What Crocker and Petraeus didn't say
By Steve Benen Monday Sep 10, 2007 7:16amSlate's Fred Kaplan wasn't impressed with what Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker had to say yesterday. Just as importantly, McClatchy reports on what Petraeus and Crocker didn't say yesterday.
A chart displayed by Army Gen. David Petraeus that purported to show the decline in sectarian violence in Baghdad between December and August made no effort to show that the ethnic character of many of the neighborhoods had changed in that same period from majority Sunni Muslim or mixed to majority Shiite Muslim.
Neither Petraeus nor U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker talked about the fact that since the troop surge began the pace by which Iraqis were abandoning their homes in search of safety had increased. They didn't mention that 86 percent of Iraqis who've fled their homes said they'd been targeted because of their sect, according to the International Organization for Migration.
<!-- story_factbox.comp --><!-- /story_factbox.comp -->
While Petraeus stressed that civilian casualties were down over the last five weeks, he drew no connection between that statement and a chart he displayed that showed that the number of attacks rose during at least one of those weeks.
Petraeus also didn't highlight the fact that his charts showed that "ethno-sectarian" deaths in August, down from July, were still higher than in June, and he didn't explain why the greatest drop in such deaths, which peaked in December, occurred between January and February, before the surge began.
And while both officials said that the Iraqi security forces were improving, neither talked about how those forces had been infiltrated by militias, though Petraeus acknowledged that during 2006 some Iraqi security forces had participated in the ethnic violence.
Hey look! A traditional media outlet cutting through the rhetoric to give the public real information! Journalism!
Login or Register to post comments.
Well,...this is a frist!
Cherry-picked information is always unimpressive to the more intelligent among us. Now, what really matters is how do we bring the rest of the country up to speed and get them to realize the entire farce and unforgivable debacle that is IRAQ!?
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut, now and then.
Let's see if the time is right for this to turn into a pattern.
from www.buzzflash.com
Ray McGovern Gets Tossed Out of Congressional "Hearing" for Asking Why Petraeus Wouldn't Testify Under Oath. Good Question. The Busheviks Make It a Habit of Refusing to Testify Under Oath, Lest They be Subject to Perjury Charges.
Maybe we should just operate moving vans. Many Iraqis just want to move somewhere else. Isn't democracy and American freedom wonderful? I just believe that what many want is the neverending war. The eleventh commandment must be "It is better to fight them over there than over here". I had hoped that we had gotten beyond the belief that war is the answer, but I guess not. This is not much of a future to leave to our children.
These unfortunate "facts" are unimportant to the delusional 30% who still dream of havin' a beer with the president.
It has to be getting harder and harder to believe the Bush war fantasy, don't you think? After all, reality is closing in on all sides.
It looks pretty clear that Americans are calling bullshit on this report, given a couple of scientific polls I've seen. Last night on Olbermann I think it was put best. My apologies to whomever said it, I've forgotten. It may have been Jonathan Alter. Anyway, it was said that it looks like Americans are calling bullshit, but really aren't tuned in and fired up. Most Americans have accepted that there just isn't much to do about this fucked up war except wait out the Bush administration until that glorious day that the moving vans back up to the White House in January of 2009.
Given that the democrats have a non-majority majority, that's probably about right. I wish Americans were more engaged and would take to the streets ... can you imagine if 65% of the population really decided to organize and tell Cheney/Bush to go fuck themselves? Lamentably, that just isn't the reality.
The only chance we have of saving the country we all love is to vote democrat in '08 ... democrat, not green or independent. Anyone who wants to send a message to the Washington establishment (Hillary) by voting for Joe Nochance is dooming this country.
Hillary's been bought and paid for. She doesn't get my vote.
The label 'Democrat' does not bestow any immunity from the slow rot that is spreading through America from the top down.
And how is "if you vote otherwise, you're dooming this country" any different from the conservatives who decry liberals as terrorists and bin Laden's BFF's?
At the start of the invasion, Sunnis comprised approximately 10% of the population, or about 2.3 million people.
The Sunnis have three choices at this point:
1. Leave - and at last estimation, about 1 million Iraqis have, most of them Sunnis or of mixed families.
2. Join up with us, at $300 per month. This is Anbar Province, which comprises about 5% of the population.
3. Form your own militias - this is Baghdad, where giant barriers separate entire neighborhoods patroled by local militias.
