Unfortunately the Whitehouse tricked the democrats into giving them some more time by feeding them the line that we need to just give it time so General Petraeus to give his honest unbiased assessment of how the surge is going... Well as we recently found out that was a joke. The report will actually be generated by the same white house who rationalized us going to war in the first place. I wonder if we are truly going to let him get away with running out the clock... In any case. Check this article in the Times. It's about as close to a report by real people who have actually fought teh fight we're gonna get http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html
FYI in case anyone had any ideas about claiming the Whitehouse never actually said it would be Gen Petraeus giving the report, I'll save you some backpedaling.. In fact they were towing that line as recently as August 14th. Just 6 days ago.... White House Spokesperson Dana Perino, August 14, 2007: Philip Reeker, Counselor for Public Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, August 10: President Shrub, August 9: Tony Snow, August 2: Tony Snow, August 1:
I always understood Petraeus would ge giving the report. That's what's been repeatedly reported and stated. Not sure what the issue is with this. Don't trust anything from huffpo. That place is a cesspool of anti-Americanism. The NYT article by the soldiers was excellent. Very well written with a great insight into things that I was not aware of, in terms of the complexities of who allies are and are not. Probably the best info I've seen to date regarding the current situation there.
This is just another example of how much the huffingtonpost actually hates the Bush admin....hatred runs so deep in the lefist circle...it amazes me...take a look at huffpo, moveon, etc...they HATE the bush admin, and will do anything they can to show that hatred.
Guys, that was a good try and I agree thehuffy is of course a liberal news outlet... I only used that link because it was the first link I could find on the net. I'm always at a dis-advantage to you folks because I get more of my news from watching it live on TV then having to go back and find it on the net. My point is I saw this on multiple newscasts this weekend. Everywhere except Fox of course I'm going to go and look for more credible links now, but my bigger question is... what are you guys going to say when this is shown to be true? Can you actually defend this (read: stay on topic) without trying to change the subject to someone else?
Well, I have a question.. The said 'Report' from Ambassador Crocker and General David Petraeus is a report to whom? A public report? or a report to the White house or to Congress? Did White house claim that they(Crocker and David) are going to make a public report? I have read the Original news article from L.A. Times and it says - 'Report will reflect evaluation by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq'.. and then - So perhaps it's been like, Petraeus and Ryan Crocker are expected to present their report to Congress, and then based on that report's data, White house is going to make another public report? May be I'm seeing things differently and may be I'm wrong.. but it may be a possibility..
Webmaster beat me to it. The Huffington blog post pulled this paragraph from a long article in the LA Times discussing and offering hypotheticals on conditions in Iraq and what may go into the report. the paragraph..... I think the administration would be wise to allow an unvarnished report to come from Petraeus and Crocker.
That NYTimes article was incredibly literate....and I believe its context suggests that it was prepared over a relatively long period of time and/or went through some editing. Those guys either had writing experience or had help in writing the article. It also does look with depth at conditions within Iraq. I have no proof that the guys had help writing the article....it just was written in an extremely advanced basis. It made me think of the soldier who questioned Rumsfeld several years ago about why the US military wasn't providing enough protection and armour against IED's. Rumsfeld's response was...."you go to war with the army you have" or something like that. It was later discovered that the soldier asking the question was prepped or encouraged by a reporter. The conditions the soldier asked about were very factual. The armour the US had was not adequate for protecting against IED's. The soldiers were gerrymandering protection using scrap metal, etc. and the Pentagon was not rushing better armour to the front. Unfortunately the findings that a reporter somewhat distracted from the real issue of inadequate armour. I hope my concern about the literacy of the article doesn't detract from the commentary.