I wouldn't trust a single thing a military officer says about anything, much less Iraq. Jennifer Lynch, Pat Tillman, Abu Gharib comes to mind as examples of the military propaganda machine.

Gen Pratraeus' report in Sept. is not his own work. The White House is composing it, with his input. How convenient.

Here is the real money quote

Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq's warring sects has created some tension within the White House.

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."

La Times is the source. Feel free to mock the source as I'm sure some here will, but the truth is sometimes unpleasant to digest.

Well last i checked the military are the people fighting the war. Obviously you have made up your mind as a lib and nothing including reality will change it.

Thanks for once again informing and reminding us how open-minded you liberals are.

Gene, the Pat Tillman fiasco is a real embarrassment but like the Abu Ghraib news story, the real story came out as a result of internal military investigations. So your little slam is founded on some sort of myth in your mind that the military, as an institution, covered up these scandals, and the truth was revealed despite the institution. Just not true.

Amazing. We are at war and an entire political party is checking the polls to see if they should support the effort. The GOP certainly has been responsible for alot of whimpyness, but at least SOME of their people have actually led on this issue, even when it wasn't so politically advantageous to do so.

My heart aches for the America that, once upon a time, united with the understanding that politics stopped at the waters edge. Criminy, what a disgrace so many of our "leaders" have become that they can actively, and unabashedly, work for the defeat of their own country in a war against such evil as the mass murdering, child molesting scum that is our enemy. And as you all know, if things continue in a positive direction, more of the treasonous cowards like dink turbin and others will join in as if they supported their country all along, and their moronic electorates will swallow it hook, line and sinker. Pathetic. We really do get the gov. we deserve. Problem is, those serving in uniform don't, and my guess is, most of them didn't ask for the likes of hussien "our soldiers air raid and kill innocents" osama-obama, or his partners in treason in the US congress.

In my perfect world, there would be one hell of a war crimes trial, with jon f'n kerry "reporting for doo-doo" at center stage, for the befefit of all who seek justice in this twisted up, morally decrepit shadow of a nation that once was. Or maybe we're all more like those serving, I don't know, the body-count media has infected my sunny nature with their never ending series of negative stories from a negative, anti-American point of view.
Help!

Since Der Spiegel and AP have already given some credence to what Patraeus has been telling us, don't you think it's a bit pre-mature to call him a liar for the White House.

God the liberal paranoia is extreme, isn't it?

Poor old genie. Just like all the "happy" lefties from Mexiforna.

The left is very indebted to the anti-war crowd at this point. True, it makes no sense to lose a war, especially this war, especially considering the long-term consequences.

But the left hasn't been about the long term in a very long time. It's been more concerned with getting votes. That's all that's important, and anything at all can be sacrificed to that and anything is justifiable in the pursuit of power. So lies, false promises, misrepresentations of the truth - it's all in a day's work and necessary.

Gen. Patraeus... he'll be a target starting about a week or so before his testimony. I'm sure even now there's groups frantically combing every bit of his record and history looking for one damning bit that can be used to discredit him and discount anything that looks like progress in Iraq. And if there isn't anything usable, figure Abu Grabass and Pat Tillman will undergo the spin treatment.

Because we cannot be allowed to win. BUSH cannot be allowed to win. We MUST lose - and the anti-war politicians be vindicated - or else the Democrats who've tied themselves so solidly to the anti-war crowd will have their support from the reasonable middle cut.

Without that support - they're screwed. The Democratic Party will have very little traction if they don't manage to force a loss, and they know it.

Ouch. This is gonna hurt. Sorry libs.
And whoever quoted the LA Times, I leave you with this:

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Thanks for the laugh.

jhow, I am actually in Arizona, but nice attempt at a personal smear.

Seems to be plenty of personal attacking around here, yet no one can refute the notion that this surge report is just another example of the White House trying to control the message and slant it in their favor.

Petraus is just another general in a long line of them since this whole Iraq war started. How many have come and gone?

Who were the ones that told Bush what he didn't want to hear, and then they got sacked?

There was a report prepared months before we actually invaded Iraq by the US Army War College in Carlisle PA. It's still online and I encourage anyone to read it.

It breaks down the scenario of what will happen if we invaded Iraq, and it's chilling to read the warnings about certain situations that we have seen come to exist.

