Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Speaking of Pelosi: Remember her visit to Syria? You might like this related post:
http://burkeanreflections.blogsp...o-
damascus.html
I am heading to bed, but I WILL link to that on the morning..great!!!
And these...
http://takeourcountryback-snoope...bel/Logan%
20Act
xxxxmullah cimoc say now total war news blockade for keep ameriki so stupid and the uninform. then him listen woman war correspondent.
usa face the destruct (maybe the earthquaking) unless change media method in usa, let only him local resident buy stock in owning tv station company. for example: only tampa, fl. resident allow buy stock in tampa tv station and no ne more than 5%. not the out of state or multinaltional corp to own local tv station.
then local own local tv stations to form own network get rid of israeli spy networks now so distorting news for make ameriki stupid, to love the torture, hate the muslim, love it homosexual, hate the god, love the LBT (low back tattoo), hate the grandchild.
this mother nature way for punish ameriki for be so greed and like too much him 7-11 cheese nacho and sex pill vigara.
huh????
You're about as foreign as I am, "mullah." I've seen broken English and talked to more people that actually DO speak broken English than you'll ever have any idea, you come across poorly in trying to pass yourself off as not comprehending the language.
If you can't present yourself in a coherent manner if you next comment here, don't bother commenting at all. None of the rest of us are going to BOTHER trying to decypher your phony middle eastern way of wording things.
TRANSLATION: I see right through your fake ass.
LOLOL
I ain't the Hawk for nuttin, you know...
It is the SAME crap as that canary troll.
Perhaps the reason people feel the need to point out that the upcoming Iraq progress report is coming from the administration rather than from Petraeus and Crocker is because it has been referred to as the Petraeus report by so many for so long. The administration has repeatedly referred to it as the Petraeus report and alternately the Petraeus-Crocker report in an effort to imbue it with more credibility than a report originating from the administration.
A few examples from the August 1st press briefing by Tony Snow.
MR. SNOW: Well, I think the first thing you ought to do is take a look again at the report that was filed to Congress, the interim reported July 15th -- no sugarcoating there. You take a look -- and they try to use real metrics on it. General Petraeus is a serious guy who sees his mission not as a political mission, but, in fact, as somebody who reports facts. Now, let us keep in mind that the full burden of this report does not fall on his shoulders. A lot of the key judgments, especially about politics, will fall on Ambassador Crocker. So this is -- although I know a lot of people talk about "the Petraeus report," in fact, you have a report that is a joint report by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. And so we trust him.
…..
Q The reason people talk about the Petraeus report isn't because his name is more alliterative and nice-sounding, it's because the administration, when it talks about Iraq, mentioned Petraeus's name dozens and dozens and dozens of times, and mentions Crocker's name many fewer.
MR. SNOW: Well, actually, if you go back and look at the transcripts from this podium for the last month, you will find that they've been mentioned in tandem when it comes to these reports.
…..
Q Two questions, Tony. To what extent was the Vice President pre-writing the Petraeus report or setting expectations when he said he thinks it's going to show progress?
MR. SNOW: No, I don't think he's pre-writing it. Look, again, the one thing -- if you talk to military guys, the last thing they want to do is get themselves embroiled in politics. What they try to do is to play it straight and to do it straight. And obviously the Vice President has his impressions based on what he's seen, but we're going to have to wait to see what General Petraeus has to report.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...20070801- 3.html
I would be willing to bet that if a poll of the American people had been taken last week (or even this week) and it was asked who was writing the upcoming Iraq progress report a considerable majority would say Gen. Petraeus. This is in no small part due to comments by the administration like those I listed above. If you think this is an accident you are every bit as either dishonest or ignorant as you have accused other bloggers of being.
Petraeus and Crocker could have been tasked with writing the
Poor FishLipsWithGills...spin it all you want moron.
Read The Law and learn instead of spouting talking dulls which reveals your "udder" stupidity.
Trolls.
Morons all.
Then I would suggest they READ THE BILL that required the president to write the report as well as General Petraeus and Crocker to write their own to be submitted to the president so he CAN write it.
Ignorance is not an excuse to throw around accusations.
Congress knew this is what would happen, they are so heavily invested in defeat that they need to do everything they can to NOT let the American public know the truth or the progress that is being seen which was witnessed and spoken about by their own politicians.
grewgills. always with negative waves man. Get with the program or STFU.