Face it folks. The Shiite militias have taken virtual control of the country and want us out. The Sunnis were more secular to begin with, and resent the more hard line religious Shiites. Unfortunately for them, they were the core of the Baathists, one of which was Saddam Hussein. This is why they are interested in ridding Anbar of Al Qaeda. This is why, out of desperation, they are turning to the invaders to help them out. It's simply a matter of survival. The Shiites are hard line supporters of Iran. We will never be able to subjugate them without turning this into a wider conflict with Iran, which would suit Saudi Arabia, cowering americans, and the US war profiteers just fine.
All of this means the surge is a fallacy, a circle jerk, and we will be in Iraq for many years to come.
I thought General Betrayus looked miserable. He is not a sociopath. Both he and the embasador looked like they were under a great deal of stress.
Interesting how this is happening on the week of the anniversary of the greatest false flag attack that precipitated the disastrous invasion of an oil rich arab country. Coincidence?
"The Dead (journalists) has arisen."
(Old Mister to Sophia in "The Color Purple")
What the General didn't say was This is all about saving face for the repug party...nothing more and nothing less.The Repug party is doomed now...
Che's Lounge @ 9:
Whether we should be in Iraq or we have to be in Iraq is a moot point. We are b-r-o-k-e and running out of bullets. We are the super-power that needs other countries to lend it money to wage war. The rest of the world is quietly selling its dollars.
The big money club is dumping all of their paper while they reassure us that "the economy is good". Its like Ken Lay urging people to buy Enron stock at the same time he was dumping his.
I thought General Betrayus looked miserable. He is not a sociopath. Both he and the embasador looked like they were under a great deal of stress.
Interesting how this is happening on the week of the anniversary of the greatest false flag attack that precipitated the disastrous invasion of an oil rich arab country. Coincidence?
Not a coincidence. You would look that way too, if you know that even before you step up to the mic, the audience knows you're full of shyt, and that report you're giving is a Bull Shyt report. Especially when a whole month before you deliver that report, it's being leaked that you didn't write it, and that it's full o' lies, thanks to the "Decider".
Petraeus is a liar, a man with no honor, a man with no integrity.....hardly a man at all. He has betrayed the nation through his sycophantic pandering and his internal and public dishonesty. If he actually does know that what he is peddling is a lie, then he is either evil or an abject coward. I have nothing but contempt for him. He is one troop I do not support. He has abetted evil, and seems to me to be fit only for judgment before a war crimes tribunal.
Well, what else would you expect from Petraeus? The bigger problem, however, was the failure of the Democrats to press him. I guess they were mesmerized by his medals, like a moth before a flame. But I suppose that won't stop Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos, Atrios et al from holding out hope that the Democrats can save the day. Like Charlie Brown taking one more kick at the football that Lucy has teed up.
What a tedious charade.
Shadowgm @ 8:
The difference seems clear. My implication is that it is better to have a democrat who is willing to use his/her brain to solve this problem rather than to have a republican who, for some reason, panders to 30% of this country with war-mongering rhetoric. I didn't call anyone a terrorist. I don't think Bin Laden is our biggest boogeyman. I think what the republican party is doing to this country is boogeyman enough. A vote for Joe Nochance, or a no-vote, is effectively a vote for the republicans.
I admire your ability to recognize the rot that is destroying this country from the top down. That suggests that you're a thinking person. However, you do no favors to remedying the crimes perpetrated on our country by this latest band of neo-cons by punishing the democrats for not being perfect. Of course they're not perfect. But I'd rather have a flawed democrat in office than any republican in this field.
We need to undo the many horrors created in the past 8 years before we can then focus on undoing the corruption and general Washington misconduct of the past 200 years.
I have to admit I dislike the 'General Betrayus' moniker.
It gave Republicans an opportunity to wax poetic about how the good general's reputation was being besmirched by a bunch of defeatist liberal whiners, and will doubtless get more airplay on FOX Brainwashing than the facts.
Why do other people not see those things which are so obvious to me? WE must pull out right now. Nothing is going to make it any better. If the oil folks want stability for their precious interests, let them buy their OWN armies....... oh wait.....
