Won’t be written by Petraeus (via the fire-breathing pinko commie America hater Kos):
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.
The senior administration official said the process had created “uncomfortable positions” for the White House because of debates over what constitutes “satisfactory progress.”
From my standpoint, a report from Petraeus written by the WH isn’t a report written by Petraeus at all, and should be ignored. What is the point of even debating the results of this report? Why get mired down in arguing the specifics of the report when you know it is going to be full of shit from word one?
Bonus Fun Game: When this story breaks with the public and a furor is caused that Petraeus will not be authoring the Petraeus report, who will be the first administration flack to state that Petraeus is too busy winning the war to write long reports, so the WH had to do it?
My money is on Hewitt or Dean Barnett.
*** Update ***
Actually, I was wrong about the spin. It won’t be Petraeus is too busy to write the report, because that would pass up the opportunity to bash the media. Instead, I am betting the route to victory that will be followed is to demand that the liberal media announce who these anonymous sources are that claim the WH is authoring the report. Then, when the Times refuses to burn their sources, they can claim it was all a lie to discredit the report, and that Petraeus is actually the author.
I don’t know how I missed that, as it is a twofer- liberal media + treasonous Defeatocrats. Someone page the Confederate Yankee.
*** Update ***
It starts.
Third Eye Open
John,
How exactly do you expect Gen. Petraeus to go about turning corners and keeping cadence for the ‘March of Freedom’…all while trying to proof-read some silly book-report on “progress” and “stability” and our ability to “win”…feh!, moonbat, get your priorities straight, and get on board for the big win!
Punchy
I think this helps the Dems. They’ve pinned some Republicans on a put-up-or-shut-up vis-a-vis this report by Gen. Patrizzle. Now that it’s not going to be actually written by him, Democrats can rightly call shenanigans.
Shorter–the report was going to be rosy no matter who wrote it. If the Gen penned it, there’d be much less bitching the Dems could do without actually slamming a 3-Star. Now that it’s clear to be just another WH spin, here comes the fireworks.
jake
John you really are becoming a radical. Next you’ll be saying that students should have to do their own work instead of buying canned papers from the intertubes!
Spin-Prediction: Since General Pet Raeus approved the report it is the same as if he wrote it himself.
John Cole
That may all be well and good, but I would like an honest report from Petraeus, and not some load of shit coming from the WH spin room. The decisions we make based on this report are going to have deadly ramifications.
Can’t we at least, for once, get the god damned truth? This is, quite literally, the only really important thing that Bush has on his plate anymore. his domestic agenda is dead.
I guess it is too much to ask that we approach this seriously.
Zifnab
I think it’ll be a close race between Kristol and Tony Snow.
Tim F.
SATSQ, answer your page.
Punchy
A little OT, but still…a GREAT article explaining why Bush just put those Iranian SFs under the “terrorist label.
In short–to put them under the 2001 AUMF Bush has, thus allowing him to nail Iran without seeking Congressional approval first.
Further….it takes Rove’s departure as a clear sign Cheney is winning the “attack/no attack” Iran, and he’s bailing before things get downright insane.
jake
Oh yeah:
1. Now we know what Karl will be working on before he GtFo.
2. Isn’t this kind of like second guessing the general on the ground?
Though I’m looking forward to the hearings and watching General P. get grilled about shit he never said. Will the various gov’t officials be there to pass him answers to the questions?
RandyH
They could all just save some time. They wrote the same report two years ago and I think it’s all about the same. Just change a couple numbers and the date and Voila!
Cassidy
While agree with the assertions that have been made regarding the WH and bullshit, I do have a “Devil’s Advocate” question to ask.
Let’s assume that Gen. Petraeus does take the time to physically write the report, etc., and his conclusions are positive: progress made, less death, etc.
Would anyone here believe it? Seems to me that Gen. Petraeus is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” spot as it is. Would you all, collectively, be content with a report that doesn’t match your views on how the war is going?
Dennis-SGMM
The State Department stopped reporting the hours of electricity available in Baghdad per day.
The Maliki government stopped reporting civilian casualty tolls.
We get guesses from outside agencies as to the frightening number of Iraqis with access to potable water or health care or sufficient food. We have no reliable estimates of Iraqi unemployment or average income. News about the flight or Iraqi refugees fleeing to neighboring countries can be found only in foreign papers.
If you don’t report any of the bad news then there must be only good news left.
On to Iran and victory!
Ted
Note that Petraeus is being asked to report on his own progress, and apparently we’re being asked to accept the honesty and accuracy of that report without question. How many of you would like to have your job evaluated that way – you get to tell your boss what a great job you’re doing, and no one is allowed to question your data?
Punchy
Hell no. Even Murtha has admitted that the guy is a WH operative in a cammo outfit. But that’s what’s stunning–if he writes it, accurate or not, he’s already been deemed “credible” by the media. The WH gets the report they want with the credibility it requires.
The fact they now have chosen to write it themselves, dammed the lack of honesty, tells me either:
1) Gen Pat was going to actually go honest with this, and point out the serious warts in this fight, or
2) The WH had absolutely no idea what Gen Pat might say, and wont take that chance.
3) The WH simply doesn’t give a shit anymore about any report saying anything about anything. They’re in Iraq for 10 more years and, oh by the way, fuck you.
I think its a tad of 2) with a ton of 3)
Zifnab
Gasp. I’m shocked you, of all people, would attempt such a rhetorical strategy.
An interesting hypothetical. One could also put forward the question “If progress is being made, there is less death, etc, why isn’t Petraeus attaching his name to the report?” Seems kinda like a win-win for Petraeus. He gets to act as the human shield for the Republican Congress (it’s HIS report! And we can’t argue with the generals on the ground!) while still remaining politically infallible (everything Petraeus reported is perfectly accurate!)
I guess the question still stands. Who you gonna believe? Republican Political Strategist, or your lying eyes?
Rome Again
The sad thing is, we know Petraeus will approve the report before it’s even been finished or released.
cleek
fireworks, exactly. sparklers and cone fountains. the Dems will light a few snakes and pull a few champagne poppers, and then scurry back to their corner, afraid to touch the things that make people go “oooh!ahhhh!” because it might wake the old woman down the street.
Cassidy
So what’s the point? If he says what the WH wants to hear, he’s full of shit. And no matter what, if he doesn’t say what you want to hear, he’s full of shit.
Does it really matter then? If the only way to gain “credibility” is to give lip service to your version of the truth, then what’s the point? Either way, he’s full of shit to someone.
UnkyT
I get the feeling that they are not debating whether or not satisfactory progress has been made, but rather which parts of the report they need to fluff up in order to give that impression. So, as usual, come to a conclusion and then make the facts(?) fit (not that this is news to anyone)
Cassidy
Interesting question, which the answer can be found in the heart of this post. Most likely, things are not going swimmingly, or as swimmingly as the WH wants to hear, so they are doctoring/ fabricating the report.
LITBMueller
John, the WH or some Bushie zampolit would have reviewed and edited any report written by Petraeus, anyway. They’ve just cut out the middleman! Plus, when you consider this:
See! Bush is the Decider and the Commander Guy! He could write it himself on the back of one of his coloring books in purple crayon, then tell the world the surge has been a great success, and no one will be able stop him.
Look for said flaks (or Tony Snow) not to explain why Petraeus can’t write the report, but to explain that no one is better positioned than the Commander Guy in Chief to be responsible for this report. Because, ya see, its not really for Congress or the American people…its for the WH by the WH. That’s why the public copies will be redacted down to about 2 pages of legible text.
Dave
If I what I was reading from him jibes with what the general media are reporting, sure. If it was more roses and chocolate predictions that are demonstrably false, then no. Really it depends on what he wrote. Since we are not going to get his report there’s no way to answer that question.
I think a better question would be: would you take the report seriously and not dismiss it out of hand. In that case yes I’d take it seriously.
What we are going to see though, is not a serious report. It’ll be cover and spin for Bush to continue in Iraq and maybe even open the door into Iran.
Cassidy
Say what you will, but it seems to me that your opinions are as hard and fast as the WH’s, so any report is bound to be immediately dismissed by you. Even if Petraeus, while highly unlikely, went out and gathered the data and published a report that showed some sort of progress, you wouldn’t beleive it, short of tagging along with him on his fact finding mission.
You have allready come to your conclusions, as has the WH. Interesting how much you have in common.
Rome Again
Isn’t that the way everything works in Bushworld?
Zifnab
And there you have your reason for why people would not trust a Petraeus report that came out all roses. We’ve seen nothing but a clusterfuck in Iraq from every other reputable source. Anyone who goes in there as an unbiased observer, comes out talking about how the country is a giant mess and getting worse. Anyone who comes out talking about how the country is really turning a corner typically gets outed as a political operative within a week of their reports getting issued (see: O’Hanlon, Lieberman and McCain).
Ergo, if Petraeus comes out of Iraq and says, “Don’t worry, everything is going great. We’ve made progress and Iraq will be a Jeffersonian Democracy just like we always dreamed if you give me a few more Friedmans”, we will have every justification for putting him in the “Bush Sychophant Column” with the rest of his ilk.
The fact that he’s not writing the report probably speaks more to Petraeus’s honesty and integrity than anything he could have authored.
demimondian
No.