I hate hippies............
Glad to see all of the substantive responses to my comment. It is refreshing to see that you all rely on careful argumentation backed up by evidence rather than relying on ad hominem and invective.
Then I would suggest they READ THE BILL that required the president to write the report as well as General Petraeus and Crocker to write their own to be submitted to the president so he CAN write it.
Your contention that the American people should have all read the bill is ridiculous. What percentage of the bills that have been enacted have you read? The poster readily admitted having a difficult time finding this provision in the 202 pages of the bill. Did you find it yourself or was it provided to you by someone else? If you did not read the full text of the bill you should be careful about demanding that of others.
The press and the administration have been telling all who would listen that this progress report was to be from Petraeus and Crocker. There is absolutely nothing wrong with correcting that bit of misinformation.
As for your contention that the bill calls for Petraeus and Crocker to write reports that will be submitted to the president, that is nowhere in the bill. The bill requires consultation. It does not specify what that consultation should entail.
Further the bill does not require that the report be written by the president (and I am certain that it will not be). It requires him to submit the report and for the report to contain his assessment of progress and revisions of strategy that are planned or implemented to meet any shortcomings. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that would prevent Petraeus and Crocker from writing the bulk of the report, nor is there anything in the bill to prevent the Gates, Rice, or Fallon from writing sections of the report. Bush could have tasked Petraeus and Crocker with writing the report or at least the bulk of it as the many statements by he and his staff implied that he had. He did not.
He and his staff continuously furthered the line that it would be the "Petraeus Report" or the "Petraeus-Crocker Report" rather than a report generated by his administration. In all honesty why do you think they did this?
BTW "Snooper", you've got no room to mock anyone's handle.
Any bill I speak about I read first...it is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. Yanno, learn about what you are saying before speaking of it.
Maybe your parents didn't teach you that, but mine did.
It is called research so that informed opinions can be made instead of UNINFORMED opinions.
Amazing how little common sense your last comment showed.
Do YOU often make comments before getting the "whole" story or forming opinions without doing research?
Do you not think that is irresponsible?
In this day and age of the internet, there is NO excuse NOT be informed about issues you "claim" concern you.
Spree, the troll is merely parroting that which ITS handlers instruct IT to do.
Trolls = automatons.
The trolls are also upset because OBL himself said today, in his own words, the democrats are liars.
Yes, then went on to repeat their talking points.
They deny they are emboldening the enemy, they are not only encouarging them, they are GIVING THEM THEIR TALKING POINTS TO USE.
Yeah!! Way to support our country Dems. Good work.
You have missed the point. Bush was tasked with having a report manufactured to meet the stated specifications. It was up to him to determine how to go about doing that. He was well within his rights to produce it in the way he chose to That is not the argument. The issue I have is with the administration pushing the upcoming Iraqi progress report as the "Petreaus' Report" for the past several months. They successfully convinced many people that it would be a report by Petraeus. The MSM also consistently referred to it as the "Petreaus Report" greatly contributing to this mistaken impression.The American people are not going to read every bill, even our legislature and president haven't read the entirety of every bill they vote on or sign into law. If it were not loudly voiced many people would continue to think that the report was indeed a report by Petreaus rather than what it is, a report by this administration. Why does it bother you that people are pointing this out?
"Bush was tasked..."?
Does anybody out there know what the hell this guy's talking about?
Who left the window open?
Is there a full moon tonight?
IHHR
LOL Roger, just added an update to this post for my "distinguished" (sarcasm) visitors, via site meter.
"Bush was tasked..."?
Does anybody out there know what the hell this guy's talking about?
as in Bush was given the task of...
or if it will help you understand:
Bush was told to manufacture a report.
If you have trouble understanding any of the rest I will be happy to help.
Spree,
Sarcasm is best when you point it out (sarcasm). Don't you agree?
Here is Petraeus and what HE says:
In a face to face interview with The Australian, General Petraeus described some of the dramatic changes in Iraq since the surge began.