Sissy GOPS like pro-Bush Sen. Linsie Glam (R-S.C.) claim that they've made many trips to Iraq and that troops on the ground want to surge on, but good foot soldiers do what they're told to do and keep their pie holes shut when asked political questions. Nevertheless, a poll taken and reported by The Economist this spring found that only 35% of servicemen approve of the conduct of the war. Although Glam served in the military and cannot, therefore, be labeled a "chicken hawk," I'm told on good authority (a fellow serviceman from his own state of So. Carolina) that he spent most of his time in the latrines toe-tapping with the occupants of next-door stalls -- G.I.'s seeking to relieve themselves. And in any case, he was J.A.G., so he never saw any combat. When Linsie was a congressman, he helped head the Clinton witch hunt impeachment. He's one of those lawyers who bring to mind the old joke, "When do you know a lawyer is lying?" Answer: "When he opens his mouth." Want to bet that Linsie, like that chinless halfwit from Kentucky, Mitch McComical, doesn't make it back next time around?
Yeah, except the NY Times did all the actual journalism and Kaplan just put it on Slate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/world/middleeast/09surge.html?ref=toda...
"Hey look! A traditional media outlet cutting through the rhetoric to give the public real information! Journalism!"
Fine, whatever, now can the US military board the ships and return home? Or wait as each day passes a squad sized number of soldiers die?
welcome to the day of illushions 911
PurplePatriot @ 17:
It is within our power to undo the horrors of the past eight years if the Democratic leadership would step up to the plate instead of playing footsie with Bush.
It is precisely because I have been considering the issues that I won't vote for Hillary. It's not the search for the perfect candidate (no such animal), but that my principles are worth more than a 'hold your nose and vote'. Additionally, candidates are getting measured in light of what has been changed. What has been done to the constitution and to the laws of this country must be undone, and it must be a voiced and emphasized priority.
"Good enough" has given us Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Samuel Alito, Michael Hayden, and a slew of others as presidential advisors. Time to hold the politicians who enabled the corrupt behaviors of the Bush Administration to account.
For what it's worth, my wife feels as you do - if Hillary gets the nomination, she'll vote the ticket, even if she doesn't like her platform.
And if you don't see how your insistence that We Absolutely Must Vote Democrat isn't the same as conservatives' We Absolutely Must Support The President, the battle has been lost.
General Westmoreland Petraeus is, I think a man who may not be that moral, but he values honor and respect. He understands that in order to serve the vanity of the bush and the republican party, he must trade in his honor and become a tool.
I think what I saw in him was shame.
I worry about a couple of things he said. He didn't know about the new base on the border of Iran and Iraq and he didn't think anyone could've anticipated how Iraq turned out. This tells me that he's not in the direct chain of command, and that he isn't qualified to be a combat general.
So who is actually getting everything done as he sits there as a figurehead? Donald Rumsfield perhaps?
His avoidance of the question about Iraq in four years, tells me that he believes it will still be a quagmire. He could've said that he believes that Iraq will be a better place in four years. But he can't really come right out and tell such a big lie. so he answered a different question, to avoid telling the truth.
exploshion at the pentagon cnn
sorry its a replay of 911 on msnbc
tyree @ 27:
I thought that might be it.
just got up not awake yet
tyree @ 26:
I'm sitting in the newsroom (not CNN) right now, don't scare me like that.
guess thats the ahhhhh plane cheny allowed to get through
I also agree that relabeling Gen. Patreaus's name as betray us is playing right into the devisive hands of the conservatives. Patreaus is simply dong his job, which is to put the best face onto a huge mistake. Attacking Pateaus personally is a WOT. We need to stay focused on the White House and the enablers in the congress.
My first thought was, it is the anniversary of 9/11 and Homeland Security can't even protect the Pentagon? Which part of it was under construction this time?
P{ersonally attacking war veterans is normally the pervue of the Republican party. See J. Kerry 2004. Don't play their game.
Also this thread is about Iraq. Not 9/11. It's important to keep them separate, as one had absolutley nothing to do with the other.
Che's Lounge @ 32:
His job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. After that, to defend America against enemies, both foreign and domestic.
His job is definitely not to cover up other people's mistakes. He is not a supposed to be a diaper changer for bedwetters.
Knight-Ridder, now McClatchy, was the only mainstream news organization the consistently blew the whistle on the lies leading up to the Iraq War. The reporting in the San Jose Mercury News before the Iraq war was always skeptical of the administration claims and actually refuted many of the claims while the rest of the media pounded on the war drums.
CNN and the New York Time, and The Washington Post fell back into old bad habits yesterday, choosing their hero worship for Petraeus over doing their jobs as news organizations.