Simple answers to simple questions, Bush-date 2007.08.15
Cassidy
I don’t disagree with this in the slightest. I’m just curious about what would have to be said for the report to be believed?
cynn
I wonder how Petraeus feels about having all his authority yanked out from under him by a bunch of clueless functionaries thousands of miles away.
Rome Again
Wrong. Improvement is not unwelcome in the least, it is just not expected that this report (or this administration) will be honest, because, after six freaking years of this crap, this administration never has been. More of the same, move along, your blocking traffic.
John Cole
Just so I am understanding you, what interests you is not the fact that the Petraeus report will be authored by hacks in the WH, and not General Petraeus.
What interests you is that HAD petraeus actually written his report, some people may not have believed it anyway.
You can hide behind the “Cassidy” screen name all you want, but I know who you are. I have you figured out. You are Joe Lieberman.
Rome Again
John, I came to that conclusion weeks ago, where have you been?
Punchy
You scream this:
Then you say this:
So, yes, a report by GenPat that says things ARE going swimmingly would not be believed or credible. So dont rip me for not believing him when you yourself admit that such a report would be pure bullshit.
UnkyT
This is mostly true, but the question is Why isn’t Petraeus authoring the Petraeus’s report ?
Rome Again
The more important question is “why is it known as the Petraeus Report if Petraeus has little to do with what goes into it?”
I think we should stop calling the Petraeus Report right now… since Petraeus has so little to do with it, I mean.
RSA
It would be possible in theory to produce such a report that I’d be satisfied with. It would need to explain why most of the information we get from other, more independent sources is either incorrect or misinterpreted; it would need to explain how this assessment of progress is any different from past optimistic assessments that have turned out to be wrong in almost every way; it would need to say, “Here are the military mistakes we made in the past that have resulted in the current situation”, so that such mistakes can be avoided in the future; it would need to emphasize throughout that military progress does not mean political progress, and that no assessment of the success of the surge should be made without considering the latter.
It should be obvious that I don’t expect any of this in Petraeus’s report.
UnkyT
I am not jotting down my opinion and then calling it someone else’s.
Rome Again
Umm RSA, Petraeus isn’t writing a report, that’s what this thread is about. ;)
I agree with the accountability for previous mistakes. Without that no report would be credible.
Fledermaus
See Cassidy, here’s the problem – for the last 4 years we’ve heard various tall tales from government officals about all the progress we’re makes – how much better things are and if we just give it 6 more months Iraq will look like Iowa.
As a wise man once said – “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice can’t get fooled again” The fact is so many government and military officials have been touting progress for so long now that no government or military official has any credibility with me anymore. That’s one of those consequences of repeatedly telling happy tales that are not borne out by reality.
RSA
Yeah, I know; I was using shorthand, calling it Petraeus’s report. I probably should have written “Petraeus”‘s “report”, or The “Petraeus Report”, as told by White House officials.
Halffasthero
Actually, I give him full credit. It is a reasonable question. the report itself will probably be a whitewash anyway as the fix has been in from the word go on this report. GWB is trying to run out the clock and dump his trash on the next president.
This is the history with him, from his drunk driving to his military service. make a mess and then leave someone else to clean it up or get him out of it. This man is a total disappointment any way you look at him.
Rome Again
Laura would disagree.
Davebo
It’s akin to the practice known as Sea Gulling.
Fly in, make a lot of noise and crap on everything, then fly away.
norbizness
What’s Petraeus done to earn such unmitigated, bipartisan confidence anyway? Was it the second appearance on the Hugh Hewitt show? The fact that he was the only general willing to support half-assed surge-ry after four or five others demurred?
Rome Again
But see, that’s the problem RSA, the report had a name long before it was even written and the name of the report makes it sound like it came from a source it’s not coming from and YOU still insist on calling it what the WH named it. You’re playing their game.
It’s not “The Petraeus Report” it’s the bogus WH spin report with the name of Petraeus on it’s cover to make it easy to cover their asses. I’m just going to start calling it The BOGUS Report instead.
Wanna take bets on how many Americans will never pick up on the fact that Petraeus isn’t writing “The Petraeus Report?” I’m betting it’s around 40%
jake
From this Administration? The only way you could get the truth out of these beelzebubbas is via techniques that would shock the devil.
So, no.
But here’s my very pessimistic take on why it really doesn’t matter who writes the damn thing:
Even if Pet Raeus wrote the report himself, and stated in 48pt font that the situation in Iraq is so bad that any day now it is going to drag everyone in or near the country on a non-stop chainsaw gang-bang through the deepest pits of Hell, President Deciderator is not going to see the fucking light and say “Oh, okay. Let’s change statergery.”
Even with a report like that we’d, see another ISG (maybe), and we all know how long that took and how many of the recommendations of the first one were implemented.
I know it’s hard to accept, even I have trouble sometimes and I think GWB is in the lower tiers of the worst of the world’s leaders, but he really doesn’t give a fuck about what he’s done. This report is a sop to the rabble who won’t shaddup and siddown about the war.
Once the report is out, no matter what it says, no matter who writes it, I guarantee you that any objections or suggestions that the data either no good, or proves we need to GtFo will be met with a smirk. “You asked for a report, you got a report. Go away and don’t bother me. Heh.”
UnkyT
That seems very, very low to me. I would bet closer to %75-.80
Rome Again
America ~~> Toilet ~~> FLUSH!
Rome Again
You may be right, I’m thinking 40% is scary enough.
Rick Taylor
On a different topic, this is scary.
http://www.attytood.com/2007/08/a_prelude_to_war_whats_really.html
Bubblegum Tate
Yeah, I would say at an absolute bare minimum 50 percent. I think a more likely figure would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 percent.
Wilfred
Has anyone seen the pre-surge status reports and descriptions on how implementation of the surge would result in quantifiable progress in designated problem areas? That would include metrics, short and long term goals, predictions, etc.
Without things like that, there were no defined achievable objectives, most importantly political objectives. Without those, there can’t be any meaningful results. I reserve judgment until I see the report – if it’s bogus it won’t stand up to one minute of critical analysis.
I have never understood the sublimation aspect of the surge, i.e. how military stabilization would translate into political stability without a series of well-defined intermediate steps. It’s like ice turning into vapor without becoming water first.
Rome Again
It’s got PNAC written all over it, why is it so shocking to you now? Of course , if Republicans can help it (and with weak Dems in Congress, how could they not),we’re going to end up in war with Iran, it was laid on the table over a decade ago.
The only thing shocking is that they are calling a state military for (Iranian) a terrorist organization, yet, we all know the reason why Dems never wanted to kill al Qaeda was because it wasn’t a state sponsored military. Sounds to me like cart before the horse in round three, that’s all.
Rome Again
Good point, I never figured that out either. A bigger force is supposed to just magically make things better.
RSA
A Harris poll in 2006 found that 50% of Americans believe Saddam had WMD, despite all the newsprint spilled on that issue. I agree that 70% is more likely.
scarshapedstar
Gee, I bet I know:
“A lot of folks are tellin’ me, Mr. President, we were hopin’ that General Petraeus could write the report on how the surge is workin’ — in other words, that the troops would have enough time to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq and write a report to hand to the bureaucrats and the Democrat Congress… (dramatic pause, deep breath) simultaneously. (10 seconds of winking and chuckling and other forms of utterly pathetic self-congratulation.)”
(After one of those pronounced head-jerks, like he’d just been shocked with a dog collar — or, more likely, zapped with one of those deep-brain stimulating electrodes — the President’s mood is suddenly much more combative. Any signs of the giddiness he displayed mere seconds ago has disappeared into the inky blackness of his lifeless eyes.)
“This burden is unacceptable to the troops and it is unacceptable to me. The Democrat Congress wanted a report on how we’re winnin’ the war and they will get a report. That’s — in other words, the role of the Congress is to fund the troops and read our report. In other words, the ball’s in their court. I’m open to a, um, compromise that sets aside Democrat partisanship and works together towards peace and freedom. Thank you.”
Cassidy
To a point, yes. If we assume some things to be facts:
1) The report will not be accurate as it is white washed by the WH, and
2) The report will accurately reflecct what the WH wants the populace to beleive,
Then, we end up with a non-conversation. This has been business as usual with this Administration.
What I’m getting at is the number of held opinions that the report would allready be false, prior to this development. Short of having the report authored by Murtha himself, reflecting every negative view held on this war, I’m not entirely convinced that the bulk of your readers would have given it the benefit of a doubt anyway.
Punchy- I haven’t screamed anything. It was more of a shrug really. And while I may not beleive that Iraq is all roses, I accept that my view is largely anecdotal (from my own experiences and Soldiers I’ve served with) and prefer to refrain from judging something that hasn’t been written, yet.
The question wasn’t about the report coming out as all roses. It was about whether any report would be believed if it didn’t reflect your opinion of the war. Petreaus could easily right a report that says items “A-G suck, but H-M is starting to get better”.
I don’t disagree with this.
I do agree with this, and I think a real objective fact-finding report would reflect such a stance. There are improvements over there. Now, I doubt that they balance out with the things that have gone bad and would not try to argue otherwise. If you were to look up “Army Lessons Learned” you will find something along the lines of what you are talking about. Internally, we do colate and report data to other segments of the Army, so that follow-on forces can have a head start and not make the same mistakes of the departing unit.