They include but are not limited to:
**Dramatic reduction of sectarian killings.
**Drop in the number of roadside bombings.
**Killing or capturing of al-Qaeda fighters, causing the terrorist group to lose influence with local Sunnis.
**75 per cent reduction in religious and ethnic killings since last year.
**Doubling in the seizure of insurgents' weapons caches between January and August.
**US forces are pursuers instead of defenders.
**Religious-related deaths would be down to a quarter of what they were last December by the end of August.
Dr. Brendan Nelson, the Australian Defense Minister had this to say:
Dr Nelson, who went to Afghanistan and Iraq this week and is now in Washington, said General Petraeus had presented a detailed presentation on security inside the country.
"We finished our meeting with a very clear picture of his thinking of the assessment of the security situation, not just in Baghdad but also in the south and the work being done by us and the British," he said.
"No one should underestimate the importance to what is happening in Iraq of our contribution and the significance of it to the Americans and the Iraqis themselves.
"We will wait until we see the President's response to the report and we will shape our forward planning around that response.
"I think it is fair to say that we will continue to look for increased opportunities for training."
The Defence Minister said Australian forces were highly regarded as trainers and whenever he asked the Iraqis to nominate what they wanted they "always said training".
"Our support for continuing support and involvement in Iraq is a minority position but we have a moral responsibility to these people to see this job through," Dr Nelson said.
Wanna bet that Bush's report reflects that accurately?
It IS Petraeus and his "recommendations" that will be represented in the report and all your denial in the world cannot get around that.
More of what will be IN HIS report to the President which will be reflected in BUSH'S report:
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....-to-
troops.html
His letter to his troops.
In case you are REALLY this slow in the head, lets make it easy. HE will report to Bush, then Bush will write a report reflecting His and Crockers opinions.
Clear now?
What we are witnessing is the transition (finally) of peace time generals leading the military being replaced by wartime generals.
Unfortunately, the leftinistra can't HANDLE this transition, so we're seeing the "Grewgills" and his ilk coming back out of the woodwork.
I think somebody's trying really hard to be condescending -- but it just isn't working.
Does anybody out there know what the hell this guys talking about?
And, thank you, Growballs or whatever your name is, but I really don't need your help.
I'm just getting sick of reading anti-American rants from anti-American runts.
IHHR
Roger, HE doesn't even know what he's saying, you're asking US for interpretation?
LOLOL
To Nancy Pelosi, and you can pass this along to Harry Reid: You can keep on with your Communist inspired agenda all you want, you can try to make us believe that we are defeated, you can decry the mission of our military, but know this; any ONE private in the U.S Army or Marine Corps, any ONE Airman in the Air Force, any ONE sailor in the Navy, has more integrity and intestinal fortitude about them in their young lives than either of you have EVER had in yours.
Don't discount the veterans of this nation, either. We're on to you, and we're organizing to protest you, to condemn you, and may God have MERCY upon you if we can ever bring either of you to trial, because we're watching you, and we're making notes and keeping record of every traitorous thing you do...
Chivalry, Valor, and Honor are not dead, and there are those of us out here who WILL see to it that American does NOT fall into the hands of enemies either foreign OR domestic. We swore oaths to lay down our lives, if necessary, to defend our nation, our people, our way of life. Those oaths don't end at the departure from uniformed service. Those are oaths that follow us every day of our lives.
Well said Hawk.
BlueBallsGrowsGills is merely an MIT trainee that hasn't gotten the MIT diploma yet.
They get a series of colored ribbons when they repeat certain retarded ramblings. When the colors represents a rainbow, their multiple nics goes into a tophat for the eeny-meiny-moe selection process to see who gets to to be the MIT runner-ups.
The next step is to make a complete and total asshat of themselves.
As soon as the required hail mickeys are successfully completed, they are awarded the MIT of Leftinistra Duncehood.
Then they get hired by Salon or, 'Loon.
This troll here hasn't gotten its rainbow ribbons ribbon yet.
AMEN, Hawk!
Too bad some of our fellow veterans have shed their vows and oaths when they removed their uniforms.
They never had the heart or soul of the American fighting man, Snooper. The oath, to them, was nothing more than a few words so they could enlist for college funds, or because they had to say it when they were drafted.
Jeeez -- Snooper, you always do me one better.
I'm going to have to start getting up earlier in the morning.
And --- Right on Hawk!!
**Dramatic reduction of sectarian killings.
**75 per cent reduction in religious and ethnic killings since last year.
**Religious-related deaths would be down to a quarter of what they were last December by the end of August.
All of these bullet points refer to the same thing.