Did anyone in the White House
read this report and take it to heart?

Just go back in history; how many times has any nations successfully occupied any other nation?

Our presence in Iraq only fuels the fire. There will be a bloody civil war, and why should our troops act like some confused cop? Whose side do we take?

Gene says:

"I wouldn't trust a single thing a military officer says about anything, much less Iraq."

And yet, "Here is the real money quote (?)

Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress." Do you trust them or don't you? Be consistent with your argument.

Even the Dems are saying the surge is working.

And please post the source of your quotes, its just more polite to do for the author.

"but the truth is sometimes unpleasant to digest"

So true Genie, the truth of a possible "Positive" report will give a whole TRUCKLOAD of Libbies indigestion!

Uh geno from Mexizona where do you get all your info. You are coming across as one of those pimpleface nerds that tries to make out that you should be consulted by the goverment before they do anything.Gives us your sources. LA Times is used to line pig pens so there goes your only source given. But then just like all those that want us to lose so they can say "I told you so", everything is judged before it starts. Come on ,tell us how you got all this inside dope. That way we could get our info straight from the horse's mouth instead of some horse's ass such as you. Opps, there I go again with a personal attack. Damn getting just like those that call our Prez every name in the book. Shucks

And whoever quoted the LA Times, I leave you with this:

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha...

It was Gene, who admits to living in Arizona. But he has to use the LA Times, because his state paper, The Repugnant has even less credibility than the LA Times.

Seems to be plenty of personal attacking around here

Gene supports those lying scums in the military. Gene supports every last dishonest one of them, really he does.

Gene:

I wouldn't trust a single thing a military officer says about anything, much less Iraq. Jennifer Lynch, Pat Tillman, Abu Gharib comes to mind as examples of the military propaganda machine.

Well now we know where you stand... puzzle me this?

Just who would you trust speaking to the issue involved? DKos? DUmmies? Atrios? A. Sullivan? Olberman? Sen. Reid? Murtha? Pelosi?

Just who DO YOU believe Gene?

Gene:

jhow, I am actually in Arizona, but nice attempt at a personal smear.

A FAR better attempt, a successful one, at smearing the military!

Just go back in history; how many times has any nations successfully occupied any other nation?

Ummm... how about Japan. We didn't even turn over sovereignty of Okinawa until 1972.

That aside Iraq isn't under "occupation." Both the Iraqi gov AND the U.N. has authorized the U.S. to be there.

Gene... don't look now but:

1910 - 45: During its occupation, Japan built up Korea's infrastructure, especially the street and railroad systems. However, the Japanese ruled with an iron fist and attempted to root out all elements of Korean culture from society. People were forced to adopt Japanese names, convert to the Shinto (native Japanese) religion, and were forbidden to use Korean language in schools and business. The Independence Movement on March 1, 1919, was brutally repressed, resulting in the killing of thousands, the maiming and imprisoning of tens of thousands, and destroying of hundreds of churches, temples, schools, and private homes. During World War II, Japan siphoned off more and more of Korea's resources, including its people, to feed its Imperial war machine. Many of the forced laborers were never repatriated to Korea.

Gene is another example of the liberal hatred for all things military. The liberals will stand by and watch the terrorists come into our country to "convert"us of kill us. The liberals will think all they have to do is talk to them. Discuss their feelings. Then they will be dead. ww

The guys at the L.A. Times are seriously afraid that Petraeus might have something positive to say, so they have a nice anonymously sourced pre-emptive strike printed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?page=2&coll=la-home-center

Egads.....

oh, and by the way. it has been proven that there is no civil war. Al qaeda has created a front group to try to get a civil war going, or at the very least make sure it looks like there is a civil war.

nice try, but once again you libs are buying into the islamo-fascist propaganda instead of believing the people on our side of the struggle. grow up and grow a pair.

Uh, Patraeus? I believe the general's name is Petraeus. If you're going to place your trust in somebody, at least spell his name right, eh?

gene,what a dumb ass. get out of your mom and daddys basement.

The problem is evident: The Left has no knowledge of history.

"Just go back in history; how many times has any nations successfully occupied any other nation?"

