The Utter Uselessness of the Petraeus Report

The American Prospect ^ | August 22, 2007 | Paul Waldman

[colorado tanker]

Just like after Kasserine Pass that thoroughly discredited desk jockey Eisenhower appointed that loudmouth Patton and all we heard was how he was going to surge into Tunisia. We know how that fiasco turned out . . . .

[subterfuge]

I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that the White House will be writing Petaeus' report. Would much rather see his report followed by White House comments.

Really? What you'll get is his comments followed by the White House report, as several have stated in this thread. That is how it is INTENDED to work. Are you still here?

[Beckwith]

Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success.

Everything you didn't know about Progressives

[enough_idiocy]

I’m tired of these lamos not being forthright in their writing. Congress wrote the damn legislation, not the MSM(DNC) is trying to use it against them.

[stainlessbanner]

Here it is:. Source

(2) REPORTS REQUIRED-

(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.

(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.

(C) If the President's assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report, the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.

(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.

(E) The reporting requirement detailed in section 1227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 is waived from the date of the enactment of this Act through the period ending September 15, 2007.

(3) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS- Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.

[stainlessbanner]

I agree, however, I think the testimony will be limited and probably controlled.

The MSM is making lots of noise about nothing - running the spin before the report comes out. It's more blame Bush.

[WildcatClan]

Yep, this leftist is the canary in the coal mine. The rest of the media will watch the reaction to this article and others like it and act accordingly. We all now it’s going to be a positive report so the Democrats are going to try and get out ahead of the report. They are not sure whether to demonize the report or stake out a new position. Hillary already knows what’s in the report and I believe she is going to tack right and toss the base a few caveats for effect. For example, “the surge is working but we can’t sustain it.”

[Col. Bob]

Thanks to all you Freepers for filling in the blanks in my knowledge of the rules regarding the issuance of the Petaeus/Crocker report.

It was pretty obvious Mr Waldman was not an Bush or an Iraq War supporter and might be a little biased!?!

Am looking forward to Petraeus’ report and testimony.

I think Bush has found his General Grant at last.

[Enchante]

"It was pretty obvious Mr Waldman was not an Bush or an Iraq War supporter and might be a little biased!?!"

Exactly - Waldman is a leftist shill for the execrable "MediaMatters" which means he is to the left of John Edwards. If he were to honestly acknowledge any progress it would become an intense personal and political crisis for him. As such, he and his kind are desperate to discredit "the surge" and anything postive that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker might report. Waldman's kind want to do all they can to discredit all progress in Iraq because they devoutly wish for (and work for) our defeat.

[TheNewPundit]

The report will probably closely match the reports that are coming from journalists who are in Iraq right now. It will probably match the report of the NY Times leftists who said that things were very much improved in Iraq. It will probably say things about how attacks are decreasing, deaths from attacks are decreasing, and more of the country is being controlled by law enforcement. This of course matches the reports of journalists who are in Iraq now, or have recently visited Iraq.

If the report said that the sky was blue and that the oceans were wet, the anti-war left would call it Rovian propaganda. I’m also certain that Harry Reid will call the General incompetent.