The GAO disagrees and the military refuses say how they arrived at this figure.
**Drop in the number of roadside bombings.
No non civilian cars allowed in an area can do that.
Iraq wide civilian death toll is actually up 20% since July, though they are down about 25% in Baghdad.
**Killing or capturing of al-Qaeda fighters, causing the terrorist group to lose influence with local Sunnis.
Al Quaeda's loss of influence has a dual cause and you mention neither. First, they misjudged the strength of tribal ties and overstepped (doing among other things attempting to force intermarriage where tribal laws did not allow it).
The second is the US bribing and arming local Sheiks, aka warlords.
"We finished our meeting with a very clear picture of his thinking of the assessment of the security situation, not just in Baghdad but also in the south and the work being done by us and the British," he said.
And what is happening in the South now?
**How many benchmarks have been met?
**What political progress has been made?
**How long do you think we should stay waiting for political progress? If no progress has been made in another six months should we stay? how about a year? six years? sixty?
What we are witnessing is the transition (finally) of peace time generals leading the military being replaced by wartime generals.
Brilliant! How long did that transition take in WWII?
If it had taken as long as you apparently think it has taken here we would not have had a single "wartime general" in WWII. Again, brilliant. Keep it up.
I'm just getting sick of reading anti-American rants from anti-American runts.
Can you point to anything in my comments that you referred to that is actually anti-American. Successfully do this and I will go and leave you to continue your mutual admiration society.
And again, what is wrong with correcting many peoples mistaken opinion about who is going to produce the September Iraq progress report?
As always it was illuminating to see the thoughtful commentary and well reasoned argument rather than reliance on childish personal attacks.
This is my final reply to grewgills. Anyone -- like Weed and Turbin and yourself -- who expend all of their energy attempting to discredit the integrity of a report -- which they have not even read yet -- from an American General on the field of battle leading our troops in a bloody war by coming up with endless conspiracy theory lunacies is not only anti-American but traitorous.
Any so-called American who tries to repeatedly to undermine the moral integrity of their own country, while their country is at war is a traitor.
Freedom of speech -- that America blessing which our brave soldiers are fighting for at this very moment -- does not mean that we have to listen to conspiracy theory rants from traitorous leftist jerks.
Bye.
And yes, I do prefer the company of our honest and well-informed mutual admiration society to the company of ant-American runts.
LOL Roger. Petraues has more honor and valor than the lot of them and the fact that in his letter to his soldiers, which we have the text of up in a post as well as what he sat down and told The Australian, lets us know exactly what his observations to the President will be.
They don't like the truth so they try to discredit the one man who knows exactly what is going on in Iraq.
It is an old game of theirs and one that isn't working at all.
Hawk stated, "We swore oaths to lay down our lives, if necessary, to defend our nation, our people, our way of life. Those oaths don't end at the departure from uniformed service. Those are oaths that follow us every day of our lives."
Exactly so Hawk. I do not recall receiving permission to disregard that oath. It was very serious the day it was administered and I swore to it...still is. I would rather die than break that oath.
Anyone -- like Weed and Turbin and yourself -- who expend all of their energy attempting to discredit the integrity of a report -- which they have not even read yet -- from an American General on the field of battle leading our troops in a bloody war by coming up with endless conspiracy theory lunacies is not only anti-American but traitorous.
This is an excellent illustration of my point. This conversation was initiated by people pointing out that the report was to be written by the administration, not Petraeus (or any other American General on or off the field of battle). A point no well informed person can dispute. Yet even at this late point in the conversation Roger is still convinced that the report will be written by Petraeus. Many people are still walking around with this bit of misinformation. What is wrong with setting the record straight?
A couple of things, Roger.
1) The administration will be writing the September Iraq progress report
2) Pointing that out is not a conspiracy theory. (Read the post that started this conversation)
3) Pointing out that the GAO report has come to different conclusions than the military has is also not a conspiracy theory. It is the truth.
A question for you to consider. How much confidence do you have in the Iraqi government?
They don't like the truth so they try to discredit the one man who knows exactly what is going on in Iraq.
So, now I am discrediting the general by pointing out that he is not going to write a report that he is not going to write? That's quite the case against me.
