Dems already dismissing Iraq report

[hokie4redskins]

Undermining our military leaders on the ground? SHOCKING!! What does it take before we can line these people up for treason?

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070906/NATION/109060064/1001

Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

[Thiebear]

Politicians suck.

Their political future is more important than ANYTHING else.

[helptheSKINS]

It's no suprise that democrats will not be upset with a "bad" report. It can only help them in the election. Calling it the "Bush Report" is a little off base. Insinuating that his report is propoganda is a slap in the face to General Petraeus. I hope we get good news but am not expecting it. Unfortunately, too many of our politicians are not hoping for the same. The Iraqi gov't is a mess, our troops are doing an amazing job.

[Midnight Judges]

It's no suprise that democrats will not be upset with a "bad" report. It can only help them in the election. Calling it the "Bush Report" is a little off base.

Actually they are dead on when they call it the Bush report:

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.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,1,3047156.story?coll=la-headlines-world

[EersSkins05]

Actually they are dead on when they call it the Bush report:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,1,3047156.story?coll=la-headlines-world

WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!

Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good Dem-bashing around here.

[Cskin]

Yep.... if the report were to depict utter failure and a lost cost in Iraq... the Dems would be grinning from ear to ear, patting each other on the backs, and cheering in the back halls of the Congressional offices. What an effed up country we live in..... when.... one of our political parties actually hopes for our defeat militarily in order to solidify and possibly gain power in Congress. :doh:

[gbear]

I have to admit I trust the GAO more when it comes to delivering unbiased reports. That doesn't mean that they necessarily give the most complete picture. It means they apply whatever measures they are given to whatever situation they are assigned.

Case and point, I worked on a survey that had as one of our measurables that we would mail X number of surveys. Due to a survey redesign, we later found out we only needed 75% of what we originally thought we needed (and budgeted for). We mailed what we needed and saved money. We did not reach one of the measurable goals for the survey. So be it. When it came time to explain why, we did so. Would it look better to say we reached all of our targets? Absolutely. Did we? No.

Their report was the source of a lot of anguish in my office as some people's performance bonuses were based on the passing grades given the standards we had set forth. Oh well. You can't blaim them for using hte standards we gave them up front. Redefining success to a goal because it's one you know you can hit after the fact isn't the purpose of any audit. It's to see if you really did what you said you would or what you said you did.

You may not think the GAO report is valid because you don't think it says enough favorable things. The point is, they probably reported on the exact criteria given. Arguing about it after the fact is just another example of what we've seen from the beginning of this war. The bar for success is continually lowered. Keep in mind we started off this war looking for WMD. We've since turned it into many things the latest being setting up a sustainable democracy. The GAO was given a list of benchmarks that were thought to be good measures of how we would be doing. That we haven't reached them is the point. We set measurable standards, and we didn't meet them (for the most part). That we can now point to other successes isn't the point. That we may some day down the road reach them isn't the point. The GAO report is a snap shot.

You might prefer the general (or the whitehouse's report according to the above). I htink it too probably contains interesting facts. I just see it as potentially biased and likely to be moving the bar to wherever it is we find ourselves having jumped so we can say look what we jumped over (even if the bar wasn't there when we jumped). Placing too high an emphasis on a potentially biased report just seems like bad management.

[USS Redskins]

Face it - Any good news about Iraq is not welcome by Dems. They are invested in failure there, it's their political future.

If Petreus can actually turn things around by next summer, get some troops home and end the violence (allot of really big if's) it would not be good news for them for 2008.

[ACW]

As MJ said, it IS the Bush report.

When can we line the BUSH ADMIN up and charge them w/ treason for being so anti-American?

[Duckus]

Its true - as a Democrat I pray every night for failure in Iraq and the death of friends I know who fight abroad. Then I eat babies as I help illegal immigrants across the board in my car as I burn an American flag.

[ACW]

Its true - as a Democrat I pray every night for failure in Iraq and the death of friends I know who fight abroad. Then I eat babies as I help GAY illegal immigrants across the border in my HYBRID car TO GET ABORTIONS as I burn an American flag.

Fixed :laugh:

[SEF]

Yep.... if the report were to depict utter failure and a lost cost in Iraq... the Dems would be grinning from ear to ear, patting each other on the backs, and cheering in the back halls of the Congressional offices. What an effed up country we live in..... when.... one of our political parties actually hopes for our defeat militarily in order to solidify and possibly gain power in Congress. :doh:

I think the country is effed up because one of our parties likes to have homosexual sex in public bathrooms.

[Larry]

Fixed :laugh:

Well, I don't know about Duckus, but I stopped helping the gay illegal immigrants a few years back, cause they kept turning out to be Republican.

[Jumbo]

hokie4redskins--What does it take before we can line these people up for treason?

Everyone becoming a whackjob?

[JMS]

Undermining our military leaders on the ground? SHOCKING!! What does it take before we can line these people up for treason?

We've had a national intelligence paper representing the combined opinions of all 16 intelligence agencies in the federal government as well as the army, navy and Marine corps branch intelligence services which concluded unanoumously the surge's goals have not been met.

We've also had the independent GAO report yesterday which agreed with the national intelligence briefing which said only 3 of 18 pre-surge goals have been met.

