56 PM) It would be appropriate at this time not only to charge bush with his many war crime's ( We all know that is why he insisted the war was over so quickly. So he wouldn't have to follow the rule's) but he also should be charged with Treason. And if the Dem's would do the job we sent them to do, he would already be impeached. Missoula, Mt (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:07 PM) We know from past experience that we can't rely on any white house report. if the patreaus report was coming direct from him to congress, it would be credible. But it's taking an editorial detour thru the white house. In fact, you represent a profound misconceptual entity otherwise known as an abortion. M Peach Barb, Billings, MT (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:08 PM) Paul in Lex,Ky, Oh so you have one of the Corparate jobs, your good buddy Mitch has brought to Our state. take the place of one of those over there fighting for Iraq oil. rick,ky (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:39 PM) Hang Em High -- movie with Clint Eastwood nuanced (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:58 PM) Wading through all the dross. Democrats are not defeatists, we have been forced to be realists. Diane, don't give up on Pelosi and the Dems in Congress quite yet. Perhaps you don't realize they have done quite a bit in the face of needing 60 votes in the Senate to get anything really controversial done. Its a ... |
| www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/09/democrats_pre-emptively_dismiss_bush_report SA Miller reports on the front page of today's Washington Times. Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine US Army Gen. David H Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted. Senate Majority Whip Richard J Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Gen. Petraeus' report was potentially compromised by the White House's involvement in drafting it. "If the same people who were so wrong about this war from the start are writing substantial portions of this report, that raises credibility questions," he said. Republicans bristled at the pre-emptive strike against the report. "Are these leaders asking the American people to believe that the testimony of a commanding four-star general in the US Army should be discarded before it's even delivered?" said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A Boehner, Ohio Republican. There's something to the idea that this is in fact "the Bush Report." Julian Barnes and Peter Spiegel reported three weeks ago that "administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government." wrote at the time, Doing it this way is so mindnumbingly stupid as to defy measurement. The whole point of the September report was to 1) freeze the political debate until a set point in the future and 2) present the views of trusted experts on the ground that, while there remains a lot of work to be done, there is real progress being made and therefore 3) we need more time. If this is just the White House's view of the situation, the first two advantages are rendered moot. That said, the Democrats are playing a dangerous game here. While the war is very unpopular right now, they're in danger of being seen as rooting for defeat when they're this glib. Further, questioning Petraeus' integrity is simply stupid. They confirmed his appointment with fanfare mere months ago; to accuse him of being a shill for the administration at this point is sure to backfire. Do I expect Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to emphasize the progress that we're making in Iraq and downplay the problems? There's no way to do otherwise while leading the military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq. At the same time, I expect them to answer questions honestly. TrackBack URL NOTE: My spam filter automatically deletes any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post. Those doing it manually should ensure they have linked the post before sending the TrackBack ping. but when Katie Couric has some real positive things to say about the surge and how it is working then I also believe that the Dems may be playing a very dangerous game. Permalink At the same time, I expect them to answer questions honestly. Other than the fact that nothing that has come out of the White House regarding Iraq has been honest, let alone accurate? Further, questioning Petraeus' integrity is simply stupid. They confirmed his appointment with fanfare mere months ago; to accuse him of being a shill for the administration at this point is sure to backfire. Funny, most of them were looking forward to this report up until a few weeks ago when we found out that Petraeus wasn't going to be writing it. Until that point they all believed that Petreaus would be presenting an honest analysis of our situation, and nobody doubted his integrity. They're not suddenly calling him a shill for no reason either, it's now public knowledge that what Petraeus will be reading to congress is being written by the White House. So my question to you, James, is if the report does indeed say "The surge is working. Let's have more of the same", are you going to believe it? Or if it says we need to wait another 6 months to know if the surge is working, will you believe that? this from the WaPo today: The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "Depending on which numbers you pick," he said, "you