I was incensed when I first heard this. However, the president is following the literal letter of the law that the congress passed.
Yes, GW’s constant theme throughout the summer has been “Wait for General Petaeus’ report.” but given his record of devious acts and the language of the bill congress passed what did they expect? Did they really expect this super secret administration to give a candid picture of the situation?
The Democrats in congress, or at least their leadership, appear to be to befuddled to organize a one float parade.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Yes, GW’s constant theme throughout the summer has been “Wait for General Petaeus’ report.” but given his record of devious acts and the language of the bill congress passed what did they expect?
[/QUOTE]
They figured sooner or later, Lucy would let them kick the football. I think we are completely justified in our outrage, and should make as much political hay with it as we can.
This thread has been thoroughly taken over by the usual suspects, but I’d thought I’d throw my two cents in. It’s been my understanding that General Petraeus was going to responsible for the report. The report was/is supposed to be an unfiltered assessment of the military situation. That is how the administration and other supporters of the war have been selling it as. Finding out that it’s going to be nothing more than a report written by political appointees is devastating to it’s credibility, and to any argument about waiting for the assessment.
Nice point, treis.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
That depends an a characterization of GeeDub as a cool and calculating cynic, but I think the truth is that he’s a deluded fool. He’s not stalling to hand off his defeat, he’s stalling because he believes that victory is just out of reach, another few months, and it will begin to rain ponies…
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps. But the underlying mechanism is an aversion to admitting error or making tough-minded decisions. Call it politics, call it psychology, call it a weak management style the outcome is the same.
The Baker-Hamilton plan certainly did not guarantee success. But it at least it wasn’t grounded wholly on hope or procrastination.
We continue to endure the most secretive and deceptive Administration within living memory. Some of you do not seem frustrated with attempts to keep the workings of the people’s government from the people themselves.
Some of you suggest that we trust those representatives to take care of the most crucial matters of life and death behind closed doors and yet you show great contempt for their motives. That makes no sense to me.
Frostillicus is right:
When these foul neo-cons are removed from power, may those of you who advocated at various times for a secret government come to terms eventually with the great disservice you perpetuated.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
You have the right to know all the names of every spy in, say, China? Amazing. I never knew! Its amazing to me that people who live in this country don’t actually understand how their own government works.
Oh well…as John Mace said earlier, I’m out of here. There is simply no sense continuing to bang my head against such arguments.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Sorry you and he are gone, but I never did understand WTF you guys were pushing. It’s plainly obvious to most of us that Petraeus, if he so chose, could give us an unvarnished report of the progress of the ‘surge’ and its prospects of future success without having to give away intel of any significance to do so.
If he needs to answer a Congresscritter’s questions in closed session because those answers might give away valuable info to the Iranians, or to al-Sadr, or to Sunni insurgents, or to AQI, or whoever, then fine.
But on the whole, those groups know far more about the state of play there than we Americans do. The prime target of Bush Administration secrecy all along has not been Them, but Us.
Since the military experts have dropped out of the discussion, is there anyone left who can explain why open testimony would necessarily involve the dissemination of sensitive or classified information?
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Since the military experts have dropped out of the discussion, is there anyone left who can explain why open testimony would necessarily involve the dissemination of sensitive or classified information?
[/QUOTE]
It wouldn’t, but it would be a necessarily incomplete discussion, as I’m sure you would agree.
Yep, the Iraqi security forces were standing up, so it wouldn’t be that long before we could stand down.
I can only assume that the Great General Petraeus knew that things were not nearly as good as he said they were. I’ll let others speculate on his motives. But maybe it doesn’t matter that much that the White House will be writing ‘his’ report.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
It wouldn’t, but it would be a necessarily incomplete discussion, as I’m sure you would agree.
[/QUOTE]
Only in the sense that any discussion of anything much more complicated than Tic-Tac-Toe is going to be incomplete, as far as I can see.
Sure, a neighborhood-by-neighborhood analysis of the workings of the ‘surge’ would require going into closed session. But only another military expert involved in the tactical planning would need that sort of detail. I see no reason why a “complete enough to make decisions on that basis” report would require the divulging of sensitive information.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Of course, having seen this WaPo Outlook piece from September 2004, my expectation that Petraeus will be any sort of ‘straight shooter’ has dropped to near zero:
Yep, the Iraqi security forces were standing up, so it wouldn’t be that long before we could stand down.
I can only assume that the Great General Petraeus knew that things were not nearly as good as he said they were. I’ll let others speculate on his motives. But maybe it doesn’t matter that much that the White House will be writing ‘his’ report.
[/QUOTE]
Uh huh. You do realize that General Petraeus took over the job for force generation of the Iraqi Security Forces after the incident when they refused to fight - and that he has been largely responsible both for building their numbers and spurring their training.
However, these things do not happen with the snap of the fingers - and you have no patience at all on this subject, clearly. So I understand why you hate this whole mess, but it certainly does not mean Petraeus isn’t a straight shooter.
From what I can see, he probably can shoot straighter than you.
And if it comes to that, then sensitive information will have to be divulged, IMHO. This war should not be continued any longer without the informed assent of the American people. If being sufficiently informed requires knowing things that have been closely held until now, then those things will have to be revealed.
This not only shouldn’t be left just to our dipshit President, but it shouldn’t even be left just to our less-than-reliable elected representatives. Whatever we, the people, have to know to understand why the course is supposedly worth staying, needs to be shared with us at this time. Or we should pack up the troops and equipment, and bring them home.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Uh huh. You do realize that General Petraeus took over the job for force generation of the Iraqi Security Forces after the incident when they refused to fight - and that he has been largely responsible both for building their numbers and spurring their training.
[/quote]
And the op-ed goes into length about the terrific progress they’ve made in the short time since that incident.
That was three years ago. How long, exactly, does it take you to snap your fingers?
So if the picture he painted then was in any way true, we ought to have been able to turn the job over to them well before now.
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
I’m looking forward to something else in this report. You see, the surge has been working incredibly well. Yet, for all its successes, it’s been held back by the Iranians and their dastardly influence. If only there were something we could do about them, if some visionary could relieve the burden on our troops, throw off the shackle of Ahmadinejad and let us promote democracy and peace! In the absence of such a figure, we must soldier forward…nudge nudge say no more
What y’all have to grasp is that Gen. Petraeus has a local outlook. His attention is concentrated on the military portion of the Iraq operation. Petraeus input on his phase will be included but the report needs to be written by someone with a big-picture slant on the whole war on terror thing.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
What y’all have to grasp is that Gen. Petraeus has a local outlook. His attention is concentrated on the military portion of the Iraq operation. Petraeus input on his phase will be included but the report needs to be written by someone with a big-picture slant on the whole war on terror thing.
[/QUOTE]
You say that tongue in cheek, but it’s actually true. Only some of the benchmarks relate to millitary goals; the rest are political and economic.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
You say that tongue in cheek, but it’s actually true. Only some of the benchmarks relate to millitary goals; the rest are political and economic.
[/QUOTE]
But Petraeus is tasked with assessing all of them, is he not?