My overall point, though, is that I don’t believe a majority of liberals (or the readers of this site) would accept such a report that didn’t come out and coincide with thier own views of how things are going. Anything that would be shown in a positive light would be discarded as partisan spin.
Tim F.
Cassidy, you assume that we need some sort of arcane knowledge that only a report can provide to properly evaluate the state of war in Iraq. I don’t see why that should be the case. The military can’t maintain our force level for much longer, which is why the “surge” plan emphasized rapid political progress.
If the Iraqi factions don’t settle down under some form of unity government soon then no insurgent body count or incremental improvement in certain areas will save the endavor. We don’t have time for incremental improvements; something big has to happen soon or it’s all over. Yet the political situation in Iraq is not getting better. It is getting worse.
No credible replacement for PM Maliki exists, yet his cabinet is falling apart and parliament has accomplished nothing. In our safe “breathing space” Baghdad violence, kidnappings and assassinations go on practically unabated.
The nut is that lipsticking that pig requires one to point out tiny, incremental changes (while ignoring negative trends) and extrapolate forward ten years or more before reaching something a person could credibly call normal. It’s the only way to justify going forward when political trends project Iraq to become a government-free libertarian paradise within three or four years. Yet it has to ignore the necessary, very short-term time limits on our troop levels. If the WH plans to justify going on with their knucklehead war, it doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict that their brief will have more logical holes than a Gonzales brief.
Alternatively the White House could finally declare victory and go home. In that case they can lie as much as they want and nobody, on the left anywhere else, will much care as long as it doesn’t impact the GTFOD schedule.
myiq2xu
Talk about clueless!
The White House anonymously “leaks” official talking points, which are then reported.
The WH denies the reports, and demands to know who the alleged “leakers” are.
The reporters refuse to divulge their sources, citing the 1st Amendment.
And they say that the Democrats act like battered women. Jeezus!
Cassidy
Tim, I appreciate your response, but I think you’re assuming I’m on the side of the WH on this one. My personal opinion is that we should start pulling troops today and leave that god-forsaken place to its own devices.
I just don’t see the difference in the WH gerry-mandering a report to make them sound right, and no one listening to a report unless it reflects thier own negative view of the situation. The only difference is that the WH has the power to produce such a report, something I’m not convinced that liberals would utilize for thier own purposes, given the oppurtunity. It’s a close-minded, single syllable debate, a la “The Men’s Kouch”.
UnkyT
I’d be willing to take it a step further and bet that %50 of the jackasses up on capital hill won’t pick up on it.
myiq2xu
Won’t “Surging” General Petrainwreck have to give the White House some kind of a report? Unless they intend to just make stuff up, he’ll have to tell them something.
When Congress starts asking questions about the misinformation, missing and incorrect data in the report, will we be treated to another round of “I don’t recall,” and “I don’t know who wrote that?”
Zifnab
This assumes that we all live in our own little worlds and every report must be taken with an equal grain of value. We just had a series of terror attacks in Iraq killing upwards of 200 people. The Iraqi Parliament is on a one month recess after having achieved exactly nothing in the way of a political solution to the sectarian violence while they were in session.
If Petreaus were to release a report claiming that terror attacks haven’t been very significant recently and political progress is moving forward smoothly, who would you believe?
Seriously, Cassidy? I want to know. Who would you believe? The hundreds of reports issuing stories from Iraq on a daily basis that catalogue ongoing violence and sectarian disputes, or the Presidentially hand-picked General who’s career rides on not contradicting the White House narrative?
jenniebee
Getting unvarnished truth from a cynic is analogous to getting blood from a turnip.
That is all.
The Other Andrew
Cassidy–you seem hung up on the message, when the issue is the messenger. It’s not “If someone says something you disagree with, you don’t believe them!”, it’s “If someone who’s consistently lied to you says something, you don’t believe them!” If an actual credibility-having group said that things in Iraq were going well, I’d give them a serious listen.
You act like we’re married to some version of reality that may or may not exist, but look at the patriarch of this very blog. He strongly held certain viewpoints, and after analysis that was presumably informed by credibility-having groups, he realized he was wrong.
Cassidy
It’s not about who, but about reserving judgement while keping in mind that soemthing other than what I believe may be said.
If the report were to come out “YAY!!!! We’re winning”, I wouldn’t be inclined to believe it as there is evidence that says otherwise. OTOH, I could believe a report that says what I stated above. Either way, I haven’t allready decided the report is useless because I know it won’t reflect my opinions. This whole WH thing creates a whole new set of parameters, obviously, but the general idea is still there.
Zifnab
Basically, Cassidy, you’re pissed that Petreaus doesn’t have the credibility you think he should have. Why don’t you just come out and say that instead.
Cassidy:
Maybe then we could take you a bit more seriously. So far, all we’ve heard is “Blah, blah, give him a chance, blah, blah, support the generals, blah, blah, democrats are just as bad if not worse, blah.” I’ve seen nothing in your numerous posts to tell me why we should trust Petreaus or why his report would be any more credible than the swill previous administration officials have served up. Why do you trust Petreaus any more than you would trust Rove or Cheney or any of his other handlers?
UnkyT
The difference is that all of the U.S. has been hearing it nonstop from the WH that we need to wait till September at which time we would be given a report by the ‘Men on the Ground’, ‘Commanders in the Field’, General Petraeus, and that it would be named after the author. When they release the report, they sure as hell are not going to clarify any of this in their press conferences. It will still be the Petraeus Report. If the fact that Petraeus is not authoring it is inconsequential then why is it not named the White House Report or the Hewitt Report or the Malkin Report or the O’Hanlon Report, oh wait, O’Hanlon does have a recent article that he actually wrote! The difference is that 80% of people will not realize that they are being shoveled more bullshit that usual.
Punchy
Fixed, ala what Tim said.
As for this:
I was thinking the same thing. How can the WH straight-face this report as being written in DC about a country thousands of miles away? Doesn’t GenPat HAVE to be involved, by the very definition of what the report purports to portend?
Cassidy
I disagree…it’s all related. The messenger could very easil be Ronald McDonald and Grimace, but if they didn’t say what other side wants to hear, the opposing side will immediately disregarda s partisan hackery. Short of a coalition made up of Barack, Hillary, Edwards, and Murtha, I don’t think an “acceptable” messenger exists.
Rome Again
My guess is the only reason Cassidy trusts Petraeus more is because he’s romanticized the military and a member of the military can do no wrong.
Cassidy
Intersting and to the heart of what I say: If it doesn’t mesh with your opinion, then it simply cannot be accurate.
Rome Again
That is nothing more than a preconceived notion. Any good news would be welcome by all of us, if it were true, no matter who said it. The problem is getting the truth out of this administration. The messenger is indeed the problem.
Cassidy
I’ve never said anything like that. AAMOF, I said what I think of this report a little further up. I’m just curious at the lack of any kind of non-partisan objectivity from the usual posters.
RA…haven’t seen you lately. Is your compassion still a purchasable commodity? I have a dollar for a half blind puppy that could use it. I’ll even make it convenient for you so you don’t have to feel bad by letting your obligations get in the way of your convictions.
Face
I completely agree. If, however, Bush pulled out the Hamburgler Report, I’d be forced to accept it as honest and noteworthy.
Cassidy
https://balloon-juice.com/?p=8549#comment-360998
Just for you RA. How much do you really care?
Tim F.
Not at all, Cassidy. I never proposed that you side with the WH and never would, as you clearly do not. The point of my comment precisely addressed your primary criticism, which is that we would be wrong to pre-judge the September report. I feel that public knowledge is more than enough to invalidate any defense of the “surge” on the terms in which it was initially sold. Since the WH almost certainly will try something along those lines judging them in advance hardly seems unwarranted.
Or they could cite some baloney argument and start pulling the troops out in October. In that case you would find the rest of us just as receptive as yourself.
dlw32
To beat a dead horse, ANY report from this Administration is immediately suspect imho. It’s not this general or this surge or even just Iraq. It’s not that they’re Conservatives or Republicans or even just politicians.
These people have habitually, repeatedly, and extravagently lied for at least the last 6 years now. By their own admission they don’t trust facts (it was a WH staffer that coined the phrase “the reality-based community”). And they are clearly “ends justify the means” people.
To take anything they say seriously without external corroboration is foolish.
Zifnab
And yet you expose your own partisanhood. Default assumption is that if a General opens his mouth, we should believe what he says.
We should trust Petreaus because… he’s in the military. Go Army. The end.
If that’s not partisan, I don’t know what is?
Cassidy
Fair enough, but I trust “public knowledge” as much as I do the WH. Public knowledge is made up of half-assed opinions from many segments of life, that generally only view the information they have a vested interest in. I’ve seen a coupe references to “reliable” or “credible” sources, and I’d say you’d be hard pressed to find a credible or reliable source for any unbiased information these days. Public knowledge still consists of what someone else wants you to know, regardless of the source.
Face
Yeah, because the bombs that blew up killing 200 people were simply an invention and creation of CNN. It didn’t really happen, and we don’t really know anything about it, cuz it’s all so half-assed.
Andrew
Maybe Petraeus will misplace his report, much like the 190,000 small arms that went missing under his watch.