get a different outcome." going in different directions" compared with previous years, when numbers in different categories varied widely but trended in the same direction. Among the most worrisome trends cited by the NIE was escalating warfare between rival Shiite militias in southern Iraq that has consumed the port city of Basra and resulted last month in the assassination of two southern provincial governors. According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics. "Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances," the spokesman said, "we do not track this data to any significant degree." Attacks by US-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the US military's calculation of violence levels. Several indpendent counts show that violence is not down in Iraq, yet the military says it is. However, the military will not release the figures and methodology it uses so that they can be subjected to independent scrutiny. James, check Kevin Drum's archives for the last 2 weeks, he's been all over this story. Permalink That said, the Democrats are playing a dangerous game here. While the war is very unpopular right now, they're in danger of being seen as rooting for defeat when they're this glib. Further, questioning Petraeus' integrity is simply stupid. They confirmed his appointment with fanfare mere months ago; to accuse him of being a shill for the administration at this point is sure to backfire. Do I expect Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to emphasize the progress that we're making in Iraq and downplay the problems? There's no way to do otherwise while leading the military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq. At the same time, I expect them to answer questions honestly. James- when I read you post things like this, I feel bad for you. Not because I think you are an idiot, but because I know exactly what you are going through. Just a piece of advice- you can still think the Democrats have terrible, terrible policy positions while recognizing that right now, the Republicans are actually worse. There is EVERY reason to think Petraeus will be little more than a shill for the White House, and there is absolutely no evidence from the past six years that this administration will answer things honestly. Maybe Petraeus will surprise us all with an honest assessment. I expect him to spin, spin, spin, and to ask for six more months and/or promise some slight (and absolutely vital, as the military is breaking) drawdown at some unspecified point in the near future. Permalink Michael The law is the Supplemental Appropriations Law (Public Law 110-28, "US Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007") The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved. 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 US Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress. The problem, however, is that Bush has been touting the report as the "Petraeus report" for months. Bush has rep... |
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1883904/posts Dan Calabrese We are still a month away from General David Petraeus' report to Congress on progress in Iraq, and Democrats are already trashing its credibility, before it has even been given. From Speaker Nancy Pelosi accusing the White House of hiding behind Petraeus to a Washington Post column calling it "a White House con job in the making," the left is doing its usual adept job of spewing treasonous rhetoric over things that only exist in their Bush-hating conspiracy-riddled minds. View Replies To: Dan Calabrese This is how London Times played it on their web site yesterday. Americans doubt General Betraeus' over troop surge The Times ^ | 8/19/2007 | Sarah Baxter Posted on 08/18/2007 9:41:34 PM EDT by pacelvi Americans doubt General Betraeus' over troop surge General David Petraeus is facing a backlash ahead of his report to Congress on the progress of America's troop surge Sarah Baxter AFTER being hailed as King David, the potential saviour of Iraq, the US commander General David Petraeus is facing a backlash in advance of his report to Congress in September on the progress of America's troop surge. Critics, including one recently retired general, are privately calling him "General Betraeus" on the grounds that he is too ambitious to deliver a balanced report on the war. Mac-Arthur", a reference to the second world war hero who was touted as a possible president. Opponents of the troop surge believe that President George W Bush has been hiding behind Petraeus's reputation for too long. "The president says the surge is the Petraeus' strategy. "He is very ambitious and there's nothing wrong with that, but his ambition may be used in an inappropriate way." Petraeus, who studied at Princeton and co-wrote the US army's new counter-insurgency doctrine, is widely regarded as one of the brightest soldiers of his generation. He has an impressive grasp of military history - including British operations against 1950s Malayan insurgents and in Northern Ireland during the Troubles - as well as the physical stamina, at 54, to go on regular 10-mile runs with his troops. Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star general, describes Petraeus as "brilliant". One senior military source said Petraeus could be ambitious enough to move into politics one day. But the general would be looking for "bipartisan support" for his strategy in Iraq and was likely to give an accurate picture of progress on the ground. Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the American Enterprise Institute and advocate of the surge, said Petraeus would deliver an honest assessment: "Even if it were true that he is too ambitious, and I don't agree with that, if he makes some compromise that leads to failure in this conflict, that's not in his interest at all." According to a poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp on Friday, 53% of Americans believe the report will try to make the situation in Iraq sound more favourable than it is. Only 43% said they trusted the US commander to give an objective picture. Adding to suspicions, the report - based on recommendations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq - will be written by White House staff. The report is expected to highlight progress in Anbar province and only patchy success in restoring order to Baghdad. Crocker is said to have almost given up trying to persuade Nouri Al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, to come to a political accommodation with the Sunnis and is concentrating his efforts on wooing tribal sheikhs. Petraeus and his second-in-command, General Ray Odierno, are seeking sufficient support to continue the surge until April. Odierno said last Friday that plans were under way to reduce troops to presurge levels by August 2008. By then the US presidential election will be only three months away and the White House is hoping to take some of the political sting out of the war. View Replies To: Dan Calabrese RATS will never "grow up", it's what defines them as RATS. If they had the intelligence or honesty of the average adult, they wouldn't be RATS. Instead, they choose to prove their "cleverness" to each other by their lies and denial. Harry reid denouncing Petraeus' report before it's even delivered is judt another example. View Replies To: Dan Calabrese "If the report is positive, are Democrats going to stand in a corner with their arms folded and hold their collective breath until they turn blue?" View Replies To: Dan Calabrese Where would we find Dims' quotes from back when the idea of the September report was first announced? Should make an interesting contrast to what they're saying now. View Replies To: Dan Calabrese The next step in descrediting the "Petraeus Report" is to raise the expectation bar so high that the General would have to report that his troops have brought on world peace, the cure for cancer, and a way for the US to win international baskteball tournaments. All Here's the thing, there are Democrats on record saying the surge is producing some results, Hillary included among them. Bush "lied" about WMDs even though Dems said the same thing from 1998-2003. View Replies To: Dan Calabrese Democrats just cannot help themselves. For the last two generations (since Vietnam)---they have prided themselves by undermining our military's efforts,,,,and giving encouragement and 'aid-and-comfort' to our enemies (especially during time of war). It comes naturally, takes no special effort on their part. View Replies To: mware General David Petraeus is facing a backlash ahead of his report to Congress on the progress of America's troop surge How can it be a backlash when it hasn't yet been delivered? IOW, the Left's pathological hatred of GWB and all things Republican is being more openly displayed every day. They're quickly giving up any pretense of fairness or objectivity. View Replies To: Dan Calabrese Bill O'Reilly, on his radio broadcast today, indicated that the only thing that would give the GOP a win in November of 08 would be something like another 9-11. If the economy tanks in the next year, says Billy O, Hillary Clinton will be our next president. View Replies To: vietvet67 It's called a pre-emptive strike. "If the report is positive, are Democrats going to stand in a corner with their arms folded and hold their collective breath until they turn blue?" View Replies To: Dan Calabrese Because progress has being made in Iraq, the Dems have to do something to cover up/justify their claim that the war is lost. I guess they would rather just face the truth than create more lies to disguise their screw-up. Of course, those were the ones that have actually been to Iraq and not stayed in Washington yakking away for all this time. View Replies To: subterfuge If the report is positive, are Democrats going to stand in a corner with their arms folded and hold their collective breath until they turn blue? They are already positioning themselves to say that it was their influence that caused Bush to send in Petraeus to correct his administration's mistakes, which of course the Democrats had so kindly pointed out in the first place. and now that this wonderful Petraeus has responded so well to our demands, we can pull out the troops with honor." View Replies To: Dan Calabrese "Petraeus Report Looms: Can the Democrats Please Grow Up? That's asking a lot from Harry, Nancy, Chuckie, and Hillary still doing time in ding dong donkey school. View Replies To: subterfuge Brilliant political strategy: The Democrats and "antiwar" Republicans like Warner, are positioning themselves to share in ... Warner even had the balls to repeat "The Home for Christmas" nonsense. To think the passmoles who inhabit modern Virginia could have had Ollie North as their Senator! View Replies Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. |