The frustrating part is that CNN had to know that Petraeus was spinning the facts and chose to ignore it. That's unforgivable. That makes them complicit in the lies. They have been talking about the inevitability of the troop reductions next spring for month's now. In fact, just the day before Petraeus testimony Jaime McIntyre making a little fun of Democrats saying:
Of Course, That's just what Petraeus did was claim those inevitable troop reductions as troop withdrawals.
Later on CNN Newsroom McIntyre was supposedly fact checking Petraeus testimony, but never mentioned that Petraeus was doing just what McIntyre suggested the Democrats a day earlier.
CNN can't even claim ignorance here. They are clearly complicit in the deception. Whenever I see a story on CNN I immediately search the internet to find out what they chose to leave out of their story.
But I agree in principle. Don't call him Betrayus. Call him General Westmoreland Petraeus.
Che's Lounge @ 35:
are you kidding me everything thats beenj happening has to do with 911
Shadowgm @ 24:
We're 80% in agreement. If we give the presidency to the dems, and they fuck it up as badly as Bush has, then I will call for accountablilty and consequences. That is the difference. The right wing are apologists. My argument is that any democrat will be better. If it turns out they end up being as incompetent and corrupt as these assholes, then I will hold them accountable.
We need a new starting point. Joe Nochance gives us no chance at a new starting point. If we give the dems a new starting point, then we can at least stop the bleeding. Once the bleeding is stopped, we can then hold our new democratic leader to a new standard of continuing improvement. There is a difference between saying that we must vote democrat to have the power to have a chance at fixing this country ... and saying that we must absolutely support the guy who already has the power, and is totally fucking everything up.
Why don't Petraeus and Crocker have to take an oath?
Kick Rahm Emmanuel out of the Democratic Party leadership if you want change. He's the one recruiting Republicans to run as Democrats.
Just because someone has the label Democrat, doesn't automatically make them better. Republicans don't mind being deceptive to get what they want. The religious right made it a strategy to lie about their platforms in order to get elected to office. The whole point was to do anything necessary in order to gain power. The ends, justify the means.
So it wouldn't be out of character for ideological Republicans to register as political Democrats in order to get elected. And this looks like this is what happened in 2004.
marie @ 41:
Because Republicans worship figures of authority and their loyalty is unquestionable. They would feel they were betraying their gods if they questioned their word.
I agree with PurplePatriot - "Most Americans have accepted that there just isn’t much to do about this fucked up war except wait out the Bush administration until that glorious day that the moving vans back up to the White House in January of 2009 . . .
. . . The only chance we have of saving the country we all love is to vote democrat in ‘08 … democrat, not green or independent. Anyone who wants to send a message to the Washington establishment (Hillary) by voting for Joe Nochance is dooming this country."
Remember Ralph Nader, the third party presidential candidate? The votes wasted on him reduced Al Gore's victory margin sufficiently to allow Bush to steal the election. Let's not repeat that mistake again - vote Democratic in 2008!
Kudos to McClatchy
Bunch of Idiots...
cabbage @ 44:
i dont believe voteing for a third partys nessasary, weve got dennis kucinich and thats much better then any third party, but hillery clinton is another story this bitch was a republican long before she married bill clinton , and nothigs going to change with her in the whitehouse , its going to be more war more graft and corruption so wheres the improvement?
tyree @ 39:
You miss my point completely. Stop trying to argue for the sake of arguing. You know exactly what I mean. How stupid. You sound like Bush.
NEVER use an Iraq thread to discuss 9/11.
Weaseldog @ 36:
Is there something in the water today? We all know what his job description is. We all also know what job he was given by the WH. If you want to hover in the clouds of Fantasyland, go ahead. But the REALITY of the situation is, his job is not ours to describe. He takes orders from the Commander in Chief. Do I have to draw a fucking picture here?
Patreaus is not the problem.
Patreaus is nothing. The whole theater of his report means nothing. The war will go on, and Patreaus is just as unable to change anything as we are.
Defend the Constitution?
Give me a fucking break.
Che's Lounge @ 49:
There is not just, 'One Single Problem'. There never was.
General Westmoreland Petraeus, has lied, he has publically thrown in his support for Republican candidates. He has endangered the US Military and the safety of the United States of America. He has betrayed the US Constitution. Consider for a moment the continued torture of prisoners and the disregard of the Geneva Convention. These acts, make him a war criminal.