This is similar to a more cogent argument put forward by some others. The idea is that "the Left" is trying to preemptively discredit the report. And what has "the Left" actually done to discredit the report? They have pointed out that the upcoming Iraq progress will be written by the administration rather than by Petraeus, as many people (Roger et al) mistakenly believe. The really funny bit is that the people who most adamantly defend Bush and his policies acknowledge in making this charge that tying the report to this administration is the equivalent of discrediting it.
NO ONE said the General was going to write the report. The GENERAL will be issuing HIS report to Bush as well as Crocker and multiple other agencies and people for BUSH to write the report AS CONGRESS MANDATED AND HE SIGNED.
You will not be warned again about trying to distort what is written in the bill.... got it?
Read it, understand it. You have been used by people that claim false indignation and you have been busted.
Sorry, I failed to address the second half of Roger's comment above. I must've been distracted, you know us hippies and all our dope smoking.
Freedom of speech -- that America blessing which our brave soldiers are fighting for at this very moment -- does not mean that we have to listen to conspiracy theory rants from traitorous leftist jerks.
Freedom of speech is not what our troops are fighting for in Iraq. They are fighting to give breathing room for the Iraqi government to get the political work done to make real progress possible. Unfortunately for all concerned the Iraqi government doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry to do that. Another Friedman or two or three is not at all likely to change that. How long is long enough? If the Iraqi government doesn't get it together in a year should we stay? How about five years? twenty?
As far as my conspiracy theories, name one thing I have said that could be considered a conspiracy theory.
And political disagreement does not equal treason.
Finally Roger, you have shown exactly how well informed you are in your comment.
NO ONE said the General was going to write the report.
Really, no one? Not even the Press? Not even Tony Snow?
Again from the August 1st WH press briefing.
MR. SNOW: Well, I think the first thing you ought to do is take a look again at the report that was filed to Congress, the interim reported July 15th -- no sugarcoating there. You take a look -- and they try to use real metrics on it. General Petraeus is a serious guy who sees his mission not as a political mission, but, in fact, as somebody who reports facts. Now, let us keep in mind that the full burden of this report does not fall on his shoulders. A lot of the key judgments, especially about politics, will fall on Ambassador Crocker. So this is -- although I know a lot of people talk about "the Petraeus report," in fact, you have a report that is a joint report by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. And so we trust him.
…..
Q The reason people talk about the Petraeus report isn't because his name is more alliterative and nice-sounding, it's because the administration, when it talks about Iraq, mentioned Petraeus's name dozens and dozens and dozens of times, and mentions Crocker's name many fewer.
MR. SNOW: Well, actually, if you go back and look at the transcripts from this podium for the last month, you will find that they've been mentioned in tandem when it comes to these reports.
…..
Q Two questions, Tony. To what extent was the Vice President pre-writing the Petraeus report or setting expectations when he said he thinks it's going to show progress?
MR. SNOW: No, I don't think he's pre-writing it. Look, again, the one thing -- if you talk to military guys, the last thing they want to do is get themselves embroiled in politics. What they try to do is to play it straight and to do it straight. And obviously the Vice President has his impressions based on what he's seen, but we're going to have to wait to see what General Petraeus has to report.
I can go dig up plenty more. The fact is that there were regular statements coming out of the WH claiming or implying that the report would be written by Petraeus and the MSM consistently referred to it as the "Petraeus Report." This led to a widespread mistaken impression of who would be producing the report. Witness Roger on your site for more anecdotal evidence of this. (I notice you do not feel compelled to correct your loyal reader on this mistaken impression.)
That mistaken impression is being corrected. Why does this bother you so much?
And again I put the question to you. Why do you think the administration so consistently referred to it as the "Petraeus Report" rather than more correctly as their report or simply the September Iraq progress report?
Could it possibly be that they wanted to imbue t
Comment was cut off. The final sentence should read:
Could is possibly be that they (the administration) wanted to imbue it (the report) with Petraeus' credibility rather than their own?
I look forward to the well reasoned and thoughtful responses I have come to expect from you and your readers.
You dliberately ignore that HE IS REPORTING...to the president. nowhere does it say it will be WRITTEN. try again.
H.R.2206 :
(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 benchmarks 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.
The fact is Greggiepoo- If YOU had read the initial report, YOU would not have misinterpreted the President nor Snow's comments.
You would have seen Item (B) stating clearly that the president "having consulted with" the top personnel would be submitting his report.