On the other hand, he runs 5 miles in the Baghdad heat, so he seems really trustworthy.
Andrew
I get the feeling that cassidy would demand we wait for an 8 year old’s science project results before he decided that water is wet.
Bubblegum Tate
Is the pope Catholic?
Does night follow day?
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Are wingnuts fucking ridiculous?
myiq2xu
Cassidy, I fully expect the White House to lie to us as they have every single time in the past.
But I am prepared to be shocked and surprised if they tell the unspun truth for once.
After all, I have never won the lottery, but I still play every week.
Zifnab
Except we have been listening. If Petreaus were to say things are going smoothly in Iraq, his report would carry the same weight as if he’d said “The sky is green and the moon is made of oatmeal.” He’d be lying. We know he’d be lying. End of story.
Perhaps the question you meant to ask would be “If Petreaus released a report, would you believe any of it that contradicted what you already thought you knew.”
The answer to that would still be a resounding “No!” because of the trust issues mentioned above. Too many people on this blog see Petreaus as a lapdog of the administration. Whatever he says, therefore, carries just as much weight as if it were said by an administrative offical. If Tony Snow tells me Iraq is no more violent than downtown Miami, I’ll call him a liar without doing any further research. If Petreaus tries to sell me the same line, I won’t be any more open to the notion. Why? Because I see him as Tony Snow in a spiffed up suit.
I don’t trust Petreaus, or anyone – for that matter – whom the White House selects to speak for them.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Look, defectives, I’m not one to stand in the way of your futile tilting at BDS-induced strawmen, but the “Petraeus was supposed to write a report for Congress!” whining is bongwater revisionism.
Here’s an idea. Instead of pretending that you know how things should be done, just look at the law (HR 2206):
Gosh. It’s almost as if the White House is tasked with writing the report to Congress!
Look, in September, while in DC to consult with Bush (as the law states) Petraeus will personally appear before Congress. His views will be well-known and clear. You won’t need to be a genius to divine his views on the progess in Iraq.
Of course, since you won’t believe him anyway, unless he parrots exactly what the NYT, WaPo, and DKos columnists sell you (which is impossible, since his motivations and theirs do not coincide in the least), you can drop the phony outrage.
UnkyT
You mean the WH will misplace it for him.
Punchy
Reading this, I will fully expect George Bush himself to have penned this report. Not his staff, not his lackeys, not his wife, but Bush himself. After all, it’s what the law stipulates.
This promises to be good comedy.
John Cole
All of you- RA, face, Cassidy- take it somewhere else.
Email, Ace’s comments section- I don’t care. Just not here with this nonsense.
Halffasthero
Okay, this is getting ugly. Let’s all group hug, take a deep breath and count to ten.
John Cole
This thread is now a do-over. I think I have deleted all the comments that go back to the original sin involving someone’s wife or something. Let’s try again, without looking like total morons.
Consider this to be the blog equivalent of the Colts/Steelers playoff game a few years ago where the Colts were offsides and the refs decided the play simply never happened.
Go Steelers.
Bubblegum Tate
EEEL:
So then this whole time the White House has been referring to this September 15 report as “General Petraeus’s report,” they’ve been lying and just trying to use Petraeus’s perceived credibility (a lot of which he has since squandered) as cover?
Dave
Regarding
I’m curious Cassidy, what do you consider reliable or credible sources.
John Cole
PS- Future infractions will have the comment altered to ‘I Like Pie’ or a glowing tribute to the patriotism of Karl Rove.
Depends on how ornery I feel. Safe bet- pretty ornery.
Rome Again
Oh, I get it, Cassidy can talk about boinking Face’s wife, but if I call him an A-hole, I get my post pulled.I believe I deleted those offending posts. If I did not, link them and I will delete them as well. -ed.
As to the rest, Rome Again is proud to report that not only is Karl Rove the greatest political strategist of the modern era, but that he is a pillar to all that is decent and right within politics.
Rome Again
NOT
And those posts weren’t pulled after mine was pulled, while I was writing my post. After I posted my last, they were gone. You pulled my post, posted a warning to me and then pulled the other posts.
Face
I like pie!
Karl Rove is the mastermind behind the Repulican machine.
RSA
When in a press conference Bush can say something like
and
we all kinda got the impression that Petraeus would be writing a report that we could actually read, not playing some game in which he whispers into Bush’s ear and Bush “translates” for us.
Andrew
I like pie!
I just want to preemptively correct myself.
Cassidy
John I apologize. Every now then I have to admit to a good shit-slinging fest. To the best of my ability, it won’t happen again.
Rome Again
Well, if you’re going to scrub this thread clean, I see a really dirty one over on yesterday’s thread about Michael Ware. That’s the one Cassidy linked to asking me to sell my possessions and divorce my family to prove I care about Iraqis.Cassidy gets pretty heated over there and offends many on that thread and I see much worse infractions over there than I saw here.
tBone
Hmmm. So I guess the administration violated the law when they submitted the July report? After all, it was
when the law clearly states that The President is the one who’s supposed to prepare the report. You know, if you want to get technical about it.
Will EEEL spot the fact that this is a stupid argument? Place your bets!
ThymeZone
I think with that one small change, you’ll have consensus on the new plan among all participants.
myiq2xu
We already see the military fudging numbers and giving selected “serious” journalists Potemkin Village style tours of Iraq.
3 guys travel together for an 8 day guided tour to Iraq. 2 of them come back and get the full press courting treatment.
They say the “Surge” is working and things are getting better. Their assertions, including some easily provable lies about being critics of the war, are accepted uncritically.
The other guy, who wasn’t so upbeat and optimistic, gets treated like a leper with herpes.
General Petraeus, who has never given a single pessimistic report since the war started, is due to make a report. Even the President has stated that he is waiting for this report.
Now we are told that the White House, which has lied to us from the beginning about this war, will actually be preparing Gen. P’s report.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the report will say we’re winning, progress is being made, etc.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of sources of information that indicate that overall, things in Iraq are bad and getting worse.
But some commenters seem concerned that we aren’t waiting until the report is released to decide that it isn’t trustworthy.
Damn you
Scott BeauchampSteely McBeam!Zifnab
Cassidy’s a little bitch. Just get passed that RA, and learn to love him for his feeble attempts at intelligencia via rhetorical questions he already has an answer for.
Also, his mother is a whore.
I mean… yay pie?
Zifnab
Even lepers get booked occationally. Just ask Lou Dobbs to interview an immigrant.
Cassidy
Such anger…it’s amazing what a short 6 years can do to people. And don’t get mad because you prove me right. I know it isn’t easy being wrong on things, but you can learn to deal with that, I’m sure.
Cassidy
https://balloon-juice.com/?p=8552#comment-361629
John, you missed one of mine…needs editing.
RA…if you’re offended, then maybe you should consider the feebleness of your beliefs. In the end, they are only words. And while thye may make you feel better to say them, all they account for is expended hot air.
Dreggas
Patraeus at this point has lost most if not all credibility and the reason is quite simple: Hugh Hewitt. He shot himself in the foot when he did that show.
Zifnab
Who’s mad? The sun rises in the east, moss grows on the north side of trees, hope floats, and you act like a spoiled brat.
I’m just making an observation.
ThymeZone
Just remember everyone, this is protected speech here.
Whereas, calling this guy a name that any reasonable person would call him, including John or Tim, not protected.
Questions? Just dial 1-800-WTF
Keep in mind, you are on a site where Darrell was protected for three years of daily, endless relentless and mindless bashing of anything that moved.
The war in Iraq will be ended and that entire country turned into a minature golf course with an oil field theme, and Orange Julius stands, before anyone makes sense of the “rules” around here.
Rome Again
Cassidy, what do I believe? If you know how feeble my beliefs are, perhaps you’d like to share what you understand about said beliefs?
I’m not offended, merely asking for consistent treatment for everybody. If John’s going to scrub what I said on a thread today, then he should certainly scrub the stuff that could be considered much more offensive over on another thread from yesterday. Otherwise it looks like targeted scrubbing and that’s just not acceptable.
Cassidy
What’s offensive about calling people on thier hypocricy? You care…but you don’t actually do anything to help. You type/ say lots of words, but yet when it comes to follow-through adn action, you’ve stated before that your obligations have a higher priority than your beliefs; the very same thing you degraded me fore.
If truth is offensive to you, then oh well. Life is hard sometimes.
Rome Again
Oh, to show I care, I have to give away all my worldly possessions, leave my children behind, divorce my spouse and go to Iraq? No, not even close buddy. What I do is none of your business, but I have a voice and I use it. How I use it is also none of your business.
Now, perhaps you’d like to tell me about my feeble beliefs as you understand them?
ThymeZone
What’s offensive about calling people on thier hypocricy?
Again, everyone, this is today’s example of protected speech here. Please follow this example in your postings.
Vague, snide concern troll bullshit, heaped high and with a whipped cream topping, and you are good to go. This is the model of what BJ wants in its comments section.
This is your reward for sticking around here and supporting this website all this time: Cassidy. Enjoy.
Rome Again
I never degraded you for not doing enough, I degraded you for saying you were doing so much for people you couldn’t care for and couldn’t stand.
myiq2xu
There’s an old saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.
