Is this politics as usual or legitimate criticism? From where I'm sitting, it's difficult to tell, but condemning a report before its fully disclosed seems a dubious intellectual enterprise to me. http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070906/NATION/109060064/1001
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Gen. Petraeus' report was potentially compromised by the White House's involvement in drafting it. "If the same people who were so wrong about this war from the start are writing substantial portions of this report, that raises credibility questions," he said. It's perfectly legitimate to criticise this aspect of the report, that it isn't even written by the General alone. That leaves room for political considerations to be included in the report, effectively undermining it's credibility.
I agree, but part of a report of this nature is the oral presentation of it to Congress. Why not wait and see what he says then? Or, if that's not sufficient, wait don't men such as Van Hollen wait to bring those sort of questions up when the General is in front of them? Why poison the well before all the facts are in?
Some facts about the nature of this report are in. Many facts about the nature of the Iraq situation are also in.
And that's enough to leap to a conclusion? OK. Why even bother reporting then? This all seems like intellectual masterbation at this point. Everyone, as is evident here, from politicians to residents, assume their standard polarized positions about this report — and all reports — well before they are released...
Who's jumping to conclusions? It's important to place any report in the proper context. The Petraeus report is being hyped as if no one can know what's going on there until Bush's general tells them.
You are right the democrats aren't jumping to a conclusion, they have already decided that the reported progress will be insufficient, they change the yard stick from Military Stability to Political Stability, they want to criticize the Iraqis for having partisan politics but look at the political situation in America today, the Democrats criticized the Iraqi Parliament for going on vacation, but who just got back from vacation, a vacation that they took with out completing all of the work that they are suppose to be doing for the country. Just read and listen to the statement that they are making in the news already.
Our partisan politics usually don't include death squads. You can't even compare what's going on over there to our government.
I'm not sure what the report could possibly say to change anything except something to the effect of "Everything you think you know about Iraq is wrong. The country will be in terrific shape and a valuable ally in X months." If it says what the received wisdom suggests it will, then we are looking at several more years of occupation, with uncertain results, at a huge cost. That cost includes not only the money and lives we have to throw into the machine, but also the strain on the military overall. All of that assumes we even can sustain the occupation, which some people suggest we can't (at least not without either (i) a draft or (ii) being heinously unfair to a great number of men and women who who would need to have their tours extended even further). Maybe we can open the ranks to illegal immigrants, in exchange for citizenship. That way, we can make the analogy between America and late Imperial Rome even more amusing. Long Ninja Edit: I should add that we are also apparently looking at yet another changed story from the Administration. No longer "let the surge work and you'll see the Iraqi central government will increase in effectiveness" but "the central government hasn't worked out and isn't going to work out until the local governments come together. Change has to begin locally!" That change in stories isn't bad, save that it's just the latest change in the official story. It does seem like the official story changes a *lot*--from (i) "it's been pretty well confirmed" that there are links between Saddam and al Qaeda, to (ii) "what al Qaeda, we never said they were linked to al Qaeda, but they are developing nuclear weapons," to (iii) "we never said anything about nukes, we meant WMDs," to (iv) "WMDs were never the issue, we need to bring democracy, that was always the primary goal," to (iv) "we need to bring stability to the national government, just give them a chance!" to (v) "the Surge will bring stability to the national government" and now to (vi) "local reforms will lead to greater stability in the national government." That last theory sounds like a small scale version of the reverse domino theory to me. Just like they said democracy in Iraq will sweep through the Middle East as other states adopt the same sorts of reforms...now local government reforms (where, in general, ethnic and regional tensions are less pronounced) will sweep through the more balkanized members of the national government.
Pandaemoni: "Maybe we can open the ranks to illegal immigrants, in exchange for citizenship." That's been going on for some time, but only in don't-ask-don't-tell mode. That is, barring publicity, illegals are being naturalized. Lately, the most visible examples, with minimal publicity allowed are posthumous- when illegal aliens are killed in combat. Official policy, that appears spottily carried out, is for live illegal aliens discovered in the Service to be dishonorably discharged and deported. So there's one almost fool-proof plan for illegals: Join up, get yourself killed, and you're virtually guaranteed US citizenship. ¡Orale! If you read 8 U.S.C. 1440 Sec. 329, "Naturalization Through Active-Duty Service...in...Periods of Military Hostilities" it contains: That's still written in the law, but it's not applied, for technical or political reasons I haven't figured out. Not long after 9-11, President Bush gave legal aliens an official faster-track incentive to enlist. Anecdotally, it does seem recruitment of illegals is also becoming more aggressive than ever, but because the practice is underground, there are no numbers to say how many illegals are presently serving. ---------------- On Iraq war justifications: "we are also apparently looking at yet another changed story from the Administration..." Why do they even bother? Believers keep on believing the old propaganda, and those who haven't drank the Kool-Aid won't be convinced by new lies. It's very strange.
no they are critsing it because it was supposed to be patraus report and instead the bushies are righting who have no credibilty on anything. here is an idea quit kissing the repubs ass turn off fox news and try to learn whats really going on
Not that we should care what the world thinks, but it is worth noting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6981553.stm
"Not that we should care what the world thinks, but it is worth noting:" Surely what the world thinks won't impact American international clout, our economy, and our fortunes etc. in the USA One detail does puzzle me about this beeb-poll / peep-hole: In the 8th sentence The same could be inferred from the graphical US, UK, and Australia poll results. Kenya and PI aren't charted, but the India response depicted doesn't seem to stand out that way at all, certainly not proportionally: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Edit: On a second look, it seems the graph does not include all the choices in the poll question. Something like 30% of India responses seem to have been discarded from the chart. I don't doubt that world opinion is overwhelmmingly opposed to the occupation of Iraq, but this article is a disappointingly sloppy description of the obvious.
Political stability was the original yard stick - remember all those purple fingers? The US has built a half dozen permanent bases in Iraq, which were planned (along with the world's biggest embassy/fort) from the beginning. They are set up to handle the military we have agreed to remove from Saudi Arabia, among other features of their construction. When the official White House line was that we were going to be out in six months, the contracts had been let and the construction teams assembled for these large, permanent bases. Construction began immediately after invasion, without waiting to see how long US deployment in force would last. The US "needs" a permanent military presence on the ground in the region. That is a background factor for evaluating all military reports on the progress of the Iraq occupation.
Sadly only 10% (or less) is wise enough to admit "I don't know." Deep down I know that's really the camp I'm in, though my tendency is to join with the "pull out within a year" camp because it seems (to me) like the most reasonable compromise.
Besides, Petraeus designed this new offensive, so he's not the most objective person to evaluate it. Bush is pretending like he has no idea what's going on in Iraq until Petraeus tells us, it's just another stall tactic.