Nothing says that those consultations would be in a written format.
Since Petraeus IS the commander on the ground, 90% of the presidents report will be from the "General Petraeus report", the other 10% will be from the furthermore, Petraeus WILL be submitting "his" report to Congress, live and in person and we already know what HIS suggestions to the president will be from his interview and his letter to the troops.
In a face to face interview with The Australian, General Petraeus described some of the dramatic changes in Iraq since the surge began.
They include but are not limited to:
**Dramatic reduction of sectarian killings.
**Drop in the number of roadside bombings.
**Killing or capturing of al-Qaeda fighters, causing the terrorist group to lose influence with local Sunnis.
**75 per cent reduction in religious and ethnic killings since last year.
**Doubling in the seizure of insurgents' weapons caches between January and August.
**US forces are pursuers instead of defenders.
**Religious-related deaths would be down to a quarter of what they were last December by the end of August.
(Continued on next comment)
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....-to-
troops.html
You, once again prove everything we say about liberals, all by your lonesome>
You cannot to admit YOUR shortcomings (you didn't read the initial bill) and you must assign blame to others (Bush and Snow) for YOUR lack of research and not reading the original bill because you cannot accept YOUR responsibility for not have read the initial report.
So YOU misunderstand things yet it is someone elses fault.
You dliberately ignore that HE IS REPORTING...to the president. nowhere does it say it will be WRITTEN. try again.
You would have seen Item (B) stating clearly that the president "having consulted with" the top personnel would be submitting his report.
Now your just being disingenuous. We all know that the report that was being talked about by the administration and the press in the quotes I provided (and many more) was the September Iraq progress report to Congress, not an internal report to the administration or Congressional testimony (though the latter is highly anticipated as well).
The fact is Greggiepoo- If YOU had read the initial report, YOU would not have misinterpreted the President nor Snow's comments.
.....
You cannot to admit YOUR shortcomings (you didn't read the initial bill) and you must assign blame to others (Bush and Snow) for YOUR lack of research and not reading the original bill because you cannot accept YOUR responsibility for not have read the initial report.
Is it your contention that it is the responsibility fo every American to read every bill that is passed into law?
The fact is that the vast majority of the people are not going to read even a small fraction of the thousands of pages of legislation that passes through congress every year. Even the people responsible for voting on it and signing it into law do not read most of it. We are supposed to have an adversarial press to look to the details that most will miss (and the people responsible for passing and signing the laws have staffs to look to the details for them). The press should have pushed on this point and they failed to do so and as a result many people were misinformed. That situation is being remedied. You seem quite upset about the people who are correcting the record on this particular and are defending the initial misdirection. Why?
Re: Reading the report
First, I read all relevant passages before I commented.
You had not read the entire bill before this became an issue. You did not even find these passages yourself. You were tipped of as to the location of the relevant passages by another blogger. It is your hobby to be a political commenter and you doubtless think of yourself as well informed yet you were not familiar with all the particulars until after this became an issue.
And again, the issue here is the opinion of the majority of Americans. Most Americans thought the September Iraq progress report would be coming from Petraeus. The administration, largely via Snow, furthered this misconception. The press also furthered this misconception. That the misconceptions of these many Americans is being remedied is a good thing is it not?
Since Petraeus IS the commander on the ground, 90% of the presidents report will be from the "General Petraeus report"
That is far from a given.
**Dramatic reduction of sectarian killings.
**75 per cen
Comment cut off. Continued below.
**Dramatic reduction of sectarian killings.
**75 per cent reduction in religious and ethnic killings since last year.
**Religious-related deaths would be down to a quarter of what they were last December by the end of August.
All three of these are essentially the same bullet point and this conclusion is contested by the GAO report. The methods used by the GAO in their analysis are open to scrutiny. The methods used by the military are not (not even to the GAO). Some of the methodology for differentiating sectarian vs non-sectarian killings that has come out seems a bit strained. (Bullet to the back of the head = sectarian, to the front = criminal)
Overall violent deaths are up ~20% country wide, though down ~25% in Baghdad.
**Drop in the number of roadside bombings.
When all civilian cars are prohibited in an area car bombings will indeed drop in frequency.
