South African paper reports Petraeus told troops surge "has not worked out as we had hoped"
By Nicole Belle Saturday Sep 08, 2007 5:04pm
Campaign for America's Future:
General Petraeus will be testifying to Congress Monday. Tell your Congressman to ask him about this:
General David Petraeus, the commander of United States forces in Iraq, admitted on Friday that sending 30 000 more troops into the war zone in January had failed to yield the desired results. "It has not worked out as we had hoped," the general said.[..]
"Many of us had hoped this summer would be a time of tangible political progress at the national level," Petraeus wrote. "All participants, Iraqi and coalition alike, are dissatisfied by the halting progress on major legislative initiatives," he wrote.
Though he seems to be saying something different to the press:[..]
"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," he told the Boston Globe by email on Friday.... "Few of these political solutions would have been possible without the improved security provided by coalition and Iraqi forces."
Login or Register to post comments.
David Betray Us will memory hole those comments to appease AWOL Bush and 5 deferments Cheney
Petraeus is within my stance...as are all of you.
God Bless the Stall
Patraeus is screwed no matter what he says. Just remember that folks. They say soldiers never turn down a mission, he's fucked.
does anyone beleive anything they read or hear anymore?......
Gen. Betray Us will be speaking out of his own personal interest, rather than being candid and speaking for the good of his troops and the welfare of the country. He's a tool. A whimpy, self-interested weak-assed tool of the BushCo machine.
Strawberry @ 3:
True. Anyone who had read Thomas Rick's FIASCO knows that Petraeus was perhaps the best general we had in Iraq. In the first weeks of the invasion, he was doing things that the rest of the army should have been doing all along: having his men live among the people, showing respect to village elders, using force as sparingly as possible. Had he been in command since the beginning, I have no doubt we'd be in . . . a marginally better place than we are now. Sadly for him, it was in this soldier to answer the call of his CINC and try his best to salvage this fiasco. Like Colin Powell and Paul O'Neill, Petraeus is simply next next guy in a long line of good men destroyed or abused by trying to serve this president.
Does it matter?
Surge is working
WH response:
Surge is not working
WH response:
Pentagon = armed wing of Republican Party.
This is nothing controversial to ask Petraeus, it's basically just a quote from Petraeus' recent letter to the troops where he clearly says the surge has not produced the hoped for political progress within Iraq. With respect to security, he will say that the surge has produced some measure of success.
For the whole of his letter, see:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/CGs_Corner/070907_cg_mess.pdf
"Tell your Congressman to ask him about this..."
Right. Like they give a rat's about what we want. Bastards.
Ozymandias @ 6:
Thank you, sir. Or is it madam? My husband was in Mosul under Patraeus. It was the safest place in Iraq at the time...now, not so much.
Hey, you guys are acting like he's gonna lie to Congress or something!
On the question of a troop withdrawal, the general has indicated in a number of interviews this week that he might not replace troops when they come to the end of their deployment next April.
"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," he told the Boston Globe by email on Friday.
This is gonna be their way of making the inevitable troop reduction because we're outta troops look like a troop withdrawal.
Jessica Yellin on CNN's Lou Dobbs Weekend suggest that the Democrats might try to take credit for the inevitable troop withdrawal next spring when it is far more likely that the Bush administration will try to make that claim since they control troop movements.
There's no way that Democrats can claim what they have no control over. There's no way they could incorporate that troop withdrawal into any kind of legislation. Jessica Yellin seems have a tendency to spin everything to the right.
Strawberry @ 3:
he volunteered for this where men of honor retired.
I work for a newspaper and was so confused by this. I've been really anxious to hear what Petraeus would say when given the chance, so when I saw this story I ran it really big inside the paper. But then a day or so later I realized Petraeus was sort of changing his story, and I was utterly confused. What's the deal? Did they think no one would hear this? The AP certainly did, but I haven't heard it mentioned anywhere else except here just now.
BaScOmBe @ 14:
Bassy, let's just say, you were in an abusive relationship, your spouse beat you and your children, could you just walk away and leave your kids with the person who let your children eat spoiled food, drink bad water, wear sub-standard armor, drive around in un armored hummvees? See my point? By leaving and saying nothing, some of those honorable men just fucking bailed on their men. I know, I know, but I was always raised to make sure your men (ie children) eat before you do.
the military-industrial-congressional complex is killing democracy all over the world.
No Strawberry, I get your point, but this man is hardly standing by his men by supporting this president who betrayed the trust of the military and now treats them and the country with such contempt. This president uses soldiers for photo-ops like they're little army men kept in a toy box somewhere. Any military leader should have the wherewithall and sense of patritotic duty to speak the truth when given the chance to do so. Petraeus is not a man of any sort of military honor if he bothers to shill for this war.
It does not matter what Patraeus says, or thinks, or does.
Sadly, even our Dem politicos do not want to end this illegal, immoral war. Their inaction is a tragedy on top of a tragedy. The entire political system is corrupt. America is going down the tubes. As the last superpower, we're fucked. It may be just what we deserve.