History is nothing but a LONG SERIES of successful occupations! It is much harder to find a nation that is not the product of an occupation. OK, there's Iceland... probably a few island nations in the Pacific... that's about it.

If you are asking, "how many times has a nation sucessfully occupied any other AND THEN re-established it as a sovereign nation, voluntarily, well, then it's mostly limited to the nations occupied over the past century by the US: Germany, Italy, etc. Prior to that, the general rule was, you conquer it, you keep it.

If you are under the Leftist illusion that for some reason, native "insurgencies" always win, well, the descendants of the Seminoles, Sioux, Apache, and Nez Perce can straighten you out on that point.

Or are we working under the other great Leftist illusion of history: When Brown People do it to other Brown People, it's not conquest/colonization/occupation/imperialism?

Ben

"Just go back in history; how many times has any nations successfully occupied any other nation?"

Just more testimony of the reprehensible state of our leftist-labor union controlled public school system.

Not to mention the fact that the Iraqi government wants us there so only a terrorist supporter (someone who wants the US to loose) would call this an "occupation".

Everyone,

For those who don't think the lefty trolls attend seminars on what to do at center-right blogs, witness the voting on the above posts. Could they be manufacturing "evidence" that we're all just mind-numbed robots ? I don't know, but after seeing what they did at this post about Mrs. Bill Clinton, it's hard to believe they're not doing stuff like that.

Or, I might just have too much time on my hands. That's it, time to get back to work...

Uh....if what Petraeus has to say is so positive and uplifting, why is the WH seeking to make his
report to Congress in CLOSED SESSION?

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

If Gen. Petraeus were to announce failure and pronounce Iraq a total loss in Spetember, the left would fall to their knees to worship him as they do Shinseki, Clark, and John theTraitor Kerry.

Gene:

I wouldn't trust a single thing a military officer says about anything,

Check - all military officers are liars about everything. Nice, Gene. Can you tell us the one now about how you support the troops ? I could use a good laugh.

if what Petraeus has to say is so positive and uplifting, why is the WH seeking to make his
report to Congress in CLOSED SESSION?

Yeah. Whew. I can't think of a single reason why an army theater-commander would report to Congress on highly sensitive aspects of his ongoing strategic planning behind closed doors.

SS

Yeah. Whew. I can't think of a single reason why an army theater-commander would report to Congress on highly sensitive aspects of his ongoing strategic planning behind closed doors.

Well, too bad you weren't there to advise Bush when he signed legislation that requires Petraeus to testify in open Congress prior to the delivery of the report.

The rumored suggestion from the White House, reported by Democrats in Congress anonymously, is that Petraeus testify in closed session, but that the Secretary of State and Defense present the progress report in open session.

This has some good arguments in its favor, including that the good general should not be forced to endure an insulting tirade from Democrats when that's the job of the civilian leadership of the military.

Semantocleo:

Uh....if what Petraeus has to say is so positive and uplifting, why is the WH seeking to make his
report to Congress in CLOSED SESSION?

As already noted, maybe, just maybe so he can disclose classified material, tactics and future plans?

Maybe?

Brian:

Well, too bad you weren't there to advise Bush when he signed legislation that requires Petraeus to testify in open Congress prior to the delivery of the report.

And do you have evidence that won't happen? Can you say for sure there won't be more than one briefing, one classified and one not? Of course you don't your taking a shot in the dark just to fling crap.

That aside, I'll ask to what was asked of barney, do you honestly believe certain segments of those receiving the brief WON'T make a beeline to the first microphone like blithering idiots?

And do you have evidence that won't happen?

No I don't. Nor did I say it won't. Did you actually read my post, or is your question just a reflexive attack?

do you honestly believe certain segments of those receiving the brief WON'T make a beeline to the first microphone like blithering idiots?

Well since the first blithering idiots to run to the microphone with the report will be the White House team, no, I wouldn't be surprised if other blithering idiots (Democrats and Republicans alike) followed suit.

Well since the first blithering idiots to run to the microphone with the report will be the White House team, no, I wouldn't be surprised if other blithering idiots (Democrats and Republicans alike) followed suit.

At least Bush is smarter than Brian, Obama, Reid/Pelosi.