**Killing or capturing of al-Qaeda fighters, causing the terrorist group to lose influence with local Sunnis.
The cause of Al Qaeda's loss of influence is two fold. Al Qaeda seriously underestimated the importance of tribal ties in Iraq. They, among other things, attempted to force inter-marriage of Iraqi daughters with Al Qaeda fighters ( a common practice of theirs - witness Waziristan). This practice is not allowed by the Iraqi tribes and when they refused Al Qaeda's response was brutal. This arrogance and brutality drove many away from actual or tacit support of Al Qaeda. This was capitalized on by our military and the Sheiks (warlords) were given arms and lucrative construction contracts in exchange for cooperation against Al Qaeda. The immediate benefits of this are evident. I fear the long-term consequences of arming and enriching warlords. It doesn't seem to be a path towards lasting stability (witness Afghanistan).
**US forces are pursuers instead of defenders.
Really. Have we been defenders rather than pursuers for four years? If true what does that say about the people who formulated the first four years of our strategy?
So YOU misunderstand things yet it is someone elses fault.
And once again, the issue is what the majority of Americans understand. The American people were led to believe one thing when another was true. Perhaps every American should read every bill that is passed into law as is implicit in the argument you make. We would certainly be a more well informed electorate in that case, but that is entirely unrealistic. Barring every American reading every bill we rely on representatives in government and the press to read the bills for us. It is their job to condense this mountain of information into something digestible for the average person. When one of our representatives finds that many of us are misinformed on an issue it is their job to correct that misinformation. You seem intent on reserving all blame for the American people being misinformed on them for failing to read this bill and none of the blam
Comment cut off again. Is there a maximum posting length? If so, why does the preview allow for longer posts than can be published?
So YOU misunderstand things yet it is someone elses fault.
And once again, the issue is what the majority of Americans understand. The American people were led to believe one thing when another was true. Perhaps every American should read every bill that is passed into law as is implicit in the argument you make. We would certainly be a more well informed electorate in that case, but that is entirely unrealistic. Barring every American reading every bill we rely on representatives in government and the press to read the bills for us. It is their job to condense this mountain of information into something digestible for the average person. When one of our representatives finds that many of us are misinformed on an issue it is their job to correct that misinformation. You seem intent on reserving all blame for the American people being misinformed on them for failing to read this bill and none of the blame for the people who misinformed them, unless of course that person has a D after their name.
You have continuously failed to address my central thesis, that the issue is the mistaken impression of the bulk of the American people rather than the knowledge of any one particular person. At this point in the conversation I can only conclude it is because you have no answer.
BTW while my understanding is not at issue, I do not accept anything I hear from any politician at face value. I look for independent verification. While I do not have the time to read every bill, I do look to a wide number of sources on the several sides of issues that I care about and follow the trail to primary sources whenever possible.
Yes Greg there is, which is why you see me divide my comments up. Haloscan has their limits.
They were not LED to believe anything, those that misunderstood did so because they did NOT bother to read the original bill, if you cannot stop talking in circles after you have been answered MULTIPLE times and shown the facts of what was in the bill, then you are useless in a discussion.
YOU did not read the bill. YOU, because of that, made your judgments without all the information which WAS available but you did not BOTHER to find.
Whose fault is that? YOURS.
Quit trying to blame others because of YOUR shortcomings Greg, that will NOT be tolerated any longer.
Obviously you didn't look for independent verification or you would have read the bill to begin with.
I am not going to continue to go in circles with you, the bill has been quoted, you cannot admit to the fact that YOU and anyone else that misinterpreted comments, did NOT read the original bill to begin with.
Accept some responsibility instead of blaming others for your shortcomings.
Is it your contention that it is the responsibility fo every American to read every bill that is passed into law?
DAMN staright it is my contention Greg, if one expects to have an informed opinion, one must BEinformed... THAT is common sense.
I HAVE read the entire report, if you read my original post, I said, I was looking for that portion which I had seen before (when I read the whole boring thing) and Influence peddler has already blockquoted what I was hunting.
Aagain, you assume because you obviously did not read the whole original post.
You are sloppy Greg and your irresponsible for running around repeating lies and throwing around accusations which have no basis in fact because you are too cowardly to admit YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
Curious...If Greg "grew gills," does that mean he's an example of devolution?
LOLOLOLOL
OMG -- Is grewgills still here?
Bye-bye.
not anymore, spree tossed it back in the pond, said it was too small
Commenting by HaloScan
