Petreaeus report, not exactly the Petraeus report

[Smash255]

Well according to what I just saw on MSNBC the so called September Petraeus report that we are all suppose to be waiting for is not the Petraeus report after all.  He is not writing or authoring the report instead its coming directly from the White House.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I can't wait for the Democrats to capitulate to Bush yet again.

[bullmoose88]

I can't wait for the Democrats to capitulate to Bush yet again.

Someone needs to stand up to that lame duck.

[King]

THE OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE REPORT

The Good:  We are working on getting air conditioning in all the government offices.

The Bad:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CENSOREDxFORxNATIONALxSECURITYxPURPOSES
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Frodo]

Petraeus shouldn't even waste his energy trying to persuade anyone.  Even if the report in question was his, and it gave solid evidence for progress in Iraq and thus a reason for hope that the surge strategy had worked, I somehow doubt anyone's minds here will be changed regarding the war in Iraq.  Opinions have hardened to the point at which withdrawal will occur sooner rather than later, either by a veto-proof majority in Congress or with the inevitable occupancy of the White House by a Democratic administration after January 20, 2009. 

[tik 🪀✨]

Petraeus shouldn't even waste his energy trying to persuade anyone.  Even if the report in question was his, and it gave solid evidence for progress in Iraq and thus a reason for hope that the surge strategy had worked, I somehow doubt anyone's minds here will be changed regarding the war in Iraq.  Opinions have hardened to the point at which withdrawal will occur sooner rather than later, either by a veto-proof majority in Congress or with the inevitable occupancy of the White House by a Democratic administration after January 20, 2009. 

Probably, but the Democrats would do well to act forcefully to give the public faith in them. Right now they're acting like a bunch of pussies.

[Boris]

He is not writing or authoring the report instead its coming directly from the White House.

lol

[MODU]

Well, I'm not sure what was on MSNBC, but a news article on the NASDAQ site is reporting that Petraeus is considering a partial troop withdraw and will present it to Congress when he comes back next month.

General David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq on Wednesday said that he was preparing recommendations on troop reductions out of several areas where he believes security has improved before he returns to Washington next month to present a long-awaited status report on the war for the Congress.

...

Gen. Petraeus predicted the US presence in Iraq would have to be "a good bit smaller" by next summer. The withdrawals could occur very soon, even as fresh US forces continue to arrive in Iraq. However, Gen. Petraeus cautioned against a quick or significant US withdrawal that could surrender the "gains" the US troops have fought so hard to achieve.

(Cont...)

[nlm]

Not only is the White House preparing this report, they don't even want to let Patraeus talk about in an open session of Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081501281.html?hpid=topnews

It kind of makes you wonder why.

[MODU]

Not only is the White House preparing this report, they don't even want to let Patraeus talk about in an open session of Congress.

I have no problems with a public session followed by a closed door session, as long as Congressmen on both sides realize when Petraeus says "We will discuss that in the next session," they stop asking the same questions and/or jumping to conclusions in their typical showboating style in front of the cameras.  There will be a lot that Petraeus can report on, but due to the classified nature of it, it can't be discussed in a public hearing.  No matter what though, there will be a closed door session, just for that purpose.  I do believe though that it would be in the Administrations favor for him to do a public session since it would take away a lot of fuel from the immediate withdraw crowd within Congress.  As far as the White House report goes, that was part of the agreement, so that was going to happen anyway and shouldn't be a surprise.

[nlm]

Not only is the White House preparing this report, they don't even want to let Patraeus talk about in an open session of Congress.

I have no problems with a public session followed by a closed door session, as long as Congressmen on both sides realize when Petraeus says "We will discuss that in the next session," they stop asking the same questions and/or jumping to conclusions in their typical showboating style in front of the cameras.  There will be a lot that Petraeus can report on, but due to the classified nature of it, it can't be discussed in a public hearing.  No matter what though, there will be a closed door session, just for that purpose.  I do believe though that it would be in the Administrations favor for him to do a public session since it would take away a lot of fuel from the immediate withdraw crowd within Congress.  As far as the White House report goes, that was part of the agreement, so that was going to happen anyway and shouldn't be a surprise.

The politics of this really doesn't concern me - nor does which "side" can gain an advatage from it. I think the America people are owed an assessment of the situation in Iraq by David Patraeus that is unfiltered by the people in the White House. After all, they are footing the bill for this and some are sending their children to fight there as well. The only way they are going to get such an assessment is in an open hearing.

I'll agree that some questions need to be reserved for a closed session. I think gravity of the situation in Iraq makes it worth spending the time to have both an open and a closed session.

In regard to Senators grandstanding; I think most of them believe they get payed by the tax payers to grandstand, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the day that ends.

[MODU]

In regard to Senators grandstanding; I think most of them believe they get payed by the tax payers to grandstand, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the day that ends.

One could hope.  I think one of the biggest mistakes was allowing video press coverage of Congressional hearings.  Just as I'm not a fan of cameras in the courts, having them in Congress serves more as a distraction than anything.

[nlm]

In regard to Senators grandstanding; I think most of them believe they get payed by the tax payers to grandstand, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the day that ends.

One could hope.  I think one of the biggest mistakes was allowing video press coverage of Congressional hearings.  Just as I'm not a fan of cameras in the courts, having them in Congress serves more as a distraction than anything.

If grandstanding is the price we pay for the people of this country to know a bit more about their government, then it is a price I am willing to pay. In an ideal world (IMO) people would actually read a newspaper, but since that doesn't happen for the most part - video images are the default means of information gathering. It's a shame, but it is the way that it is.

[angus]

Well according to what I just saw on MSNBC the so called September Petraeus report that we are all suppose to be waiting for is not the Petraeus report after all.  He is not writing or authoring the report instead its coming directly from the White House.

