The Patreaus report

bhsup

Deity
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
30,387
General Petraeus is set to testify before Congress on Monday and Tuesday. But you don't need to bother with it, because Senator Biden has already, without hearing Patreaus, said Petraeus is wrong.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
Spoiler :

Nevermind, no spoiler hidden article. The copy function stripped the line feeds and it's a big mass of unbroken text that I'm not bothering with


(Why the heck does "copy" strip out the line feeds when I paste into this forum?? I'm not screwing with adding them back in this time, so just click on the link for a readable version.)

So, political gambit by a Presidential candidate or honest assessment of the situation that Biden somehow has without hearing the testimony?
marry and procreate
 
You have to do copy and paste several times to get the whole thing in otherwise you start copying things that don't belong in the article simply because it's on the page.

AP via Yahoo! said:
link

Biden faults Petraeus on Iraq assessment


By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.

Ahead of two days of crucial testimony by Bush's leading military and political advisers on Iraq, Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home.

"The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence," said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.

Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were scheduled to testify before four congressional committees, including Biden's, on Monday and Tuesday. Lawmakers will hear how the commander and the diplomat assess progress in Iraq and offer recommendations about the course of war strategy.

Officials familiar with their thinking told The Associated Press over the weekend that the advisers would urge Congress not to make significant changes. Their report will note that while national political progress has been disappointing, security gains in local areas have shown promise, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.

Petraeus and Crocker will say the buildup of 30,000 troops, which bring the current U.S. total to nearly 170,000, is working better than any previous effort to quell the insurgency and restore stability. The officials also disputed suggestions that Petraeus and Crocker would recommend anything more than a symbolic reduction in troop levels and then only in the spring.

The testimony sets the stage for an announcement by Bush later in the week about he will proceed in the face of widespread public unhappiness and growing congressional discomfort with the war.

Biden, signaling that tough questioning awaits the pair from majority Democrats and moderate Republicans, said Petraeus' assessment missed the point. Biden, D-Del., said focusing on a political solution, such as by creating more local control, was the only way to foster national reconciliation among warring factions.

"I really respect him, but I think he's dead flat wrong," Biden said.

Biden contended that Bush's main strategy was to buy time and extend the troop presence in Iraq long enough to push the burden onto the next president, who takes office in January 2009, to fix the sectarian strife.

"This president has no plan — how to win and how to leave," Biden said.

Stressing that a political solution was the key, he said, "I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out," except for those necessary to protect U.S. civilians and fight al-Qaida.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., agreed. "The problem is, if you don't have a deadline and you don't require something of the Iraqis, they're simply going to use our presence as cover for their willingness to delay, which is what they have done month after month after month," he said.

"I think the general will present the facts with respect to the statistics and the tactical successes or situations as he sees them," Kerry said. "But none of us should be fooled — not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress — we should not be fooled into this tactical success debate."

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he trusts the military judgment of Petraeus and that it was foolish for Congress to try and second-guess commanders on the ground.

In the end, Graham said, the U.S. cannot afford to withdraw prematurely if it is military unwise and risks plunging the region into more chaos.

"If the general tells me down the road we can withdraw troops because of military success, we should all celebrate it," Graham said. "But if politicians in Washington pick an arbitrary date, an arbitrary number to withdraw, it's not going to push Baghdad politicians.

"It's going to re-energize an enemy that's on the map," he said.

Biden spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press," Kerry appeared on ABC's "This Week," and Graham was on "Fox News Sunday."
Lemme chew through this for a couple mintues.
 
It doesn't matter what happens, the spending on the war in Iraq is going to continue.
 
You have to do copy and paste several times to get the whole thing in otherwise you start copying things that don't belong in the article simply because it's on the page.
marry and procreate

But I copy/pasted from the printable version, not link I provided. :confused:
 
marry and procreate

But I copy/pasted from the printable version, not link I provided. :confused:

Stuff in spoiler is the same article, just testing out effect.
Spoiler :
Biden faults Petraeus on Iraq assessment

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago

President Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.

Ahead of two days of crucial testimony by Bush's leading military and political advisers on Iraq, Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home.

"The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence," said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.

Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were scheduled to testify before four congressional committees, including Biden's, on Monday and Tuesday. Lawmakers will hear how the commander and the diplomat assess progress in Iraq and offer recommendations about the course of war strategy.