But watching the Bush Administration lie over and over again and expecting them to tell the truth is stupidity.
Of course, just becuase someone says they expect honesty from G-Dub doesn’t mean they are stupid.
The may simply be lying as they stroll along with the President, holding his cold clammy paw in their hairy, sweaty palm.
Zifnab
That doesn’t make any sense. You need to have at least four more digits on there for that to be a valid number. Also, I think WTF is one of those 900 numbers where you call and they just make you wait while they charge you for listening.
ThymeZone
Hey, it’s a business. Can’t a guy earn a crust?
Rome Again
Absolutely!
Halffasthero
Please note the titie of this blog:
“Hot Air and Ill-Informed Banter ”
Any questions?
Tsulagi
From your Update…
Very good, but I think you sell yourself and wingnut math short. Add the twofer in your Update with the onefer in your Bonus Fun Game and any retardocon will tell you that adds up to a threefer, which collectively they feel is better than two. Grab for it. That there would be any incongruity in the points Petraeus was too busy to write the report and anyone saying he didn’t is a liar wouldn’t register. Totally oblivious to that hate America math.
Petraeus’ portion of the president’s report to Congress in September may not be written by Petraeus? Yeah, color me surprised. The Rummy/Wolfie/Feith civilian leadership in the Pentagon pushed to write the first lessons learned from OIF. Something that would normally be the job of those uniformed guys.
However, if Democrats in Congress or others ever thought Petraeus’ report would be anything but publicly supportive of the mission given to him by his CIC, they are delusional. That’s part of his job. Anything less he should be sacked. Their job is not his.
Of course Petraeus’ report would be colored by his public support of the president and the mission. But say what you will or hold whatever opinion that makes you feel smart about the officer corps of the US military, the officer who would knowingly lie to Congress is rare.
You can go to Quantico today and still find plenty of Marines who cannot stand Oliver North, a darling of the Hannity set. The reason is he knowingly and flagrantly lied under oath to Congress. Compounded by the fact he did so using a Marine Corps uniform to lend credibility to his lies. He’s not viewed as a good Marine at Quantico, merely a dilettante and political hack.
Point is the Democrats in Congress need to do their own fucking job. Do their own homework. Pose intelligent questions to Petraeus, other commanders, and admin political officials like our ambassador in Iraq. Frame the debate as to what we can realistically achieve or not by continued US military presence in Iraq. They need to get their collective asses and heads together to do their own job rather than running in different directions like cats hoping to be fed what they want when they want it.
Cassidy
I disagree and raise that you specifically requested I go over adn get killed. You specifically degraded me for placing my obligation(s), my oath of service, over my beliefs that the Iraq war is pointless.
Well, I’m sure that all those poor Iraqis you care for are comforted by the sound of your voice. Who needs school supplies and potable water and refugee status in the US and electricity? No, they get the sweet comfort of RA’s words, wrapping around them like a warm blanket.
And I really don’t care what you dow ith your free time or money. I’m just pointing out that your caring and beliefs are fine and dandy until it comes to application. Then thos principles seem to fall by the wayside rather quickly when the real world intrudes. And that in and of itself is not a problem with me either. Countless numbers of Soldiers, including myself, have done the same exact thing. But how dare you degrade others for making the same kind of decisions you have, just because our choices aren’t the same as yours.
TZ—While I may bother you, it would take years of posting to express the same amount of venom you do on an, almost, daily basis.
myiq2xu
This blog has titties?
Cassidy
If the Democrats ask specific questions regarding the tactics being used and the employment of the “surge” troops, they will probably get better answers than they will asking about the benchmarks.
The benchmarks are political goals, being backed up by military actions.
ThymeZone
Well, so far I haven’t seen you express an actual viable thought, so I can certainly understand your concern.
“My words mean more” might be about the pinnacle of your contributions so far. Really, you should have stopped there.
ThymeZone
I think the term is “man breasts.”
Halffasthero
Damn typo’s….
Please note the title of this blog…
fixed
Zifnab
I don’t know, but it sure has its share of boobs.
tBone
Cassidy, you’re leaning a little heavily on the “aggressive” side of your passive-aggressive style today. In trolling, as in life, it’s all about balance.
tBone
And as Petraeus himself has said repeatedly, making political progress is the whole point of the Surge. Improvements in the military sphere mean nothing if they don’t lead to more political stability.
Andrew
I really like pie, motherfuckers.
Cassidy
I get that. What I’m saying is if the panel asks specific questions regarding how the troops were used to achieve said benchmarks, as opposed to just asking baout the benchmarks and there progress, they’ll get more answer, IMO anyways.
Ex: How many more raids have been conducted with the “surge” troops? How have those raids specifically impacted levels of violence, etc.?
The background to this is that when I was there, my unit set up an outpost in a known insurgent area. We cut the roads, etc., making it more difficult for arms to flow north. We made a marked impact on violence levels north of us, by impeding that flow.
Rome Again
I was merely saying that it’s not my war to fight because I don’t believe in it. If you do, for one reason or another, that is your own thing. Going over there can get a person killed. You wanted me to go over there and support a war I don’t believe in. You cannot expect me to fight a war that I don’t support and that was my position from the outset.
What they need more an anything else is for us Americans to get out and leave them the hell alone. That is where I come in. I am one voice in a river of voices trying to end this war. It is not about shoring up their supplies while our troops continue to tread boots in their city, it is about getting our troops out and letting Iraq be whatever Iraqis want Iraq to be, not what we Americans want Iraq to be.
Giving away school supplies while our country treats their country as a war zone is ludicrous. Talk about half measures.
You cannot expect me to support this war, as I stated before. Since I do not suupport this war, I do not support what you do as a soldier either. You’ve admitted to killing. I find that to be something I vehemently abhor. You admit you don’t care for the Iraqis. Why do you feel it necessary for me to go spread school supplies and blankets rather than try to work towards getting boots OFF the ground there?
You know what Cassidy? The more I hear about your military obligations, the more you sound like you need to play the victim. The homeless and dead and maimed and starving and shellshocked Iraqi people are the victims, not our living soldiers trouncing all over their country. I’m through entertaining your delusions.
jake
John, you missed one.
Well, I’d consider it a pretty farkin’ big infraction of the no trashin’ rule…
jenniebee
That’s neat, Cassidy, but it isn’t true to life. If you follow the link to the article John posted, you’ll see the paragraph just above the quote:
So here’s the situation: if Petreus goes to Capitol Hill and says “we did not achieve the objectives that we told you we could do if you gave us the money,” that would be truthful. If he goes up to the Hill and gives a progress report that at least has a passing resemblance to reality – such as if it includes information like the fact that the Ministry of Defense has taken up arms against the Ministry of the Interior (Grover Norquist – take notes!), that basic utilities – like clean water – are still not happening and are not going to happen in the foreseeable future, and tells Congress that funding this sucker is essentially an open-ended commitment for a perpetual Really Big Foreign Adventure, well, that would be truth.
But odds in Vegas are that Iraq’s a pig and he’s buying out the Clinique counter. And incidentally, Iraq isn’t a pig because I want it to be one or because I’d be happy if it was one or because I’m locked into a pacifistic ideology and have a desperate psychological need to be proven right. It’s a pig because its Ministry of the Interior is shooting at its Ministry of Defense and it’s a pig because people in the capital city still don’t have electricity and it’s a pig because bodies are still turning up by roadsides with joints put out by drill bits and bullets in the back of their heads and it’s a pig because our soldiers and it’s a pig because a suicide bomber killed six times as many civilians yesterday as the VA Tech shooter did here and that’s been true of just about every day for a long damn time and it’s a pig because convoys for their own safety have no choice but to shoot anybody who comes too close, including mothers in front of their small children, and it’s a pig because the water situation means it’s just one oopsie away from a cholera epidimic – and there is just nothing that can take a situation from bad to worse like a good, old-fashioned cholera epidemic can.
It’s not mean ideological liberals who are putting Petreus in a damned if you do damned if you don’t bind. The facts on the ground – what little we get out that isn’t being message controlled (do we really have to remind people that message control and candour are not one and the same?) are doing that all by themselves. We’re just here to say “sure, it’s lipstick, but don’t kiss that snout!”
Cassidy
RA, please whisper that you care for the Iraqis before you go to bed. There is a hungry child over there who needs your words.
Rome Again
So John, you like this? Is this what BJ is to become? I am so glad to know that in a matter of months I’ll be spending SO MUCH LESS TIME HERE!
Cassidy
RA, I’m not asking you to support a war. Nor am I asking you to go. I’m simply pointing out that your words of compassion and caring, while they may make you feel better, have little to no impact. The irony is that someone like me, who does not care about the Iraqi people, has done more to try and help them than you have.
Now you can justify your lack of action with an intent to vote, but in the grand scheme of things, pushing a button/ pull a lever has very little impact on “The homeless and dead and maimed and starving and shellshocked Iraqi people”.
UnkyT
I think they are doing it quite well, this is their job right?
1. get tag teamed in the ass by the Bush admin
2. throw a fit about it
3. investigate the raping
4. conclude they can do nothing about it because they might look soft
5. bend over for another round
Rome Again
Too funny!
ThymeZone
You, after all, are to blame for cassidy being here, because you won’t ignore him, like John will, any minute now, tell you to do.