He is a criminal. He is part of the larger problem. The problem is the rot of greed throughout the House, Senate, Justice Department and the White House. The whole lot is owned by the oil and defense industry, and they serve those entities first.
Even the Democratic Party is only allowing pro-war candidates to make it through lcoal primaries. Though the Presidential stage has America captivated, the local seats are being pre-screened to insure that in most districts, democratic voters will choose between competing Republicans, dressed in the skins of Democrats.
If you want to get at the people at the top, you can start by cleaning house at the bottom. Until the local races allow real democrats to win the primaries, your representatives will continue to support this war.
Che's Lounge @ 50:
He could try to save his soul from eternal damnation, if he believes in that sort of thing.
A man shouldn't serve evil, simply because he is helpless to prevent it.
Che's Lounge @ 48:
the only stupid thing i heard was you saying iraq has nothing to do with 911
and i got your bush in my pants!
tyree @ 54:
Yes Tyree, when losing an argument, always go to personal attacks.
Weaseldog,
The problem is the rot of greed throughout the House, Senate, Justice Department and the White House. The whole lot is owned by the oil and defense industry, and they serve those entities first.
Now you're getting it.
If you want to get at the people at the top, you can start by cleaning house at the bottom.
Agreed. But election reform is even more important. The fix is in for 2008.
Was there something honest about the Petraeus report that snuck by me?
Carmikl @ 37:
What Crocker and Petraeus didn’t say
Scoobedybeebop!
Che's Lounge @ 55:
That is the kicker isn't it? The incumbents like the rigged elections.
JasonLloren @ 58:
That's uncalled for. And I'm a video editor for a traditional media outlet.
listen you jerks , ive been fighting these repukes since long before you were a leftover stain on daddys shorts ,
Now that it is well understood that we didn’t invade Iraq because of 9-11 or WMDs, I think it’s time to do a simple cost-benefit analysis to our endeavors there. It’s time now, because we’ve already spent more on the occupation than the value of ALL OF THE OIL left in Iraq. So what did we gain? What did we lose?
We lost close to 4000 American Soldiers’ lives, and maimed close to 30,000 more.
We killed and wounded more CONTRACTORs – which nobody wants to count.
We lost 1 Trillion Dollars (on its way to two trillion after we pay the interest).
We’ve displaced 2 million Iraqi’s, killed more Iraqi citizens than Saadam ever did. We’ve destroyed their infrastructure, and inflamed centuries old rivalries in the region, and have made no friends in the Middle East.
We’ve lost all credibility on the world stage, and have jeopardized our currency and economy.
On the other side of this simple cost/benefit analysis…what have we gained?
What have we gained?
Che's Lounge @ 55:
who says i lost the argument?you? who the hell are you ? somebody i should look up to, if you dont like my estimation on 911 and dont equate the two iraq and 911 together , make your statement plainer , and saying i sound like bush !fuck you!
marie @ 41:
Petraeus is a grunt, I'm sure he knows a lot of oaths.
Being under oath is an 'unnecessary formality' (meaning a blatant dodge from having your arse cooked over a slow fire for contradicting yourself in the future).
But is there really any reason to believe General Petraeus would give a different report if he were under oath?
Anything these obviously rehearsed White House lying bastards say is worthless because they are NOT under OATH to tell all the truth and nothing but the truth. Totally meaningless bullshit.
under oath , not under oath, whats the difference , they lie nothing happens they own the law the courts the police, and the supreme court, lucky for them huh?
Being under oath would be a sop to the public. Any charges against Petraeus would have to be handled in a military courts-martial.
The count is now at 69. Makes me think Sen. Craig has found a boy toy du jour.
Tyree,
I doubt you could stoop any lower in your comments.
Let's try to get back to basics. The neocons had every intention of taking Iraq before the events of 9/11. 9/11 was a FALSE pretext for the invasion. The invasion would have happened one way or another with or without 9/11. Let me put it another way. Bush did not NEED 9/11 to attack Iraq, so therefore they are not related. It was simply a matter of waiting for some violent event, ANY event to happen, and 9/11 just provided something that they WANTED to happen in the first place to perpetuate the war on terror in general.
So discussing 9/11, especially on the anniversary, in a thread about Iraq, is disingenuous. It perpetuates the myth. We need to be DISCIPLINED in our discussions. Otherwise, these forums become exactly what we detest from the reich wing and, as you so eloquently demonstrate, nothing more than insults and name calling within the ranks.