Officials familiar with their thinking told The Associated Press over the weekend that the advisers would urge Congress not to make significant changes. Their report will note that while national political progress has been disappointing, security gains in local areas have shown promise, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.

Petraeus and Crocker will say the buildup of 30,000 troops, which bring the current U.S. total to nearly 170,000, is working better than any previous effort to quell the insurgency and restore stability. The officials also disputed suggestions that Petraeus and Crocker would recommend anything more than a symbolic reduction in troop levels and then only in the spring.

The testimony sets the stage for an announcement by Bush later in the week about he will proceed in the face of widespread public unhappiness and growing congressional discomfort with the war.

Biden, signaling that tough questioning awaits the pair from majority Democrats and moderate Republicans, said Petraeus' assessment missed the point. Biden, D-Del., said focusing on a political solution, such as by creating more local control, was the only way to foster national reconciliation among warring factions.

"I really respect him, but I think he's dead flat wrong," Biden said.

Biden contended that Bush's main strategy was to buy time and extend the troop presence in Iraq long enough to push the burden onto the next president, who takes office in January 2009, to fix the sectarian strife.

"This president has no plan — how to win and how to leave," Biden said.

Stressing that a political solution was the key, he said, "I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out," except for those necessary to protect U.S. civilians and fight al-Qaida.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., agreed. "The problem is, if you don't have a deadline and you don't require something of the Iraqis, they're simply going to use our presence as cover for their willingness to delay, which is what they have done month after month after month," he said.

"I think the general will present the facts with respect to the statistics and the tactical successes or situations as he sees them," Kerry said. "But none of us should be fooled — not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress — we should not be fooled into this tactical success debate."

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he trusts the military judgment of Petraeus and that it was foolish for Congress to try and second-guess commanders on the ground.

In the end, Graham said, the U.S. cannot afford to withdraw prematurely if it is military unwise and risks plunging the region into more chaos.

"If the general tells me down the road we can withdraw troops because of military success, we should all celebrate it," Graham said. "But if politicians in Washington pick an arbitrary date, an arbitrary number to withdraw, it's not going to push Baghdad politicians.

"It's going to re-energize an enemy that's on the map," he said.

Biden spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press," Kerry appeared on ABC's "This Week," and Graham was on "Fox News Sunday."


Worked fine for me...then again, I just started with the first character of the printed stuff and went from there.

Anyway, I think there have been statements from the administration (perhaps Petraeus himself) on this upcoming report and the situation there. Additionally, we have that report from the GAO on the situation that was leaked to the press not all that long ago...so it may be possible for Biden to have a word or twelve on what's coming. After all, such broad outlines are usually known in advance.

However, I will say Biden is stupid not to wait three more days for the report to be out in the open and for Biden to have the opportunity to bring his arguments to the table and ask as if he's probing for more info instead of merely talking to oppose (as it would look since he's talked today).

Plus there is still the off-chance that there will be something new provided during the testimony that was not already known to the Congress beforehand. Biden should have waited a few days...but he's true to character as far as opening his mouth even when it digs himself into a hole.
 
Stuff in spoiler is the same article, just testing out effect.
Well poo. Oh well, I guess my system just sucks in some bizarre way. :crazyeye:

Plus there is still the off-chance that there will be something new provided during the testimony that was not already known to the Congress beforehand.

That's the meat of my problem with this. Why couldn't he have at least waited until Patreaus testified so folks could at least judge whether Biden is right or wrong to disagree. Right now, all we're left with is Biden disagreeing while not having heard everything yet.
 
Pretty much. I'm sure Biden has a lot more info than we have, even with the GAO leak. But Biden looks like he's failing to realize there's a whole other world outside the Senate where not everyone knows everything.

If we all knew what he knew, he may have looked like a billion bucks in the argument, if it were solid. Right now, we're just left with "Okay.......and...?"

But at least we'll finally get something in a few days.
 
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., agreed. "The problem is, if you don't have a deadline and you don't require something of the Iraqis, they're simply going to use our presence as cover for their willingness to delay, which is what they have done month after month after month," he said.

You know what the weird thing is? I agree with him. :suicide:
 
He dosent have to wait for this report, Petraeus has reported many times in the past that the surge is working. It would be strange otherwise since the surge was his idea.

I can tell you right now, that war is unwinnable. Maybe if he had been in charge from the beginning and Abu Ghraib had never happened, your side would have a chance. Maybe.

Petraeus has himself said winning the insurgency is about winning hearts and minds, but GW himself admitted a couple of years ago that the hearts and minds of the iraqis could not be won.

EDIT: To be honest I feel alittle bad for Petraeus. Seemingly "king David" was one the few intelligent american commanders in Iraq, but then his succes attracted the attention of the bushies and now he has been given this impossible task.

I suspect after he fails, theyre gonna unload a whole bunch of blame on him and kick him upwards, like they did with westmoreland.
 
Why wait for it? We already know that the report is going to be written by the White House.

I sense another Tet coming along. For those of you who don't know, right before Tet, American generals went to the media and started proclaiming loudly that the NLF was basically dead, that the war was being won, etc, and then the largest offensive yet was unleashed. Sure the NLF suffered heavy losses during Tet, but it proved that they were far from finished.
 
your side would have a chance. Maybe.
:eek: My side is America! Surely, even if we disagree on the war, we're still on the side of our country, yes???

@Pasi: The Tet offensive was a smashing victory for the USA. Yes, there were initial gains from the enemy, but it ended with the Vietcong being virtually wiped out as an effective force. You could liken it to the Battle of the Bulge. Sure, Germany had initial success, but in the end it would have been far better for them had they not even tried that little winter offensive.

marry and procreate
 
I am not on the side of our country's current leadership. If their were any invasion of Iran I would support the Iranian army and hope that they could drive out the american offensive.
 
That's rather foolish. No matter how much you may think current leaders are bumbling idiots, there's no reason to take it out on the guys that are facing the bullets and bombs.
 
I would want anyone to die. Their would in most likely be more casulties in a succesfull invasion however. Civilian casulties to.
 
:eek: My side is America! Surely, even if we disagree on the war, we're still on the side of our country, yes???

Hell no, what are you kidding me? :D

You illegaly invaded their country, have either directly killed hundreds of thousands of them, or indirectly caused their death by destablizing their country (and pretend like oil has nothing to do with it) and you want me to be on your side? what are you drunk?

Im on iraqis side. Not the very few Al qaeda types in iraq, but the vast majority of them who want:

1. Peace
2. End to the occupation

But hey, thanks for asking. :)
 
That's rather foolish. No matter how much you may think current leaders are bumbling idiots, there's no reason to take it out on the guys that are facing the bullets and bombs.

You mean the iranian army right? cause they are the ones facing the bombs, not bullets (bullets come from infantry, american infantry dosent engage in war anymore, the merely give the enemys position to either artillery or air force).

Your guys arent facing anything.
 
You mean the iranian army right? cause they are the ones facing the bombs, not bullets (bullets come from infantry, american infantry dosent engage in war anymore, the merely give the enemys position to either artillery or air force).

Please stick to commenting on stuff you know about. Yes, indeed american infantry engages in war daily. They havent made a plane or a howitzer that can clear a building to look for bad guys yet, or walk a patrol.
 
Now why dont you take your own advice and start talking about things you do know about?

The war in iraq is over, or didnt you see the bigass "mission accomplished" sign on the aircraft carrier? try to keep up.

Thats fighting an insurgency, not fighting a war.

Thats how you get 80 casaulties during the war (vs 100,000 iraqi casaulties) or was it 100? and 3000 KIA after the war. Insurgency.

Not that I dont appreciate your expert commentary.

Except that Jaws is a limey :p

Im gonna pretend like I didn't read that. ;)
 
Now why dont you take your own advice and start talking about things you do know about?

The war in iraq is over, or didnt you see the bigass "mission accomplished" sign on the aircraft carrier? try to keep up.

Ok, lets have a lesson in consistency. Earlier in this thread you say the USA will never win this war and never had a chance. Here you state the war was already over. Which is it?

Thats fighting an insurgency, not fighting a war.

So, you are now correcting your own statement of 'I can tell you right now, that war is unwinnable"? I guess you are.

Thats how you get 80 casaulties during the war (vs 100,000 iraqi casaulties) or was it 100? and 3000 KIA after the war. Insurgency.

Not that I dont appreciate your expert commentary.

You should...its a tad more consistent than yours is.

I mean come on...making a statement like US Soldiers no longer fire their rifles and engage the enemy is just completely ridiculous. And you know it.
 
Back
Top Bottom