So ends the second day of General Petraeus' testimony on the current status on the Iraq war. The assessment was that there is less sectarian violence, the lowest since July and everything is going in a positive direction since the "surge."
Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker was just as optimistic. The liberal left cried "boooo, boooo" and the republican politicians jumped on the opportunity to humiliate their democrat cohorts by trying to get them to sign on to condemning the MoveOn.org ad. Apparently MoveOn paid $65,000 for a page ad in the NY Times, basically condemning Patraeus, stating, "Cooking the Books for the White House" and asserts "General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts."
Preview: Petraeus Goes to Washington President Bush chose Gen. David Petraeus to take command of American forces in Iraq for several reasons. He cited Iraq combat experience and counterinsurgency expertise, but Mr. Bush also hoped that the American public would find the articulate general more persuasive than a president who had “been here too long.” The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll seems to confirm his thinking. ..
Watching the Iraq Hearings, Day 1 The Lede is following the Petraeus-Crocker hearings live with the help of Times reporters in Washington, including Thom Shanker, who is inside the hearing room. Even though the boiled-down version of their message is now well-known — military progress has been uneven and political progress unsatisfactory — we are expecting to learn much from the testimony of the two star witnesses, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. ...
Watching the Iraq Hearings, Day 2 Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker testified today in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, and we followed the whole thing live with the help of Times reporters in Washington, including David Cloud, who contributed entries and reporting from inside the hearing room. On Monday, the two star witnesses argued to a House panel that military progress justified continued support for full troop strength in Iraq, despite little political progress. ...
Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before a joint session of the House armed services and foreign affairs committees on Monday. In response to accusations that the General was a spokesman for the White House, Petraeus said that his testimony was purely his own, stating "as a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met." He talked of US troop levels beginning to fall by the summer of 2008.
The general presented slides depicting graphs to represent the progress that has been made since the "surge" was put into place, stating that"the nature of the conflict in Iraq, recall the situation before the surge, describe the current situation, and explain the recommendations I have provided to my chain of command for the way ahead in Iraq."
Petraeus' Testimony, Report To Congress on Iraq 9 pages pdf.
US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker said a "secure, stable, democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable." Further adding, "the process will not be quick, it will be uneven, punctuated by setbacks as well as achievements, and it will require substantial U.S. resolve and commitment." Both accounts depicted, overall, more pros than cons.
US Ambassador to Iraq: Ryan Crocker's Before Congress 9 pages pdf.
3 comments:
You left out where Democracy for America (formerly Dean for America) ran a broadcast email ditto of MoveOn.org. That is one step removed from the chair of the Democratic party endorsing the email and the ad.
You also left out where Jeff Merkley infers that the General was misleading or misconstruing data as a tool of the President.
Calling those who serve in harms way liars is no way to support our troops.
Just a few facts you left out. (Those being facts batmantempest style).
By the way.
Not allowing anons is bad form in the blogosphere. The ranters and lurkers in Oregon are primarily on the democratic side. Usually paid staffers or government employees surfing on the job (the lurkers fall way off after 5pm).
You'll occassionally get a few conservative nutjobs but rare. You have nothing to fear from allowing anons. If you don't allow them your traffic and commenters will suffer.
Dare!pdx - Having limited time I posted what I could. Did you note that I didn't post my opinion? Just because Petraeus said some things that I don't agree with doesn't mean that I'm going to jump on the band wagon to condemn him.
I tread lightly when criticizing a general. Not so with politicians, parties, people like Sith Lord Rice, Bitch Colter, and others of their ilk. I believe that those who have never served are possibly a little too likely to be rude to a general and condemn him. If you listened to the two days of testimony, you would probably have winced at how they questioned him.
And that was members of your team Dare. Your people running for president put on a big dog and pony show about being all Pro-America just because the wind blows that way and in so doing they tread all over a general.
I don't like what he said. I still believe that we should pull out and Ron Paul said it correctly "from the general's perspective, he's convinced himself that we're doing fine... by what standards? There are other standards that I believe we are not meeting." (That's not a direct quote, just my interpretation of what he said, He just spoke on NPR today, about 30 minutes ago)
So, I can disagree without being a total ass and wiping shit all over a general. And I'm not in a position to state whether the General is a tool of the white house or not. I just know that there is not enough evidence in front of me to change my mind. It's still lacking.
I make no defense for the democrat party.
Re:"Not allowing anons) is bad form in the blogosphere. The ranters and lurkers in Oregon are primarily on the democratic side. Usually paid staffers or government employees surfing on the job (the lurkers fall way off after 5pm).)
-- Thanks. I'm still learning this stuff and just changed it to add everyone. I wasn't aware that it was turned off.
Re: paid staffers, I doubt it. I just got off the phone with a guy at the Dept. of Land Conservation and Development, asking questions about 37 and 49 for clarification. I told him that they should have a blog of FAQ page to help clarify this stuff, since both you and I know that it's not crystal clear, even the "waiver" section of 6.1-3, I was only 75% sure it was a real waiver even though I dissected that damn thing.
(I was partially bluffing on my rant about it, but only because of the technical wording. I knew that it still held) He confirmed the whole thing for me. Regardless... what I'm trying to say is that they simply don't have the time to do this kind of stuff and he said he literally had no idea what the arguments are out here. But, he did say that he plans on taking it to his superiors to try and post something on line to help people understand this stuff.
I think it's more due to incompetence as well as it being time prohibitive to post things on line, at least with the DLCD, I would assume the same with the Sec. of State.
But,.... it's exactly what I would be doing if I was anywhere in office. Hey... our team has to keep up with you guys!
Post a Comment