Well, I got some "Texas chili" that was made in New Jersey, some Buffalo wings made in Iowa, and I'm pretty sure I saw a liquore store selling Champaign that's not really from the Champaign region of France.  Hell, it's not even from Champaign, Illinois.

It's all about the marketing.  Be honest, doesn't "Petraeus report" sounds so much better than "The president's take on what you should think about the current situation in Iraq" does?

Try on some of these creative monikers, going back nearly two decades:

"Operation Infinite Justice"
"operation desert fox"
"operation desert shield"
"operation desert storm"
"operation desert sabre"
"Operation Enduring Freedom"
"operation restore hope"
"operation deny flight"
"operation essential harvest"
"operation focus relief"
"operation lifeline sudan"
operation provide comfort"
"operation infinite reach"

very good marketing, if you ask me.  and those were real names given to real conquests.  this is just a report.

[Lief 🗽]

So, the White House is taking military intelligence, putting their spin on it, and presenting it to the Congress as fact? Well, good thing the White House would never lie about military intelligence concerning Iraq. Never, ever.

[MODU]

Well according to what I just saw on MSNBC the so called September Petraeus report that we are all suppose to be waiting for is not the Petraeus report after all.  He is not writing or authoring the report instead its coming directly from the White House.

Turns out the MSNBC report (or your interpretation of) is wrong.  After doing some reading in the legislation itself:

"Amendment 2 to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2206" - Starting on page 25:

(2) REPORTS REQUIRED.—
(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific bench marks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.
(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces- Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.
(C) If the President’s assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report, the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.
(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.
(E) The reporting requirement detailed in section 1227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 is waived from the date of the enactment of this Act through the period ending September 15, 2007.

The report to be submitted to Congress is from the President, not from the General himself.

Not only is the White House preparing this report, they don't even want to let Patraeus talk about in an open session of Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081501281.html?hpid=topnews

It kind of makes you wonder why.

(3) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS.—Prior to the submission of the President’s second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.

Looks like our wish is true, that they will present both open and closed session hearings.  The White House has said that both presentations will occur.

"White House Denies It Considered Giving Iraq Testimony Privately in September"

"Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will testify to the Congress in both open as well as closed sessions prior to the Sept. 15 report. That has always been our intention," Johndroe said, speaking to reporters at President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where the president is vacationing.

"And I think it's unfortunate that anyone would suggest that (Petraeus and Crocker) would not do that, trying to start a fight where there really isn't one, because this has always been plan, and in fact, it's even called for in the legislation," Johndroe added.

When a reporter followed up at the ranch with a question about the White House possibly arranging for a closed session, Johndroe said: "No, no." And asked if he was denouncing the Post's story, Johndroe said: "Yes. Although I don’t — I won't use that term that you used. I just don't think it's correct."

[nlm]

MODU,

You may want to go back and look at how Bush has presented this September report. Granted, it was always going to be a White House report, but I don't think their's much question that their were numerous folks trying to get a bit of extra milage out of this by making it sound like it was going to be all about David Patreaus.

It's all about reading the fine print with the group that currently sits in the White House. It never seems to be about getting a clear picture out to the American people, it always seems to about getting the image across that the administration wishes and then having the fine print or some form of plausible deniability to fall back on. That's a really crap way to lead, and they have done it for so long the American people have, for the most part, stopped trusting them.

CNN reported that polling they had done ( transcript at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/16/ldt.01.html )  found that only 43% of Americans even trusted David Patreaus to report honestly in September, and the poll was taken when most people were still thinking that the report that Bush and many members of the GOP were refering to as the "David Patreaus report" would be largly constructed by David Patreaus and his staff - not the White House.

[MODU]

As you can see by the poll (for what it's worth) info, it wasn't really going to make much of a difference anyway.

Poll info:

Do you favor/oppose the US war in Iraq?
Favor - 33%
Oppose - 64%

Do you think the US military is/is not making progress in Iraq?
Progress - 47%
No progress - 49%

If the US commander in Iraq reports the US is making progress in Iraq in September, will it effect your view of the war?
Yes - 28%
No - 72%

Do you trust the US commander to report what is really going on in Iraq?
Yes - 43%
No - 53%

[nlm]

As you can see by the poll (for what it's worth) info, it wasn't really going to make much of a difference anyway.

Poll info:

Do you favor/oppose the US war in Iraq?
Favor - 33%
Oppose - 64%

Do you think the US military is/is not making progress in Iraq?
Progress - 47%
No progress - 49%

If the US commander in Iraq reports the US is making progress in Iraq in September, will it effect your view of the war?
Yes - 28%
No - 72%

Do you trust the US commander to report what is really going on in Iraq?
Yes - 43%
No - 53%

That's what I was getting at when I refered to the "fine print" nature of this White House. They have put themselves in a position where it's next to impossible for them to shape public opinion in a meaningful way - because people, rightfully, don't trust them to speak the truth in a clear fashion. And that's the very obvious reason why many folks in the White House were doing what they could (without coming out and directly lying) to make it sound like the report was being issued by Patraeus not the White House. Not many folks are going to believe them because of past obfuscation, so it's just one more reason for them to continue to obfuscate.

The only thing people are going to treat a White House report from Bush as is as a political document.

[Angel of Death]

I can't wait for the Democrats to capitulate to Bush yet again.

Don't you realize that it's their (cynical) plan to give Bush enough rope to hang himself with while at the same time trying to prevent a future "stabbed-in-the-back" legend?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I can't wait for the Democrats to capitulate to Bush yet again.

Don't you realize that it's their (cynical) plan to give Bush enough rope to hang himself with while at the same time trying to prevent a future "stabbed-in-the-back" legend?

I believe that the Democrats aren't a bunch of capitulating losers if they actually accomplish something for once.