We also have General Patraes's justification for the surge which said, there is no military solution in Iraq for the United States. The goal of the surge was to provide time and security in order for the Iraqi civilian government to reach compromises on key issues. Which by all accounts, even Patraes's have not been accomplished.

Now we have the White house writing the report for General Patraes instead of general Patraes and you claim the Democrats are making this political? Get a clue.

[Thiebear]

I think the country is effed up because one of our parties likes to have sex in public bathrooms.

Would the above statement be true with one word missing?

[ACW]

Well, I don't know about Duckus, but I stopped helping the gay illegal immigrants a few years back, cause they kept turning out to be Republican.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[helptheSKINS]

Actually they are dead on when they call it the Bush report:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,1,3047156.story?coll=la-headlines-world

Try reading it again Midnight. Looks to me like they think a very respected General is going to agree to whatever Bush say's. Once again, showing respect to the military.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

[Destino]

When the generals that were on the ground argue that the Bush admin ignored them, hokie4redskins has no treason talk directed at the politicians... because he agrees with them. When the Dems point out that the WHITE HOUSE is writing a generals report for him... that's treason.

You ever get tired of being such a fraud?

[Destino]

Try reading it again Midnight. Looks to me like they think a very respected General is going to agree to whatever Bush say's. Once again, showing respect to the military.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

Um, YOU need to read it again. Pay special attention to what is in quotes and what is not.

Show me somewhere that the name "Gen. Patraeus" appears in quotes? They are calling it "The Bush Report" and it's only the Moony Times (aka the Washington Times) that mention Patraeus because they are trying to make what the dems actually said look like something else. The Dems have called it the Bush report because the white house is writing it.

[JMS]

Um, YOU need to read it again. Pay special attention to what is in quotes and what is not.

Show me somewhere that the name "Gen. Patraeus" appears in quotes? They are calling it "The Bush Report" and it's only the Moony Times (aka the Washington Times) that mention Patraeus because they are trying to make what the dems actually said look like something else. The Dems have called it the Bush report because the white house is writing it.

And why would the White house be writing General Patreas's report? What with the Secretary Defense calling the white houses recent request for additional funding "premature". What with Peter Pace the chairman of the joint chiefs publically calling for troop reductions. What with 7 out of the last 9 Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs calling for either reducing the troops or against the Iraqi war all together.

Hmmmmmm,,,, seems like just maybe the Generals are more aligned with the Democrats than the Republicans on Iraqi policy!!!..

[helptheSKINS]

Um, YOU need to read it again. Pay special attention to what is in quotes and what is not.

Show me somewhere that the name "Gen. Patraeus" appears in quotes? They are calling it "The Bush Report" and it's only the Moony Times (aka the Washington Times) that mention Patraeus because they are trying to make what the dems actually said look like something else. The Dems have called it the Bush report because the white house is writing it.

aren't you one of the people that say you don't believe in media bias? And yes, they are insinuating that Patraeus' input will be a whipping boy for the president. He'll allow the WH to write whatever they want, even if it's not what his report says.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Who gives a ****?

Can we take the report for what it is? Seriously. Unless the facts and numbers in the report are totally changed by Bush's admin from General Petreaus, does it really matter who's writing it? It could be the ****ing Dalai Lama or Allen Ginsburg who wrote it and if the same numbers and stats are in there, who cares?

Moreover, this partisan bull**** has got to go, I'm sorry but it does. I have no idea why politics have come down to one side bashing the other at any and all costs but it isn't doing anyone a lick of good. And that manifests itself on this board here every day by the blind mudslinging from the resident Republicans and Democrats on the tailgate.

When are people going to realize it's going to take teamwork from both sides to make things work in this country and in Iraq?

I don't pretend to know whether the Democrats are secretly rooting for defeat in Iraq...and when I say Democrats, I mean the scumbucket politicians. I don't think anyone in general public who's in their right mind is rooting for defeat in Iraq.

But it wouldn't surprise me if the douchebag Democrat senators and congressmen are rolling their eyes and hoping for failure if it means their party takes the election in 2008.

Thats the way it is in this country now, win for your party at any and all costs. Sick and pathetic.

[thedoc4454]

It'd just amazing that some of you don't have the stones to admit that you want this war to fail, because it would be good for your leftist leaders. Is there a time at night, when your being totally honest with yourself, that you admit that your pulling for your country to loss a war so that it advances your political beliefs? Any other time in American history this would be labeled sadition at the very least or even treason.

Have a nice day.

[Destino]

aren't you one of the people that say you don't believe in media bias?

I believe in human bias, not massive collective conspiracy theories like "the liberal media". It's easy to point out instances of bias, it's another thing entirely to claim the media as a whole is in the pocket of a specific political party.

And yes, they are insinuating that Patraeus' input will be a whipping boy for the president. He'll allow the WH to write whatever they want, even if it's not what his report says.

The white house is writing the report, if you can't instantly see why this throws the reports honesty and credibility into doubt then you need to think about it again. Generals have come out and said Bush's claims of listening to them was FALSE. Gen. Patraeus would have to retire in order to come out and say the white house report is false.

Sorry but the dems are right, this report is BS before it's even delivered. The same people that have been accused of lying, by former generals, former staffers, and others about this war is writing the report on how it's going.