Why do you hate teh Balloon-Juice?
Rome Again
I’m not so sure you were helping. Giving a child a candy bar or performing some little kindness while your nation is performing a war is not admirable IMO, sorry.
Btw, I was not talking about pulling a lever. Perhaps you forget that during the Vietnam era, there were massive antiwar demonstrations that helped to end that fiasco. My voice is one of those, it’s more than pulling a lever and voting. It’s turning the tide of opinion to get boots such as yours off Iraqi soil where they never belonged in the first place.
Rome Again
Am I to ignore BushCo and all it’s supporters and they’ll all just go away? Wow, I had no idea!
Andrew
If you love him so much why don’t you marry him?
Cassidy
Heh…you really believe that don’t you? A bunch of spoiled, over-indulged westerners “taking to the streets” will have a serious impact on the daily lives of Iraqis? Please, by all means continue in your fantasy land. My real world involves another deployment, regardless of who gets into office.
myiq2xu
Here’s the cold hard fact that even Gen Betrayus has admitted:
THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION TO THE SITUATION IN IRAQ.
G-Dub was partially correct when he gave that “Mission Accomplished” speech. The “war” was over.
What we have now is an “occupation.” We are occupying a foreign nation.
The supposed goal of the occupation is to maintain order and provide basic services until the people of Iraq are ready to govern themselves.
The problem is that Iraq is an artificial creation left over at the end of the British Colonial Empire. The people of Iraq do not see themselves as a single people.
They are divided into Sunni and Shia, with numerous sub-groups within each group. They have tribal identities as well.
I don’t profess to understand who’s who and what’s what over there, and I’ve done quite a bit of reading.
Think of it as a very violent sports league, where half of them are playing soccer, half of them are playing baseball, none of them are wearing uniforms, and there is no schedule. We are the referees, but there is no rulebook, we don’t speak the language, and we can’t tell the players from the fans.
Saudi Arabia, who is supposed to be our ally, has been supporting the Sunnis, who until recently was our enemy. Al Queda is 100% Sunni.
Iran, who is supposed to be our enemy, has been supporting the Shia, who supposedly have been our friends from the beginning. We are threatening war against Iran for supplying IED’s to our “friends.”
The British are taking heavy casualties in Basra, which is almost entirely Shia.
The only thing most Iraqis agree on is they want us to get the fuck out of their country.
And some people want us to wait until September to make up our minds about how things are going.
Cassidy
You are welcome to try and find where i”ve said I’m a Bush supporter. It will be a fruitless earch, but go ahead.
Rome Again
Who ever said anything about love? My heart belongs to someone else.
Rome Again
Well, Mr. Self-Important, I wasn’t talking about YOU per se, but, you did support Bush war.
Cassidy
With a tender, glowing warm spot for the Iraqi people.
Rome Again
Pity you’re too young to remember the 60’s, I see.
Cassidy
Never supported it. Just did my job when called to do so.
Rome Again
What bothers you so much, that I care, or that I don’t hate them as you do?
Rome Again
Your boots were on the ground, you were pulling duty, ifyou didn’t follow orders you were given, you could very well end up with more chance of dying over there than you already had. That’s supporting the war in my book.
ThymeZone
He hasn’t asked me.
demimondian
Cassidy — you know, if you’re going to talk about “not being there”, you should realize that fact also applies to the anti-war movement in the 60’s. Some of us *were* there, you know — whether we supported the protesters or not.
You weren’t. You don’t remember those times. We do. You don’t have the necessary experience to talk about those times. Until you’ve been a part of a major push-back on the US government, shut up.
ThymeZone
Or even sent me a picture.
myiq2xu
RA talks of ending the US occupation of Iraq by protesting. The response is insulting and refers to something different.
Not all protesters are “spoiled, over-indulged westerners.”
Cassidy, what is your proposed solution? Instead of criticizing what others are suggesting, tell us what you think the answer is.
Pretend you just got hired to replace Karl Rove. What would you tell Bush to do?
Rome Again
Exactly, and Cassidy’s boots only contribute to the problem.
Andrew
Fail. You are not Buster. For shame.
jake
Sorry to go OT but this reminds me: I hope some of ya’ll will be in town on the 15th of September.
Dave
While the back and forth between you two isn’t something I want to get in the middle of (although it is amusing in a grade school playground sorta way)…
I have to call shenanigans on the above statement.
So Cassidy is supporting the war by doing his job? In fact he’s doing is job AND following orders that quite possibly will keep him alive? That supporting the war?
How is that?
Rome Again
I was mistooked! Apologies.
Rome Again
He was a member of a force that is occupying a nation. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Nothing nefarious, just human nature. General Patraeus is indeed reporting to the President and Congress on the progress in Iraq, so in many cases, the press and the pols are correct in their usage. Since it’s the most anticipated part of the overall report, naturally, most parties are focusing on that part of the report, and some have gotten confused and sloppy if they think that Patraeus is the only input to the report.
To suggest that Patraeus should personally write the report, though, is silly and — by reading of the law — improper.
Of course, I spotted the gaping hole in your “stupid” argument in about three milliseconds. As of 1949, the NSC is part of the Office of the President, which makes it legal and proper for them to draft a report for the President.
Too easy.
Zifnab
Just a quick thought on the intertubes and their denizens, courtesy of the good men at Penny-Arcade.
tBone
As much as it pains me to defend our new resident Pie Lover, this is unfair. Soldiers, regardless of their political leanings, go where they’re told and do what they’re told. They shouldn’t be blamed for doing their job, even when it’s in service of political goals they don’t agree with.
The alternative is an ala carte military where everyone gets to decide what causes and/or civilian leaders they’re willing to fight for. That would be fun if President Hillary had to order a fully-justified military action, wouldn’t it?
Rome Again
Well, at one time there was such a thing as a conscientious objector, who didn’t go into war when they felt it was wrong. Is this a new concept to you?
Cassidy
I’ve said as much before. Start leaving tonight and leave Iraq to it’s devices.
Is that the same simplicity you cover yourself with by saying how much you care for the Iraqi people?
Cassidy
I suggest you research that topic a bit more before bandying it about.
Rome Again
Glad to hear you said that, and I agree. I’m glad we agree on something. You do still seem to want to play victim for being a member of the military though. I do not see the force occupying Iraq to be the victims, I see the people of the nation being occupied being the victims. But, I will grant you that I would like to see your solution come to fruition.
What I do with my caring is my business, that I do care is also my business, and you cannot equate it, remove it or define it. It’s there whether you like it or not.
Let’s talk about simplicity for a moment, shall we? Why is it that you don’t care for the Iraqi people? After all, they are human, just as you are, and only had the audacity to be born in a different place. You could very well and easily have been one of them. Why do you not like them?
tBone
Well spotted. I wonder what would happen if you applied that acumen and attention to detail to other legal matters involving this administration? The mind boggles.
Rome Again
Oh, it’s just a figment of my imagination, I see.
Dave
So by that logic Tammy Duckworth, Jon Soltz, Paul Hackett, every currently serving solider, reservist and national guard (since they got sucked into this morrass too) are all war supporters.
With all due respect Rome, that’s ludicrous.
Face
Yeah, right. Here’s the answers: “Cannot comment on troop movements”, “Cannot discuss operational tactics”, “Cannot devulge the origins and metrics of the aforementioned troop surge in any manner consistent with your preclusive moxie”, and “I cannot recall”.
hey, EEEL–I dont see “Office of the President” ANYWHERE IN THE LAW. It says The President. Bush, not the NSA.
Rome Again
I’m not asking you to agree with me, Dave, but IMO, if someone fights as a member of a force in a war, they are a supporter of it.
tBone
No. I also don’t think it’s relevant in this era of an all-volunteer military.
Fledermaus
To be less cryptic than our
newest trollCassidy, CO’s have to be against all wars anytime anywhere for any reason before the Army will give them CO status, and (I think) it’s only available to people who have been drafted, for reasons that should be obvious.John S.
To be accurate, the story says:
But of course, to a Bush-loving hack like EEEL, the White House = NSA = the government = America = George Bush. They’re all one in the same.
Rome Again
Well, as an all volunteer army, I do not believe in war, so I never volunteered. It seems to me that when someone signs enlistment papers they know they have a good chance of going to war. To not support their force and it’s engagement seems ludicrous to me when they are over there in a war zone.
Granted, I accept that there are people who got caught up in Bush’s war and didn’t think they would be going onto a war of our own choosing, and I admire those people for coming out (such as Tammy Duckworth et al) and stating that they disagree with this war. At the same time, if they volunteered, they had to know that the possibility of going into a war of our choosing was possible and they still chose to enlist.
myiq2xu
I’m confoosed.
You are opposed to the war, okay.
You think your CinC is a liar, okay.
Then you say:
What is the point of your argument today?
Please enlighten me.
John S.
True, which makes Jehovah’s Witnesses the ultimate COs (and also made them a target of Hitler as such).
Rome Again
Well, I never volunteered, because personally, I could never kill anybody for political games on the big Risk board.
People can become all sorts of different things in this world, they are not told to become soldiers at gunpoint. It’s a choice, right? So going over and killing people in a war is a choice, right?
Rome Again
I would personally rather die or be imprisoned as a CO then kill someone at someone else’s behest. But, that’s just me.
