A report by an on-the-ground commander will suggest that headway is being made in the war in Iraq. But can we trust that report? Is he politically motivated as a Bush puppet?
Does he want to hold on to his status in the limelight as an important person? Is he too close to the trees to see the forest? (anology).
Or, will you take his word for it that the objectives will be reached given enough time?
I would tell you that the Joint Chiefs are beholden to the same monied interests that the politicians are, but I don't think that loyalty extends all the way down to field Generals.
But then when one ponders how field Generals get those positions one has to wonder.
This, like Ron Paul says, is why the whole bureaucracy needs to be disassembled, and put back together properly.
After reading this entry on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy Blog, I don't think I trust it one bit.
From the article:
But I don't know yet. I haven't looked into it enough to make an informed decision.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.
And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.
The war has been going wretched now for years, they throw in 20,000 more troops, and all of a sudden the tide is turning?
I have a bridge to sell you...
So if his report is positive on the progress we've made in Iraq, it's automatically crap?
If it's not favorable, will it become the bible of the anti-war crowd?
"Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." | "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." - RR
Quote removed because someone got their feelings hurt. (boo hoo)
Quote by: Technosoul
Hell, no. If he someone that might give a report Bush wouldn't like, by now, he would have been on the official "ignore" list, like the conclusions under the Iraqi Study Group, or fired... um, "retired," like all those military types Bush claims he listens to.
The report may very well be positive--my distrust lies not in that, but in how it will be spun.
The slightest bit of improvement over there will be enough to justify remaining entrenched in a war we never should have been fighting, and this administration will do everything in its power to do exactly that.
Meanwhile, a mere few weeks ago, in a stunning display of honesty, Bush conceded that democracy in Iraq may not be possible after all.
And even if it could possibly be the opposite, you, and more importantly, George, would accept it?
Hmmm... have my doubts.
In the final analysis, you have a point... that you probably weren't intending on making. No matter what the truth is we're all screwed because the country is so divided.
:rolleyes:"Unitier, not a divider?"lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol...
(Wait. I know...)
"It's all Bill Clinton's fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Caveat...
All sarcastic comments above are not intended to represent the author's viewpoint. Indeed, probably represent the opposite of the author's viewpoint. Those who actually believe them to be the author's viewpoint are most likely Bushies, Neo Cons, Knee-Jerk Reich Wingers and probably have listened to what FOX dares to call "news" so much their brains make swiss cheese look solid.
I will trust the reports data, but will choose what to make of it on my accord, having faith in no ones opinion as to what should be made of the data.
LOL...another example which shows why the US is in self-destruction. When you distrust your own military, demonize patriotism, invest in defeat. You are effectively denying your right to exist. The world is smarter than you think, people can see how the US is going down the path of Roman Empire. The funny thing is, most of you won't even realize it, even if your own relatives are killed, you still blame your government for it. This nation is a joke.
Well, our own military deserves to not be trusted completely, look back to Vietnam.
In addition, patriotism has never really appealed to me, though I do believe that nationalism has a purpose.
As for Rome, well it collapsed because of a huge trade deficit, just like the US is going to.
The military? Trust? Sometimes, yes, occasionally, no, but policy and policymakers are not "the military," for the most part. Even as members of the military, when one distrusts them, you don't distrust "the military," but, once again, the policymakers. Neo-Cons think we're all too stupid to know the difference.
You are effectively denying your right to exist.
In some cases, just the opposite. If one assumes all military actions, as dicatated by policy, must always be right and achieve the desired results, you would be right. However, policy decisions which leave the military doing the impossible, or doing something the wrong way, encourage such a condition. Indeed they are strong fertilizer for such things as terrorism.
The world is smarter than you think, people can see how the US is going down the path of Roman Empire. The funny thing is, most of you won't even realize it, even if your own relatives are killed, you still blame your government for it. This nation is a joke.
On this we agree, for the most part, although the reasoning and the examples would be different. Is the nation a joke? No, the administration would be though, if the punchline weren't throwing away lives for political gain, and encouraging more terrorism; more fear, and more handing over freedom to those who have no intent on protecting it, but keeping it only for themselves.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks