David Petraeus, 4-star general and Commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, presented his long-awaited status report on Iraq to a House panel yesterday. Color me amazed.
Amazed that President Bush’s top military officer presented a report that would further the President’s aims? No surprise there, although military men with the clout and experience of Gen. Petraeus have been known to speak their independent minds. And to do so forcefully. I doubt that this decorated general fears to speak on any subject on which he has knowledge.
Amazed at the Democratic response to the report? Nothing unpredictable with that. The partisan lines were cleanly drawn, without deviation, and the Democrats fell firmly on the side opposite "President Bush’s commander." MoveOn.org’s "General Betray Us" ad in the NY Times, printed even before the report became public? Who was surprised by that pretty piece of propaganda?
Was I amazed by the protestors who decreed it their duty to interrupt a significant hearing by their sub-sophomoric antics? How proud their friends and family must be, to have seen them escorted out by police officers. The protestors are no doubt celebrating what they think is their defense of free speech. Would they be surprised to know the rest of us fear for the gene pool? Maybe they don’t know that political dissent is nothing new. They weren’t the first and, God willing, won’t be the last. But they might have been the least consequential to have graced the halls of Congress.
What, then, amazed me about Gen. Petraeus’s report?
The fact the United States continues to air not only our dirty laundry, but our entire lives and plans before the world. Not only did American citizens listen to the report from the Commander of our armed forces in Iraq, but so did our enemies around the globe. It’s not wise to tell even your allies all your secrets and your daily business. What the hell are we doing telling the world? Does the phrase, all enemies, foreign and domestic, ring any bells?
No business owner would demand that his managers present privileged company reports to the public, to be minutely examined by competitors and other interested parties. What have we demanded of our commanders and observers—what have we authorized our Congress to do—in this age of instant communications? Do we give away our nation’s protections only to appease those who tout a right to know?
Yes, I hear it now, the argument that nothing secret was revealed. If you think others will not try to glean the tiniest bits of information from Gen. Petraeus’s words—information that could one day harm the U.S. and her allies—you have no grasp of international policies and intrigue. Eager parties are listening and analyzing. And not all of them hold the best interests of the United States as a primary goal.
Amazed? I say I was. But perhaps not. Perhaps I was just hopeful that we’d wised up. Perhaps I was looking for something unexpected in an otherwise predictable day.
Perhaps the next time.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 69
I always wonder what they're NOT telling us. Not only so our enemies don't hear, but so that WE don't hear.
The overt disrespect for Gen. Petraeus's rank, position and his report is also amazing.
The fact that the Petraeus report contains data and facts that happen to dove-tail with President Bush's public comments is not amazing at all. President Bush gets an in-depth intellegence summary every morning that includes intellegence reports from Gen. Petraeus and many other sources and advisors. Of course the President's conclusions and comments are based on that same data.
I am also still amazed that Lt. Col. Oliver North was subjected to this same kind of congressional batterment and amazed that he eventually took the fall for acting under direct lawful orders of his senior commanding officers and his commader-in-cheif.
I'm amazed that we hear nothing from this administration about the Saudi influence on the events in Iraq. I'm amazed that more than 50% of the "foreign insurgents" killing American soldiers and Iraqis in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudi government does nothing to stop them. I'm amazed that our government is preparing to sell the Saudi government billions of dollars in arms despite knowing about their invlovement in Iraq.
I'm amazed that will still don't have a specific definition of and benchmarks for achieving "victory" in Iraq. I'm amazed that anyone with an IQ above 1 still thinks Iraq was the right thing to do and well worth the loss of American lives and treasure, our world standing, our military's ability to engage in other parts of the world, etc., etc. etc.
I'm amazed at how George Bush squandered the opportunity to join the greatest leaders in the world's history on a political/military blunder as colossal as Iraq.
Quite amazing, indeed.
I do not find it amazing or even unprecedented that a 4 star general during times of peace or war would be called before Congress. I do not find it amazing that any one in Congress is wanting true unwhitewashed answers and is asking tough questions. I heard a good bit of this hearing on NPR and did not find it to be disrespectful, out of line, or even a fishing expedition for anything other than true facts.
And your right Jason, I do believe that there was a whole lot of information left out on that report simply because they are not going to release everything. Do they release too much? Sure sometimes they do. I think media and technology is moving far faster than procedures on how to handle that fact.
I do find it amazing that all those years ago that Bush was able to get away with the lies, schemes and plots that got us there in the first place. Congress and the Media fell on their rumps still stunned from the attacks on September 11th and gave away our men and women, our monies, and worst of all allowed what has basically amounted to total disreguard for our Constitution up one side and down the other and called it patriotic. Idiotic is more like it.
"Bush was able to get away with the lies, schemes and plots that got us there in the first place."
As if they are facts, without any proof of "Lies, Schemes or Plots".
So there is never more than rhetoric about "Lies, Schemes and Plots" (even though the Congress would sink their teeth into it faster than a fat man at a pie eating contest) yet it remains the party line.
I guess the Idiot Flock on the left just needs to be told something enough times, and it becomes reality. Doesn't work on me. If I say Liberals are causing global warming, and say it ten million times, does it BECOME SO?
Think about that statemant. "Able to get away with". Yeat Liberals constantly claim Bush is dumb, well, which is it people? Dumb guy or Criminal Mastermind? Hehehe
On 911 al Qaeda attacked the US and nearly the whole world was with us. If we had stayed concentrated on al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, we may have already captured or killed him and the effort against terroism more effective. Unfortunately Bush and his friends had other plans and now we're stuck in Iraq and the terroist threat is greater than ever. What's amazing is that anyone ever did or still does support this president.
It might actually be nice though to be amazed if something new was actually said or done...
Too bad some want to control the Media on the insane pretext that it is for "National Security" sounds nutsy (pronounced Nazi) to me.
Petraeus based much of his assessment on the claim that violence in Iraq is dropping.2 That just isn't true:
* Petraeus is using "funny math." According to the Washington Post, Petraeus and the Pentagon are using a bizarre formula for measuring violence in the country. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count.3 And assassinations count only if you're shot in the back of the head—not in the front.4
* Iraqis believe the surge has failed. According to a massive new ABC/BBC poll, every single Iraqi polled in Baghdad, the primary target of the "surge," said it had made security worse. Iraqis themselves overwhelmingly think the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, in terms of security, political cooperation, the economy, and other measures. Overall, 70% think the escalation worsened rather than improved security conditions. 5
* The independent GAO report found that violence is up. A comprehensive Government Accountability Office report ordered by Congress found that "average number of daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007."6 In August, things got worse, with civilian casualties rising according to the Associated Press7 and the Los Angeles Times.8
* For our troops, it's the bloodiest summer yet. More U.S. troops died every month this year compared to the same month last year.9
The destroyers of America are having a great laugh at our stupidity! Even ants fight back when attacked. Never before has America backed away from a challenge. We are still fighting to stop terrorism on our shores. Of course, the left-wing liberals do not like to think we are in danger or that 9/11 even existed.
Great article, Jason. It took courage to wite this!
> Does the phrase, all enemies, foreign and domestic, ring any bells?
Does the word "democracy" ring any bells?
the other threats that loom around the world.
Bush says we are making our country safer by
fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight
them here.
But that is flawed logic in that it is not the only
terror threat.
By putting all our eggs in one basket, all our
marbles in one bag, etc..., the basket or bag
being Iraq, we are much, much more vulnerable
to threats coming from other places, such as
Afghanistan.
Not to mention domestic terrorism, which is
not only Al Quaeda.
How about ecoterrorists, people similar to
Timothy McVeigh or the Unibomber, etc...
Just because there has been no
major terrorist incident on U.S.
soil doesn't mean it can't happen here.
And fighting insurgents in Iraq
won't necessarily make it so!
Major terrorist incidents have
already happened in Spain
and Great Britain in the last
few years.
Having their troops fight
in Iraq did not prevent
those terrorist incidents.
No major terrorist
incident since 9/11.
But it's so much simpler to just fight them in one place -- even if they're somewhere else. Plus ,we can do body counts to hsoe we're suceeding.
I've got nothing against General Petraeus,
but I don't think he offers much of a plan.
His plan offers a troop draw-down
by summer 2008 to pre-surge levels.
That does not seem like much of a plan
to me.
The success in Anbar province will
last as long as the Sunnis hate
Al Quaeda more than the United States
or the Shiites.
What about later, after the U.S. is gone?
The sectarian violence starts again.
What about other provinces?
We're judging the success of
the war on just one province?
What people forget is that it's mainly
up to the Iraqis, not the U.S., to take
control of their country.
It's fine to hope for a
central government
as long as someone else
does most of the fighting
for you.
And someone please
explain to me why the
United States should
have troops there for
9-10 years?
And thus we see Congress's difficulties. If we few have such a multitude of suggestions, imagine what they face on even the simplest of issues.
And Iraq is no simple issue.
(2) It's not just Anbar province, but also Diyala, which basically became Al-Qaeda H.Q during the begining of this year. We cleared Diyala, and civilian support against them was similar to what has been seen in Anbar.
(3) The Iraqi army is growing and is becoming much more capable. The Iraqi police aren't very helpfull and are highly sectarian, but the police force is signifiantly smaller than the army.
Meanwhile, no one has mentioned the deterioration of Afghanistan which is now a narco state. Yeah aren't we making great progress...
Utter nonsense. What you are describing is simply the burden of representative government. What would you prefer, living under Saddam Hussein? Point two, there is no keeping secrets from the insurgents regarding our activities in Iraq, they are watching out soldiers 24/7.
I disagreed strongly with one other item in the article. It comes as no surprise to you that all the Dem Senators disagreed strongly with Petraeus message. Fine, but you ignored the fact that several Republican Senators were strongly critical as well: Senators Warner, Hagel, and Luger. All the moderate Republican Senators have clearly decided that they have been had one time too many and are no longer interested in the official Bush line on Iraq.
While well constructed and literate, your article is lacking in objectivity and accuracy.
We cannot allow Congresspeople demand that Gen. Petraeus account for every action in detail to justify their agenda. While we do that the enemy is preparing for another attack somewhere where Americans are.
Your interjection of the accusation of being uniformed is baseless. If you were informed as much as you would hope to be you would know what fascism is.
Look it up. By throwing out accusation like, "makes you look uniformed." tends
towards the definition of fascism(i.e.-The name comes from the Latin fasces – a bundle of rods with a projecting axe, which was the symbol of authority in ancient Rome. The term was applied by Mussolini to his movement after his rise to power in 1922. The Fascists were viciously anti-Communist and anti- liberal and, once in power, relied on an authoritarian state apparatus. They also used """"emotive slogans"""" (makes you look uninformed. and "and to wish for some secret government performing actions without accoutability makes you look like a fascist.") and old prejudices (for example, against the Jews) to bolster the leader's strongman appeal.
Yes they lied. They claimed there were pre-9-11 connections that did not exist. They stated they had proof of weapons of mass destruction, they didn't. and so on and so on.
They schemed and plotted how many people does it take who were present that have stated that since day 1 he had them drawing up scenarios on Iraq. As opposed to how many meetings/briefing did they have on OBL prior to 9-11-01.
How many people who had dedicated their careers to this government/country ended up leaving those careers because when sent on fact finding missions reguarding Iraq came back with facts and not what the Administration wanted to hear? Too many.
How is it being liberal (as if it were a bad thing to be) to say that it is wrong to lie to Congress and the Citizens in order to invade a country. Which he did do this! It is known that all the reasons he gave in order to get support for the invasion were false. How is it being liberal to feel that it is wrong to invade a country based on lies? How is it being wrong to feel that it is wrong to continue to sacrifice our people and our economy because he LIED! Best of all what is wrong with being liberal? Is it wrong to care about people, education, water, air, land, fairness, decency, humanity?
June - yes the 4 star general has dedicated his life to serving the military and this country. I don't think he should be harassed just because someone doesn't agree with the President, or even the events in Iraq. However, I expect Congress to do their job here to. That doesn't entail name calling. It does mean asking the questions and making sure that 2+2=4. Also I refer back to my previous statement of all the people who also dedicated their lives to this country and the treatment they received for their honesty.
America has backed down from a challenge before! What are we some kids on a school playyard who can't handle a double-dog-dare? Iraq did not challenge us. They denied access to some things. People were sent on fact finding missions and came back with no evidence to anything and they were fired or bullied out and others were sent until this administration got someone who would tell them not facts but what they wanted to hear.
For idiots who get all their "news" from the Republican Wind Machine, they may have never heard of Petraeus before.
This is the FOURTH "see the promise, it's trending our way" status report that Petaeus has offered. He has not offered direct testimony with this degree of scrutiny, but he has been as wrong on every count as Dick Cheney's "they'll greet us with flowers."
Rosy-eyed parrots like Phileas and Deborah think the Democrats are being partisan -they don't realize that they have been lied to by this stooge before.
No one in the military has been held accountable for the stupidity, waste, fraud, and deception of this failure in Iraq.
Scepticism, demands, and disbelief are long overdue.
We keep promoting ass-kissers, and we will be stuck where we can't get out.
Fast forward six months. We have a general testifying about the effectiveness of the surge and all we hear about are military matters on the ground. Nobody questioned the military's ability to do what it is commanded to do. That's not what the surge was all about. Those extra troops and the military were there for a purpose. I expected General Petraeus to report on the progress his military had allowed the Iraqi government to make toward its stated goals.
I repeat....and I will type this slowly for some of the neocons here.....the purpose of the surge was for the Iraqi government to complete political compromises. Mr. Bush (you remember, the guy who walks his dog on the lake?) said so. The Iraqi government said so. If the benchmarks they agreed to were not met then the surge failed no matter what the military did on the ground because that was the purpose of the surge.
William, my writing must not be as clear as I'd envisioned. Yet, even after another read, I don't find that I stated--nor did I imply--that I wished the U.S. government to keep information from the citizenry. I do believe that the subject was the enemy. Nothing hidden between the lines, I promise. And I assure you that I quite fully understand the difference between citizens and the nation's enemies.
Regarding protest, I'm all for it. A valid avenue of expression with a storied history. And I do believe I said that I wished it would continue ("God-willing, won't be the last"). The methods and effectiveness of these protestors, however, I did call into question.
Thank you to all for your comments.
And yet William every dem wants someone to tell them exactly what day we're going to pull out. How is that not giving away tactical troop movement?
Note: I wish we could edit posts rather than having to completely delete them and start over to correct a typo, a misspelling, or such.
The GAO himself stated that with only being able to grade progress with a pass or fail geade that the bench marks were not met but that there had been progress in areas that were not being measured because he was only given a guideline of giving a "A" or an "F". He said that he thought that the grading should be expanded and he was willing to work on it to help give a better view of progress or lack of progress. I think that the "Black or White" approach doesn't show the true picture. They should have given a grade of one through ten and that would have given a more accurate picture.
And who desided that his stats were questionable? I hope not the house and senate because I don't think that they are capable of being objective anymore. I think that they spend their day with their finger in the air. By their statements they showed that they weren't listening even before general Petraeus opened his mouth. So they had already made their mind up weeks if not months before. I think that their praise of him before the start of the surge might have even been dishonest.
The bottom line is that Mr. Bush agreed on the measure of success and he found no fault with them. Mr. al-Maliki agreed. Now that they've failed they want to change the rules retroactively to make their failure a success. Sorry, but that's simply not how it works.
If Bush had tried to expand the parameters of the "surge" he would have been blasted for stalling or trying to spin or something else. If Bush came on TV tonight and said that the sky was blue the haters would swear it's not just because he said it.
So what are saying Carolyn that we should pull everyone out now and let the chips fall where they may?
Charles, why is it that you Bushies cannot admit that the man is less than perfect and that he makes mistakes. Yes. Quite frankly if Mr. Bush said the sky would blue I would first go outside and look since he's lied to us so much and so consistently over so much time.
If he came on TV tonight and just for once told the truth without blowing sunshine and without that smarmy fake smile and phony "ain't everything just wonderful message" more people would we willing to believe him. He destroyed his own credibility. I realize that you probably don't believe he's ever been wrong, but this whole war has been a disaster from before the first shot. Mr. Bush has refused to listen to anyone who wasn't a yes man echoing what he wanted to hear. So yeah. Let him be humble for once. Admit his mistakes, and no I do not mean saying "mistakes were made" but rather "I made mistakes. I honestly believed X would happen. It didn't. I should have changed course more quickly. etc. "
However, if reports are true then he's going to come on, try to say the surge succeeded when it failed to meet the goal he set for it, then he will declare his confidence, say how well things are going over there, blow sunshine, then drop a bomb saying we're going into some sort of security arrangement very like what we have in Korea. If that actually happens, what little credibility he has is gone.
As is typical of Liberals, you think you have some sort of monopoly on:Is it wrong to care about people, education, water, air, land, fairness, decency, humanity?"
Liberal is actually defined like this:
broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
having political or social views favoring reform and progress
tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
Last time I checked, I cared about people, the environment, education, decency, humanity... all that stuff.
The difference is I don't have a BROAD VIEW of what I want my children to learn,
I want them to learn Math, Science, English, not Ban Christmas, Gay Agenda, Hate Republicans.
I want our country to have an overall plan for the environment that involves our successful migration away from environmentally harmful energy like gasoline and corn based ethanol. I do not support a knee jerk reaction to some poorly cherry-picked data by hypocritical politicians trying to make a platform out of fear.
Your opinion that Conservatives are evil is apparent, but in my opinion, Conservatives have just as open hearts and minds, difference is our minds require data, not rhetoric to make a decision.
Charles: If he's made mistakes, why are there so many people out there who get outraged if you point to his mistakes and say "this was a mistake"? More important, why is the current president pathologically incapable of admitting when he's made a mistake. Take Iraq for instance. He says: "Mistakes were made." Passive voice. No subject. "I made mistakes" would be a good starter. Telling us how he was going to change things and rectify the mistakes would be even better. Repeating the same mistakes and hoping for different outcomes isn't a change. It's one definition of insanity.
What is so damned sad about all this is something that was on CNN in the past half hour. Their correspondent Michael Weir has been in Iraq almost from the beginning. He made a really telling statement that there is a price to be paid for invading a sovereign nation with no real post-war plan and that the U.S. is going to be paying that price for a long time to come regardless of whether or not we like it. He's right of course. We broke it and now it's ours.
I wonder what would happen if Mr. Bush could actually say that, admit his mistakes, and provide a real plan to see it through that required the Iraqi government to step up to its responsibility. Tonight, if he should step up and lay out a real plan with identifiable and measurable goals and a real definition of "success" it might prove so refreshing.....that is if he then actually did what he said.
Personally I expect more smarmy blowing sunshine that is this President's trademark. I cringe every time I hear him with that fake smile and that equally fake lying enthusiasm and the cherry picked "see, we're making progress" assertions. I want to grab him by the front of his shirt, shake him hard, and yell "Damn it man, tell the truth and respect us for once." It ain't gonna happen though.
on so many levels.
General Petraeus serves his Commander-in-Chief,
who is head of all the military forces, who is
President George Bush Jr.
If he had an opinion of the war
different from the Presidents,
which he doesn't, he couldn't
express it publicly.
What you have the ambassador
to Iraq saying one thing and
the President saying something
totally different that contradicts
what the ambassador said the
day before, there is a problem.
And that is this:
George Bush Jr. has decieved
the American people about
many things.
I, for one, will be glad
when this disgusting
liar is out of office.
The problem with border security is not too many competing interests, it is that all politicians are against border security because of their similar interests.
Politicians must pay lip-service to the issue because all Americans demand border security, but until we teach politicians a lesson by replacing the vast majority of them, they will never do anything about this issue.
Damn straight! I don't support the Iraq invasion and occupation either!
If you are not Muslim, Islam wants you to die. What could be more clear? If you need some fancy excuse to defend your own life, I don't.
Charles, I guess that means no one cares if he completes it?
I suggest a system where all candidates who meet certain basic requirements, maybe a number of signatures or something, are considered candidates. Then all channels, stations, newspapers are required to give each one equal time at no cost to the candidate. Take the money out of the process, making it possible for the best candidate to win, not the richest or most effectively sold-out.
For all your fearmongering, I am not the least but scared of Islam. And I would prefer that my government not be scared in my place. I would prefer my God-given rights and liberties remain intact, such as my right to not have the government spying on my phone calls, library records, emails, etc. or watching me from DoD satellites. Or my right to have my elected representatives honor their Oath to obey the Constitution, and not shirk their responsibility to DECLARE war before sending our soldiers into an endless quagmire that only weakens our military and further incites anti-American hatred throughout the world.
I don't need a fancy excuse to defend my life. But then, I'm not so delusional to actually believe that the US could ever be taken down or taken over by jihadists.
I am a former Marine,and was there, was in Gitmo etc. I don't fear Islam, I DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
You fear your government from the extent of your paranoia. Maybe your right to, I have no idea what you did to have this fear, but law abiding citizens have no problem with the government spying on our enemies.
Maybe America cannot be "taken down" by Jihads, but they have already proved they can effect our lifes, our economy, and kill our people.
They have managed to turn you and the Liberals of this country, against yourselves. You are actually taking the same political position vs America defending itself, that they are taking.