Che's Lounge @ 71:
it seems to me your hipocracy about name callings just that hipocracy, you said what i stated was stupid and you said i sounded like bush, whats with that if its not insulting a poster? as far as weather bush would have been able to invade iraq without 911 i doubt it very much, and 911 was not just a convienent happening it was planned and exicuted to be the excuse for bushes agresshion, yes it was brilliantly pulled off , but not by 19 mid easterners , as far as the right wingers thinking any posts equateing the attacks on 911 to others then 41 saudies and 4 jordanians as being bull crap is silly , the right wingers are going to dismiss anything you say on this or any leftwing blog , and its my oppinion thiers nothing that will destroy the republicans more then the truth about 911!
sorry 14
crap 19 hijackers
Doesn't it seem like our ambassador to Iraq should have some kind of suntan? Iraq doesn't have many days without sunshine. I don't see how Ambassador Crocker could spend much time going out and about to see what's actually going on in Iraq without getting some color in his cheeks.
Interesting how Tyree admits being thrown by a CNN broadcast of the bombing at the Pentagon. This makes me wonder if that's partially the intent of such broadcasts. Dignified memorials are one thing, reenactments of tragic events less calcified in our collective memories another, because they might cause many to temporarily get confused as the present-tense and past-tense events. Hopefully, they'll get annoyed at the news, but booshco might attempt to redirect this tension toward Iran.
Carmikl @ 75:
That's what he hire dominatrixes for.
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/51/38/23113851.jpg
ysbaddaden @ 76:
i had just got up had my cup of coffey turned on my computer to cnn, saw they were just a bunch of politicians beating thier chests on the attack on 911, switched to msnbc , didnt know they were replaying 911 , when this announcer came on saying thier was an exploshion at the pentagon, it wasnt till later i found out it was all the same thing i watched on 911 , it gets tougher to get completly awake the older you get hopefully youll all live long enough to feel the achs and pains of getting old!!!
MC
MCcains such a looser!
tyree @ 78:
I doubt you were the only one, that's why I suspect the natives are restless, and am hearing war drums.
Either that or it's a hangover.
If continuing this war was truly the right thing to do, the Bush Cartel wouldn't need to go to such great lengths to spin and fabricate and use half-truths when talking to the American people about it. If a leader is doing the right thing, the people will know and they will follow. No bullshitting required.
Wolf Blitzer announced that George Bush will announce that he'll be bringing home 30,000 troops next summer, but will George W. Bush announce that he will be bringing 30,000 home next summer because we just don't have any troops to replace them? Will Wolf Blitzer point out that this is all spinning the inevitable, or will Wolf just further the deception?
Soon or later the public is going realize that this is all spin, and that CNN among others is complicit to the deception.
There are lies , damn lies and statistics. Yesterday doesn't matter, tomorrow does so all talk should be about what "lies" ahead and what can be done about it by the US, Iraq and the rest of the world. Statements like "if we pull out then Iran will move in" aren't meaningful nor productive. Iran's going to "move in" one way or the other. So will Eqypt, Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Russia, China, Halliburton, Blackwater, Terrorism Inc., Gun Runners Ltd. and other parties with a vested interest in either the oil or the balance of power in the region. And the US will always be there. Unfortunately (a la Churchill) we are no longer talking about the principle here, we are merely haggling over the price.
The McClatchy story picks up on a point that was made first at unbossed.com yesterday (though without crediting us).
Specifically, Petraeus depicted an alleged decline of attacks on maps of Baghdad that were grossly dishonest. Petraeus' maps pretend that there has been no ethnic/sectarian cleansing in Baghdad during the last year. Quite the opposite is true, and Petraeus clearly wanted to divert attention from that central fact.
Here's the link:
Progress in Iraq, again
Carmikl @ 83:
Just to add to this a bit, Wolf did make an effort to call out Jaime McIntyre on this point and got McIntyre to admit that in order to continue the Surge beyond April 2008, either Army tours would have to be extended to 18 months or more reserves would have to be called up.
However, Cafferty called it for what it is, the Bush administration spinning the inevitable troop reduction for political gain. It would be nice to find a video of Cafferty's Comment. It's a classic.
tyree @ 72:
A little off topic.
Please don't be insulted but....your spelling really need work. Its very distracting and substandard.
Login or Register to post comments.