BTW, Looks like the terrorists are trying to blow up more women and children so that Reid/Pelosi and their liberal enablers can claim that the surge has failed. Wonder when they will jump on this news

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08162007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/killing_for_congress_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
KILLING FOR CONGRESS
IRAQ'S LATEST MASSACRES

Brian:

No I don't. Nor did I say it won't. Did you actually read my post, or is your question just a reflexive attack?

A question is a "reflexive attack?" See your dermatologist he may have something for that thin skin.

Brian is simply trying to distract the thread from the great jon Patreus has done. He is simply a spinner.

A question is a "reflexive attack?"
-------------------------------------
Brian is trying to project his own cheap tactic on others.

Looks like CNN is doing another push poll to discredit Patreus. Is this a concerted effort from the left to make sure that we fail in Iraq? I guess the terrorists will probably try to commit more genocide for Reid and Pelosi.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/6916f25e-f3cd-4f3b-9e14-adca8a4964ce

"Interesting" poll LAI.

Wonder why in a sample so small, just over a thousand, some questions were only asked of half of them.

Excuse me if I raise a red flag.

So I notice everyone called Gene a name, but no one bothered to respond to his point that the whitehouse not the general is writing this report. Typical.

One question for mixti-where in the he-double-l do you think they will get the info to write the report? To save you the trouble of answering I will write what you are going to say-they will make it up. Just can't stand anything postive about the war can you?

Mixti the liberal idiot: "So I notice everyone called Gene a name, but no one bothered to respond to his point that the whitehouse not the general is writing this report. Typical."

Gee, um, maybe the White House will be writing the report because the legislation passed by the Democrats in Congress MANDATES that THE PRESIDENT report back to Congress in September.

So, in accordance with the Democrat Congress passed legislation, the President will deliver it's report to congress.

Of course, the President will make both the Iraqi Ambassador AND Gen Petraeus available to testify before Congress (both in public and in private, as Congress sees fit.)

Mixti, like most idiotic libs, has a hard time reading and comprehending legislation.

Typical.

Mixti:

So I notice everyone called Gene a name, but no one bothered to respond to his point that the whitehouse not the general is writing this report. Typical.

And you didn't either.

So your point is?

As I pointed out on another thread:

The leaders of Congress don't have to let General Petraeus testify in private if they don't want to.

Typical of the left... blame the President for what the Congress does. Apparently the loyal fellow travelers of the left don't comprehend the difference.

So, all you lefties up in arms about General Petraeus testifying in private... talk to the leaders of Congress, from the Party of the Donkey. They're the ones permitting it.

Ivan Drago,

Thanks for proving my point that people such as yourself are basically too stupid to do anything but ad hominem attacks by launching an ad hominem attack. Typical. :)

In fariness you did attempt to make an argument (after your attack) so thanks for the laugh I needed it.

Now to answer the silly rambling thing you wrote after your attack.

If you have been following the news, you may have noticed that the whitehouse keeps telling everyone to wait for the general's report. In doing so, they are framing the stay or go in Iraq debate, as something that should be determined by expert on the ground opinion, and not as a partisan move coming from either the whitehouse or congress.

However, this is less than honest when it turns out that we are not getting the General's actual opinion on the matter but the presidents.

This is significant because the president has lost credability with most of the american people and it is important that the whitehouse keep the American people beleiving that an objective third party is coming up with this report and not the people who were wrong about WMDs, who said the war would cost peanuts, who said that the insurgency was in it's last throes, who said a few ears ago trust us we are winning, and so on and so on.

Now your point is that the excutive is required to write this report, well if that is the case why not let the excutive take credit for his work and quit calling it Patraeus's report?

I tell you why because it is a manipulative political ploy to make it look like Bush is following his general's recomendations and not the other way around, and if you had a shred of intellectual honesty (made myself laugh again thinking about the notion) you would probably admit it. You don't though and so we must move on.

Now that I have dispelled your silly attempt at a debate and shredded the less than thought out arguments of yours I must move on to other things.

Good day.

-m

Mixti is using the liberal tactic of cut-and-run again. Mixti, using your very own standard, the dem congress and the liberal media have lost credibility with American people. And this is just another example of a cynical dishonest ploy used by the liberal left to discredit Patreus.

In other words, we should treat the claim of the dems and their liberal allies in the media as false given their not-so-honest record.