• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Petraeus' report

A

Anonymous

Guest
"Let's wait and see what General Petraeus has to say...." has been the mantra for the White House for months. Now we're told that General Petraeus won't even write the report. It's to be written by the White House. :roll: The White House now suggests that Rice and Gates deliver the report! Are they afraid of what the General will say?

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

hotdryplace

Active member
Genaral Petraeus should not have to report directly to congress. The last thing he needs, is to sit in front of a bunch of snotty snarky 'distinguished' senators and congressmen while they grandstand, ramble on, scream, berate, demean, foam at the mouth, scoff, mock, ask stupid questions then talk over the answers, and prattle on for 14 1/2 of their 15 minutes of allotted time. It would not be about the General, or the soldiers, or our enemies, or the war, let alone the surge. With those 'distinguished' gentlemen, its always about just one thing, those distinguished gentlemen and their chance to perform on national television. They, and the MSM will have their minds, speeches and articles made up ahead of time and his report won't change a thing. Better to leave the public reporting to those whose profession it is to take this kind of abuse.
 

Cal

Well-known member
hotdryplace said:
Genaral Petraeus should not have to report directly to congress. The last thing he needs, is to sit in front of a bunch of snotty snarky 'distinguished' senators and congressmen while they grandstand, ramble on, scream, berate, demean, foam at the mouth, scoff, mock, ask stupid questions then talk over the answers, and prattle on for 14 1/2 of their 15 minutes of allotted time. It would not be about the General, or the soldiers, or our enemies, or the war, let alone the surge. With those 'distinguished' gentlemen, its always about just one thing, those distinguished gentlemen and their chance to perform on national television. They, and the MSM will have their minds, speeches and articles made up ahead of time and his report won't change a thing. Better to leave the public reporting to those whose profession it is to take this kind of abuse.
Absolutely, but that doesn't fit the left's agenda.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Isn't it true that CONGRESS wrote the requirement for such a report?

And that they REQUIRED the President to write it?

Seems like just more of the usual backstabbing the administration by the media, liberals, and Congress.

mrj
 

Texan

Well-known member
mrj said:
Isn't it true that CONGRESS wrote the requirement for such a report?

And that they REQUIRED the President to write it?

Seems like just more of the usual backstabbing the administration by the media, liberals, and Congress.

mrj
That's true, mrj. From the text of the bill:

(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 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.

(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.

(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.


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2206enr.txt.pdf#page=13

=======================================


Now, let's repeat the relevant portion of it clearly, and in as few words as possible. So that the anti-Bush liberals might have a chance to retain what they have read:

"The President....will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress..."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But the President isn't likely to "prepare" the report. He doesn't read or write, you know.

The legislation does not require Petraeus to write the report, but President Bush has invoked his name over and over as the saviour of his Iraqi policy.

Some examples:

"The legislation says that Petraeus and Crocker 'will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress' before the delivery of the report. It also clearly states that the president 'will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress' after consultation with the secretaries of state and defense and with the top U.S. military commander in Iraq and the U.S. ambassador.
"But both the White House and Congress have widely described the assessment as coming from Petraeus. Bush has repeatedly referred to the general as the one who will be delivering the report in September and has implored the public and Republicans in Congress to withhold judgment until then. . . ."


"...Republican congressman told Bush: "The word about the war and its progress cannot come from the White House or even you, Mr. President. There's no longer any credibility. It has to come from Gen. Petraeus."


"On May 10 he told a reporter who asked about Petraeus and his September report: "My attitude toward Congress is, why don't you wait and see what he says? . . . General Petraeus picked this date; he believes that there will be enough progress one way or the other to be able to report to the American people, to give an objective assessment about what he sees regarding the Baghdad security plan."

"He told reporters on July 30: "David Petraeus, the general on the ground, will be bringing his recommendations back to the Congress on or about September the 15th. And I think it's going to be very important for all of us to wait for him to report. And the reason it's important is, is that I believe that the decisions on the way forward in Iraq must be made with a military recommendation as an integral part of it. And therefore I don't want to prejudge what David is going to say."