Tsulagi
Not necessarily.
Yep, and good thing too.
I’m not anti-war. I’m certainly not pro-war. Until everyone on the planet evolves a few clicks up the evolutionary ladder, there will be times when force is necessary. Iraq was/is not one of them.
tBone
I guess you can take that position if you believe war is never acceptable under any circumstances. I disagree.
Wait, I thought we were all ultra-liberals in a groupthink echo chamber here. What the hell’s going on??
myiq2xu
Implicit in an all-volunteer military in a democratic republic is the duty of the elected leadership to not send troops to die in illegal, immoral, and/or unnecessary wars.
John S.
Nope, that’s also me.
As I always say (to the hackles of many), I don’t live to hold onto this life, I live to hold onto the next. I guess underneath my Jewish exterior lurks the beating heart of a Buddhist.
ConservativelyLiberal
Answers are:
— Yes.
— Possibly, but could it also be said that day follows night?
— Most bears do, but not polar bears. Though that may change with global warming.
— Absolutely.
Regarding the WH authoring the “Petraeus” Report, it does not surprise me one bit. Since this WH has zero credibility with me, I will view the “report” with great suspicion.
Is it my fault that I have problems trusting what my government says? Nope. If you repeatedly cry “WOLF!” and after each time it comes out that there never was a wolf, people figure out pretty quickly that you are a liar. Our President and his administration are a bunch of liars. End of that story.
If Bush was a stock broker advising me to buy more of a stock that I own, I would sell it immediately.
myiq2xu
On second thought, that wasn’t quite right.
Fixed
tBone
Actually, if you read between the lines, I think Rome was saying that she wouldn’t kill on someone else’s orders, but she’d happily murder anyone for any reason as long as it was her idea.
At least I think that’s what she’s saying.
Please don’t kill me, Rome.
Rome Again
No tBone, I wouldn’t kill anyone. I don’t have it in me. I regard humanity too highly to do that.
Rome Again
An oxymoron if I ever heard one. I could never happily murder anyone.
Zifnab
See, call me a crazy right-wing nuttard, but if Saddam has been even a regular class threat a la Kim Jong-Il in Korea, I wouldn’t have even felt bad about the invasion, except that it was done in such a sloppy and half-assed fashion, we were garanteed to get in this fucked-up position from the get-go.
I honestly wasn’t anti-War back in ’03. I was whole-heartedly behind Afganistan and would have been happy to see troops storm Pakistan or Sudan or whatever country OBL scuttled off to. There was some bad shit that had to get taken down the hard way, and I wasn’t opposed to the use of mechanized areal death devices to clean up the mess.
But the list of “Things the Pentagon did half-assed and on the cheap” goes on for miles. They conducted an outrageously shitty war. And when they fucked up – as they did over, and over, and over, and over again – they lied about it. They lied us in the war. They lied us through the war. They lied to our troops. They lied to our commanders. When soldiers died, they lied to the next of kin.
It’s not war I have a problem with. I believe that we can wage ethical war. I believe Clinton did it in Bosnia and Kosovo and Bush Sr. did it in Desert Storm / Desert Shield. But Kid Bush fucked up hard, and that’s what I object to. We rolled Saddam out of Iraq in months with a total of 300 casualties. We minimized civilian deaths and kept our budget within reason. Kuwaitt was grateful, Iraq was cowed, big win for the US of A.
Iraq was done shitty. Outrageously shitty. And the longer it goes on, the worse the management gets. The only thing they seem to try and improve on is how they lie. That, more than anything else, is what I object to.
Dave
Amen Zifnab.
RSA
This is me, too. But I think to find out whether someone supports a given war or not, you have to ask them. You can’t just assume it, even for soldiers. For an analogy, imagine an Iraqi saying, “Why do you support this war on my country?” “But I don’t support the war!” “You’re paying the salaries of the soldiers of your army, through your taxes, aren’t you?” etc. There’s even a conscientious objector analogy, which involves tax resistance (and probably going to jail for it).
Dreggas
Quick before it get’s worse
Our mother
Who’s name is Cindy
Sheehan be thy name
To crawford come
til peace is done
In Iraq as it is
in heaven
Give us this day
our daily rant
and forgive us
our Pelosi’s as we
forgive those
who filibuster
against us.
Lead us not into Iran
but deliver us from Bush
For thine is the campaign,
the pipe dream, and the anger
forever.
Amen.
Jill
With John’s update logic regarding the Times not giving up sources, can’t we say the same thing about Bush’ executive privelege claims? Reporters won’t give up their sources and Bush/Cheney won’t give up their emails, notes, conversations.
ConservativelyLiberal
On CNN, 500+ dead in Iraq in the last DAY. Yup, the “Surge” is really working! We hit a new record over there with this one.
Rainbows, flowers, ponies and chocolates for all! Hooray!
Why is the smell of success in Iraq that of a charnel house?
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
I’m going to chalk that up to your naivety, just to be charitable.
When the law mandates “the President” to issue a report, it is commonly understood to mean the Office of the President. If the President personally did everything the law said “the President” had to do, we’d need nine of ’em.
Tsulagi
Okay. So Zifnab, you were all up for the Iraq invasion? Had your Malkin pom poms fluffed for the event and all that in eager anticipation? So I’m the moonbat lefty and you’re the hawk? LOL
You could see the invasion of Iraq was a done deal and going to happen even well before Bush reluctantly went along with Tony Blair to send inspectors back into Iraq. Though I didn’t have the information LTG Greg Newbold had, then Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon, like him I felt the Iraq invasion would accomplish nothing toward and actually hurt our post 9/11 proper objective of eliminating or at least seriously degrading al Qaeda and similar groups in a broader WOT. He wasn’t the only one in the military who thought the same. Newbold resigned his commission rather than continue with planning the Iraq farce.
Prior to 9/11 this administration said Saddam was contained and no threat to his neighbors. Certainly not to the US. They backed intelligence assessments that Saddam would not become a haven for al Qaeda (already a known enemy) nor provide them with weaponry fearing an invasion from us. All that now proven true. Invading Canada or Mexico would have made more sense.
But 9/11 changed everything. To be patriotic you then needed to lobotomize so you could parrot and support any retarded stupidity from the “adults in charge” That renaming fries and toast was a blow for freedom, democracy, and survival of the American way of life made sense.
After the invasion, my position was regardless of why we got there, we were there. And since we came sort of uninvited, I thought we owed it to the Iraqi people us to help them achieve and then leave them with stability plus a functioning government while if not entirely benevolent, at least didn’t have screwing them over, attacking their neighbors, or sponsoring terrorism as a primary goal. In my innocence, I was thinking even with the retards in charge that could happen in three years or so. Would have been nice.
But after Baghdad fell, then came monumental brain dead decisions and actions by this administration on top of those pre-invasion. Only to be later topped by those even greater. At this point they’ve baked a shit pie. They can’t unbake it. And adding more shit to it will not make it any tastier.
I think I’ve written in a previous comment or two that the greatest threat to our forces in Iraq has not been the insurgency or AQ, but this administration. I say that with absolutely no snark.
tBone
Nice work. I’d like to see obligatory mentions of recreational abortions and gay marriage, though. And recreational gay abortions if you can work it in.
You say that now, but I bet when they discover the corpses stacked like cordwood in your freezer, they’ll all have smiley faces painted on them.
ConservativelyLiberal
Fixed ;)
Now I think I will go get one of those recreational gay marital abortions I keep hearing about!
Rome Again
Nope, my freezer is pretty empty, there’s a bit of ice cream and some Charleston Chew bits (two boxes, I got them on sale) but, no bodies, sorry. I have one of those top loading freezers, multiple corpses would be impossible. At least I have a freezer these days, when I was in FL, I lived out of ice in a cooler that I had to carry home in bags, dump ice into the cooler and chop it every couple of hours.
I have never killed anyone and barring any unforeseen traffic accidents, I never will.
rachel
See, I thought it was Barbara Tuchman’s Vietnam section of The March of Folly getting ready to happen again.
scarshapedstar
Why do people refer to Cheney and Rumsfeld as “The Pentagon”?
elchubs
You can always tell when someone has never been in a kill or be killed situation when they make statements like these……
and……
It’s easy to pontificate about being a pacifist on an internet forum safe behind your keyboard in Bumfuck, USA. It’s a little harder when your life is on the line.
You’d be suprised at the violence you can commit when the alternative is your own death. I don’t agree with the Iraq war and I enlisted BEFORE 9/11 but my word and my oath to obey the orders of the president and officers (no matter who they are, republican or democrat) appointed above me is more important than my personal feelings regarding this war or that.
Personaly I didn’t agree with the war in Kosovo either, nothing about that war had anything to do with anything in America’s interests. Though, had I been in the Army at the time I would have gone without complaint or protest. That’s the beauty of an all volunteer force. You can’t be a CO. It’s clearly spelled out in your Oath of Enlistment that you can be called on to fight in whatever war the civilian leadership might decide to wage. The implicit trust is that the citizens will elect trustworthy leadership that won’t wage pointless and unmoral wars (like Iraq). In that Americans (about 51% to be exact) have failed the Armed Forces miserably.
John S.