Please do not blame the Dems for this. They do not have the votes in the Senate to stop this war. We're talking about the party that held an all night session of Congress to end this war, and the Republicans still filibustered it. This is why we need 60 votes in 2008. A shy and non-existent 51 percent majority just doesn't do it, no matter how hard they try.
joshdavis @ 18:
What I see is a guy riding a razor's edge. Bush is such a vindictive fuck. (remember Valerie Plame, Scott ritter, O'Niell) That's why you see such a wide range of statements, he's saying one thing to congress, but saying something else to other press outlets, he's not dumb, he knows this stuff will make it back to folks like us who will keep the ball rolling. I would not put it past bush to hold up production and delivery on the MRAPs or munitions just to punish outspoken officers.
Strawberry @ 21:
Yikes, I meant Pataeus is making different statements...sorry.
Strawberry,
Good point. Me either.
Petraeus will default to typical CYA mode... I'm doing an excellent job. Give time and enough resources, I can do the job. And then they will replace him so no one is accountable.
I am not buying this mess with Petraeus. We are talking about a general who has so much on his plate;yet, he had the time to give a one on one interview with a right wing radio propagandist named Hugh Hewitt. Regardless of whether the radio host was considered left or right leaning, Petraeus politicized his report and mission when he did that interview to discuss the surge.
People's minds are made up on where they stand on Iraq. Even if Petraeus came back and said the surge was working exactly as planned or is exceeding expectations, it STILL would not change the public's overall perception on the situation in Iraq simple because this administration cannot and should not be trusted given their trail of lies and deception.
Bush and Cheney operate on the notion that the president has absolute power in the absence of constraint. Congress is much more to blame than Bush or Cheney for the prolonging of this war because they have failed to exercise any type of constraint.
I personally believe that US Americans should stop criticizing what South Africa's newspapers say, and instead buy those poor suffering people some maps.
Maybe you can even print the maps over a newspaper.
joshdavis @ 20:
Sorry. The Dems might not have the votes to stop the war. But nothing prevents their standing up for what's right, even if they know they'll be vetoed or voted down. Go on the record, folks. Don't wuss out in advance. Better to be defeated fighting for justice than to acquiesce to murder and injustice.
Petraeus? Bush said, "We'll do what the general on the ground says." Then he went through a bunch of generals until he found one who was willing to say what he wanted to hear. Even after getting a lap-dog, he's having the lap-dog's so-called "Petraeus" report authored by the White House! Maybe if the general's drunk in the officer's club, or owning-up in his memoirs, but otherwise we'll have no real "Petraeus" report. Instead we'll have a "Cheney/Halliburton" report. Bush? Yeah, he lives in fantasy-land, but does he actually know how to write a report? Right! Got to be Cheney.
Petraeus is either stupid (unlikely, given his rank) or he knew going in that he was going to be treated as a tool. (Either that or he suffered a combination of overweaning ambition and temporary delusion.) Maybe he's a good guy, who thought he could buck the system and actually accomplish some good. Maybe he's a suck-up, who knew he was going to be used. I'm willing to hope for the best. But thus far Petraeus is looking just as evil as Westmoreland.
But roll it back to the top. The Republicans, with rare exceptions like Hagel, are too obsessed with party politics to care about truth, justice, reality, health, or the "life" of anything except a fetus. And the Democrats seem too wussy to stand up for justice and right and...life--the life of growing children and adults! Because let's face it, to vote for continued funding of the escalation (no bull-shard "surge" euphemisms!) is to vote for death—both American and innocent Iraqi civilian death.
I believe one of the first questions that should be asked of General Petraeus is whether or not he has been ordered to give a rosy assessment of the situation in Iraq. The second question should be whether or not is was strongly suggested that he give a rosy assessment. Might be interesting.
hell with it, line forms on the right. we need 30,000 more troops sent over there. that should reinforce the surge and we will then be in a position to win. if not, there's always another 30,000
petraeus is in a bad way. what assurances must they have given him that he won't be thrown under the train if lies to congress and then is held on perjury charges. if he lies and paints a rosy picture, then he is assured of his command and he has done the "right" thing and he will forever, or at least for the time being, he will be in the good graces of the bush regime. however, he must be coached on how to walk a fine line between outright lying and playing the "i don't recall" game which states you're rather stupid, but they can't incarcerate you for that. don't believe that? ask gonzo.
If he doesn't sell the surge, he will be working for Fox News as a commentator before the years out.
Anyone want to bet?
Some of you guys are missing the point(s)... what he's sayin':
1) Our part of the surge is working cus "security" is improved... (this "security" improvement has not been demonstrated with believable metrics, btw, but has been the focus of his PowerPoint presentations)
2) Their part of the surge, eg legislative progress (read passing the oil legislation that gives control of Iraq's oil fields to foreigners... gee I wonder why they don't want to pass that?) has not occurred... That's the part where "there's not as much progress as I'd hoped"
That's all he's saying... read the WaPo and NYTimes articles over the weekend for the sordid details.
What it all really really means.... the bottom bottom line...translated to the street... "well, it ain't workin troops and folks at home... But we're gonna keep doin the same thing because... shit, we ain't got a clue what else to do.... So please America, keep buyin our six more months con and for sure, keep sending us your sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, husband, wives etc... And we'll be sure to try and keep sendin them back home to you in body bags just as fast as we can"..... And this is what constitutes statemanship and national leadership these days.... Someone please pass me the old Weller now.....I need a double double.....JD
Login or Register to post comments.