"Thomas E. Ricks wrote in The Washington Post on July 15: "Almost every time President Bush has defended his new strategy in Iraq this year, he has invoked the name of the top commander, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus."

"Speaking in Cleveland on [July 10], Bush called Petraeus his 'main man' -- a 'smart, capable man who gives me his candid advice.' And on [July 12], as the president sought to stave off a revolt among congressional Republicans, he said he wanted 'to wait to see what David has to say. I trust David Petraeus, his judgment.' . . ."

There are probably dozens of other comments where President Bush invoked the General's name as the final answer to Iraq, but there are links to all these comments here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/08/16/BL2007081601003.html?hpid=topnews

Does anyone even remember what the "surge" was supposed to accomplish? It hasn't been met the goals set out for it months ago, but thousands are dead because of it. Now General Petraeus says we may be able to bring some troops home soon. Why did we send them at all?
 

Steve

Well-known member
But the President isn't likely to "prepare" the report. He doesn't read or write, you know.
Since he graduated Yale, it would put him in there with a few others who can't seem to use their education well,..:roll: :roll: :roll:

All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.


Kola,..Did you go to Yale also? (it would explain you lack of understanding of the English language) :roll: :lol: :roll: :twisted:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Oh...man...you should go on the road with that humor!!!!

I swear you're keeping that comedy talent of yours only for us.....why that's a pure shame!!!!!


ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!



Man, that ' jursey' humor....it's just too much!!!!!
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Cal said:
hotdryplace said:
Genaral Petraeus should not have to report directly to congress. The last thing he needs, is to sit in front of a bunch of snotty snarky 'distinguished' senators and congressmen while they grandstand, ramble on, scream, berate, demean, foam at the mouth, scoff, mock, ask stupid questions then talk over the answers, and prattle on for 14 1/2 of their 15 minutes of allotted time. It would not be about the General, or the soldiers, or our enemies, or the war, let alone the surge. With those 'distinguished' gentlemen, its always about just one thing, those distinguished gentlemen and their chance to perform on national television. They, and the MSM will have their minds, speeches and articles made up ahead of time and his report won't change a thing. Better to leave the public reporting to those whose profession it is to take this kind of abuse.
Absolutely, but that doesn't fit the left's agenda.
Nor does it fit the concept of Congressional Oversight which is essential to our freedoms as citizens. But I suppose getting rid of the bill of rights continues to be a primary agenda item for the neocon administration.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

This could explain the past 15 or so years of crooked screwed up politics in the White House...

I'd prefer some graduate of Podunk U. that actually knew something about real life---- morality- honesty-responsibility...
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Steve said:
But the President isn't likely to "prepare" the report. He doesn't read or write, you know.
Since he graduated Yale, it would put him in there with a few others who can't seem to use their education well,..:roll: :roll: :roll:
He graduated Yale the same way he did his service in the TANG. He rarely showed up, when he did he wasn't very good at it, and he managed to "succeed" only because his grandfather was a Senator and his daddy was a senior official and he was a member of the skull and bones club or whatever it was......in fact, if you look at most pictures of him from Yale you will see him as a cheerleader, in uniform, for other people who could actually perform.

If you look at how he got his MBA you will see that he was denied entrance initially, and it was only from pressure from Prescott Bush, and G HW Bush and their friends who make massive contributions to that school that he managed to get in. That he graduated was a foregone conclusion. That he learned anything at all is debatable.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
I have no idea of who is supposed to prepare it BUT the president has been saying for the last month or so--"I'll wait until Gen. Patraeus makes his report to me in Sept. before ..." I don't care who reads the thing. I'm just interested in EXACTLY what the Gen. has to say. Not what some desk jockey in the White House thinks he should say.
 

Latest posts

Top