1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Patraeus Report -- Not So Much

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Fenian_Bastard, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. From the LA Times:

    "Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government."

    There is no reason to believe a word of the report.
  2. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Would you believe it if Patraeus wrote it?
  3. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Maybe Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should go on a fact finding mission
  4. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Patraeus looks like the many words that confused me to the point of getting a F in freshman Latin.

    The report? I fully expect it to be a new watershed in bullshit propaganda.
  5. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Not sure that he'd believe it, but at least there'd be the pretense that the administration isn't presenting out-and-out lies, even if that's what it contained.
  6. Cadet

    Cadet Guest

    I have been reading too much Harry Potter. At first glance I thought this was the Patronus Report.
  7. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Interesting that for the last few days, all the rightish bobbleheads - Kristol, Rush, et al., ad naus., ad inf. - have been telling us to trust the upcoming report because this time it's issuing from an impartial source. A "non-political" source is the phrase they favor.

    Kristol was hacking away at his talking points against Jon Stewart on the Daily Show the other night saying exactly that - Even if you don't trust the administration to report on the surge, you have to trust the General.

    As F_B sez, now, not so much.
  8. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    Honestly, while it wouldn't have been the be all and end all, I would have taken a report by Petraeus seriously. He seems pretty upfront.

    This just makes me shake my head.
  9. That's truly unbelievable. So essentially, they're grading their own test.

    In July, 8 of 18 benchmarks were "progress". So if we get up to 9 of 18, we're on our way to victory!!! Yay!
  10. At least Patraeus could explain what happened to the 190K guns that went missing while he was training the Iraqis.
  11. HejiraHenry

    HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

    Tough week for you blue dots.

    You won’t have Karl Rove to kick you around any more, much less to frog march outta town.

    The President’s approval ratings have shown a modest uptick, even as you’d need an electron microscope to find the approval ratings of congressional Dems.

    And now your centerpiece meme, Iraq-as-miserable-failure, is getting a little bit harder to buy – or sell.

    Enough that you’ve got a launch a pre-emptive strike on Gen. Petraeus before he can report that progress is being made. Can’t have that.

    So if the New York Times says Iraq is winnable, then the New York Times can’t be trusted.

    And if noted Iraq war critics say Iraq is winnable, then they can’t be trusted.

    And if the AP says Iraq is winnable, then it can’t be trusted.

    And if Gen. Petraeus says Iraq is winnable, then he’s just another Bush stooge.

    Somehow you guys sitting in your boxer shorts at home know better about what's going on in the world. We're blessed to have you insights here.
  12. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page