You can always tell when people don’t have the courage of their convictions when they say things like this. What you fail to realize is that for those of us actually dedicated to the principles espoused by folks like Jesus or Buddha, it is far more important not to taint your ‘soul’ than to buy a few more years in this life. I don’t condemn you for your beliefs – if you felt it was necessary to enlist, that’s your perrogative – so don’t please don’t mock mine. I can understand your position though I disagree with it, but your failure to understand my position or agree with it doesn’t make me worthy of scorn or ridicule.
You chose to potentially place yourself in a kill or be-killed circumstance, and therefore must make a choice that I will likely never face. If that circumstance ever finds me, I will deal with it as best I can, but realize that the prospect of being killed doesn’t bother me as much as taking someone else’s life. Now you can pile on with the self-defense, wife was raped, child was abducted arguments because I’ve fielded those as long as the Internet has existed.
Redhand
I’m late to this party, but want to weigh in anyway. This is the most ridiculous effing thing to come out of the WH since Cheney said he wasn’t part of the executive branch. How can they possible think they can spin this after all of Bush’s prior statements about General Petraeus’s report, deferring to the military commander on the scene, etc.? Nobody will give any credence to a document authored by WH hacks. Unbelievable, just unbelievable. I guess this is just another example of the extent to which denial is the m.o. in Bushworld.
elchubs
And the only reason that you have a right to such views is because people have been willing to kill and and die for that freedom.
It’s easy to be a pacifist when you aren’t in any danger.
elchubs
And to clarify, when I said the above I wasn’t talking about killing innocent people. Only those that would harm me. There have been times where I’ve taken fire from a building or crowd and held fire so as not to hit civilians that are just trying to get away. So I can say with some degree of certainty that I would rather die than kill an innocent person.
John S.
I know you think that, but that’s rubbish.
I have the right to that view because I was born with that right. I would have the right to think that anywhere on this planet. Obviously, it is harder to think that way in dire circumstances, but people still do.
This whole notion of killing and dying for freedom is bunk. G-d endowed men with the right to be free. Men can take away my freedom, but they cannot take away my right to be free. And quite frankly, it has been a long time since any action by any military on this planet has acted in a manner that acheived the goal of granting people real freedom.
However, it is not easy to be a pacifist. Not in the slightest. First of all, you don’t know a thing about me or my life, so for you to presume I’ve never been in any sort of danger is silly. Yes, I have never been in a war zone, but I have been on the receiving end of a handgun – does that count as danger? And let me tell you, there isn’t anything easy about fighting the animal urge for self-preservation to stop and think that it is wiser to turn the other cheek. Pulling the trigger on someone who is about to kill you is far easier (and instinctual) than choosing not to.
elchubs
Well it’s been awhile since “God” got involved in anything on earth. So while you may have been born with that right it can be taken away by men. And I don’t know about you but I would be more than ready to kill to defend my rights. Turning the other cheek just gets you slapped on the other side of your face.
Cassidy
John S., et al…I’ve been places that even God doesn’t want to go to. So while you worry about tainting your soul, I’ll eal with more realistic matters of preserving my life and the lives of those around me.
While I have no interest in calling pacifists cowards, as I do unerstand that it takes a solid ethical decision to be one, I also believe that it’s bullshit. No human is a pacifist. You just haven’t found the trigger that would cause you to do violence.
In the end, pacifist only means you’re willing to die without a fight. That’s plain retarded.
elchubs
You’re right and even though I don’t agree with you I do apologize for my rude tone.
jh
Jesus Christ was a retard? Who new?
John S.
It’s cool.
Believe me, I respect your decision to serve this country, and I would never mean to denegrate you for that choice. I’m used to people mocking my beliefs on this matter, but I try not to return the favor.
That is 100% true, but I do believe that there will be some intervention down the road (and I don’t mean that in a ‘rapture’ sense). I just try to live as if this whole glorious experiment of life could end at any moment, and I have to meet my maker.
It sure does, but it smarts less than the first time.
scarshapedstar
Yeah, dude, remember when Gandhi got his ass kicked and totally failed to win independence for India? He shoulda gone into a blood-mad rage and beat, like, two Brits to death with a stick. That would have totally shamed the Empire into leaving.
Retard McJeebus
Aside from the 2000 election, you mean? God Is In The White House!!!!11
John S.
Cassidy-
There’s a difference between you and elchubs. He/she seems to be willing to respect the beliefs of others. You think that your opinion is gospel, and all those that disagree are ‘retarded’.
You go about doing whatever you think is right, and I’ll do the same. In the end, I’m sure we will both reap what we have sown. Things always have a tendency to work out that way.
As for your gloriously asinine closing:
Apparently, this is what you believe. I don’t happen agree, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Fruitbat
Of course, there are people out there who find their way into Ghandi-esque pascifism and humanism without the guiding principle of a God or Gods to lead them to their understanding. I strive to be one of them, but I know I’m not even in the same ballpark (probably not even the same sport) given the stains on my personal record. But it’s worth noting that those kinds of people do exist, and I admire them.
elchubs
Maybe in the delicious cookies that the WH cafeteria bakes up…I have a friend thats a steward and she brought some home. Man are they scrumptious.
Zifnab
Maybe that’s what happened. God put GWB in the White House, then called it a day and punched out.
Cassidy
Preaching love is not the same as preaching pacifism.
Cassidy
I respect your right to have them. Same as I respect the right of a white supremicist to hate non-whites. There is nothing out there that says I have to recpect the substance of those beliefs.
Belief systems, like pacifism and socialism, that rely on the inherent goodness of people, inevitably fail. They require a faith in altruistic actions, that does not exist in our species. We are what we are.
John S.
Clearly you do not have the first clue about what Jesus preached. Especially when you make completely moronic statements like:
Equating pacifism with racism is complete absurdity. I mean really, you have gone way beyond the rhetorical pale with that one. But then again, you generally seem to have no clue what the fuck you are talking about:
So now socialism is just like pacifism, too? I guess Nazism is the same as pacifism, also! Nonetheless, like your complete and total misunderstanding of Jesus’ teachings, you are not familiar with the tenets of pacifism. It does not rely on a belief in the goodness of others – because pacifists aren’t stupid, they know what people are – it is the belief in the goodness in yourself.
Is there any concept here that you can manage to get right?
Cassidy
Oh so angry…those pacifist tendencies don’t mean much do they. lol
Actually I do. I’m very familiar with the teachings of Jesus. You must be one of those Conservative Christians who insist that only your version of the bible is right.
Not really. They’re both belief systems that you have the right to practice, but are inherently filled with half truths and bullshit.
See above statement.
You really are quite dogmatic. Are you aure you’re not a conservative? You speak with the same venom as they do.
Bruce Moomaw
The Washington Post points out that the White House itself has already blown up Confed. Yankee’s defense of it — by now admitting that it’s considering not allowing Petraeus or Crocker to give the testimony in public at all! Instead, the public testimony would all be delivered by Condi and Gates, with Petraeus and Crocker only being allowed to give “a private Congressional briefing”. So, at least on this one, the Bush Administration has come out for Truth In Packaging, so to speak.
John S.
Cassidy Says:
Wake me up when you remove your Stupon-o-tron thinking helmet, courtesy of Dr. Stupid.
P.S. People who understand Jesus’ teachings wouldn’t characterize it as merely ‘preaching love’ (though it is one of several fruitages of the spirit, aka the beatitudes).
demimondian
Cassidy —
Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. “Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for another”, etc. “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” “Do you not think that I could summon seven legions of angels to defend me, if it were my will?” And on and on.
Sorry, but, no, Christ was indeed a pacifist. And as to your other “arguments”: “What profits it a man to gain the world, if he lose his soul?”
Rome Again
The problem, as I see it, is that I am a selfless person, and you are a selfish person. You are selfish in your desire to continue to exist and willing to do whatever it takes to keep yourself existing. I am not so concerned about keeping myself existing.
I see a higher priority in that situation, mainly, would I be proud of what I did if I felt I needed to control that situation? No, I wouldn’t, so I’d rather NOT control that situation. So, I may die, so what, death happens to us all eventually, and it happens to humans everyday.
I would feel much better in my choice of not putting up a fight than I would be of selfishly retaliating to maintain my existence.
As John S. said above, (paraphrasing) it is far more difficult to maintain composure under those circumstances and not retaliate than it is to retaliate. I choose to do the harder thing. Retaliation, to me, is a base reaction, not worthy of respect and I would rather not be associated with such base reactions.
Cassidy
If it’s convenient.
I disagree. There is more than one incident involving Jesus bieng less than pacifist. He was a man with a greater purpose and knew that acts of violence would not allow him to reach that goal.
Rick Taylor
I’m late to the party here, but what baffles me is why they didn’t let Gen. Petraeus give the report. He’s given optimistic scenarios consistently since the war began (why he’s become synonymous with objectivity is a mystery). I guess he wouldn’t be optimistic enough. Either that or they’re going to very cleverly back down and let him write the report, and use the critics own insistence against them.
–Rick Taylor
Rome Again
You know what Cassidy? I’m sick to death of you judging me for the fact that I have a life. Fuck that. You cannot expect me to go off trouncing to Iraq and leave my family behind. I am not an enlistee, and I should not be expected to leave my family to go off into a war zone.
You ask far too much there. I can care and do it from this side of the world.