Gen. David Petraeus has written a letter to troops serving in Iraq in anticipation of his progress report to Congress next week. BLOG LETTER
The letter is important and worth reading because his testimony in Washington will likely parallel it greatly.
**“We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field.” **
The letter states that progress based on time lines have not been met, but that progress has been made. The only conclusion we have is that they will be asking for more time…
I view the results as failure with an explanation - we are so close, and yet so far…
blah blah blah…making progress…blah blah blah…need more time…blah blah blah…hokey sports metaphor…blah blah blah…the policy is working…blah blah blah…we must stay this new course.
Anyone find it weird Pesident Bush makes a suprise visit to Baghdad a couple of weeks before Petraeus goes to Congress to testify? he was probably delivering his talking points.
Everyone knows the surge isn’t working. The real mystery has been trying to guess how the administration was going to get out of having to explain to American that another military/political strategy has failed. Watching them BS America has become a favorite hobby. Clearly, the message is going to be is that it is not working as fast or as expected, but that “some progress” has been made, and that we need more time to make it work. Never mind that there were benchmarks with timetables that the Administration believed were not only possible but achieveable - in other words, they failed again. Never mind that the Administration was not given any more time and that the surge was the compromise with Congress and the democrats. Never mind that no matter how much time the surge is given, that it is never going to work.
And yes, Gen Patraeus was always going to give a positive assessment. That guy did not reach the level in the military by stating it as it is or by giving the negative side of anything (thereby indirectly critizing anyone around him). There is no way in hell the Gen. would ever walk up to congress and tell them he or us cannot achieve our goals. Let some else take the fall is the strategy of a wise man.
Well, at least they’ve been there. Katie does not support W. Katie does not support the war. The NYT does not support W. The NYT does not the war. When they report something at odds with their positions and contrary to their world view, I tend to listen a little more closely. That’s all. Oh, and it sort of refutes, at least in a small way, the claim that everyone knows the surge isn’t working.
**Oh, and it sort of refutes, at least in a small way, the claim that everyone knows the surge isn’t working. **
True.
You typed “Katie does not support the war” twice- I assume you meant to type in “Hilary” there at least once, and if so, you’re wrong about that. Depending on what day of the week it is.
None of which matters, really. The surge is NOT working, according to the benchmarks that were put in place to measure success. I don’t particularly care if Her Perkiness opposes the war and has taken a jaunt to Iraq. She’s still an idiot, and still wrong.
The NYT does not support W. The NYT does not the war.
Everyone at the NYT times does not support the W or the war? Every article, every opinion, every letter, every writer, every editor, the people in the print shop, etc. don’t support W and the war? How did you arrive at this amazing discovery of fact?
Everytime I break one of my self-imposed rules, I regret it.
You’re right. I had no basis to make the outrageous assertion that the NYT neither supports the war nor W. I guess I missed all those editorials in favor of our presence in Iraq. I must have missed the endorsements for W when he ran for election. My bad.
I know better than the Perky One, that’s for sure.
I also know that the surge has failed to meet the majority of benchmarks set up to measure it’s success or failure. Do you dispute that? Or are you reduced to making lame cracks about my wisdom, which I grant is considerable?
I guess I missed all those editorials in favor of our presence in Iraq. I must have missed the endorsements for W when he ran for election.
How often do you read the NYT? Every day, once a month, once in a while, never? Or do you get your info on what is printed in the NYT from a news organization, say Fox? Do they have analysis on the number of positive vx. negative comments? You do realize that they have positive things to say about Bush and the war in there once in a while? Maybe they even have something positive to say today. Let me recommend that you check out the NYT and see what they are saying once in a while.
On what possible grounds to assault the honesty and integrity of man like General Petraeus?
Same grounds you use to assault just about every Democratic politician you have referred to on this forum.
I also know that the surge has failed to meet the majority of benchmarks
Agreed.
*** set up to measure it’s success or failure.***
No. Set up to measure the progress, if any. That a benchmark has not been met does not mean the surge is not working. It is a sliding scale, not an either or. Failure to meet a benchmark or failure to meet all of them does not mean the surge is not working. It may not be working on the timetable we thought it should but that does not mean no progress is being made.
Your slip is showing.
Consider the following report:
*When he delivers a much-anticipated report to Congress on Monday, Army Gen. David Petraeus said he expects to advise that there could be a gradual reduction of forces beginning in the spring because of some of the successes achieved so far with the escalation ordered by **President Bush *in January. “Based on the progress our forces are achieving, I expect to be able to recommend that some of our forces will be redeployed without replacement,” Petraeus said in an e-mail to the Boston Globe and published in its Friday editions.
**
I don’t presume to claim that this means the surge is a success. I do think it lends support to the notion that it is working and is not a failure.