Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The "Petraeus Report" (updated)
Posted by: McQ on Monday, August 27, 2007

The short answer is "there is no such thing".

Let me explain.

In the past few weeks we've heard that the White House won't let Petraeus speak. Then we've heard that he'll only provide input to the September 15th Benchmark report, and the White House will then spin that.

I had the opportunity today to talk with a DoD Legislative Affairs expert who went over the law itself. The law is the Supplemental Appropriations Law (Public Law 110-28, "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007") which funds the war in Iraq. Within that law are various reports which are mandated. For instance, Section 1314 mandates the Benchmark report, which is to be submitted on the 15th of the month, by the President. It will, of course, have DoD and State Department input and cover the 18 benchmarks outlined in the law. But again, the law requires the President submit the report, not Gen. Petraeus and not Abm. Crocker.

From the law:
(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.

[...]

(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.
The law also mandates two other reports. The first is an independent assessment by the Comptroller General that addresses the benchmarks as well. That, by law, is to be submitted near the 1st of the month (September).

Then there is a completely independent assessment required by the law to be made by an appropriate outside entity with the the knowledge and expertise to make such an assessment. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (a 501c3 organization [think tank]) was chosen and the assessment team is headed by Gen. Jones, former commandant of the Marine Corps. That report is mandated to be delivered 120 days after the law was passed (it was passed on May 25th) and is thus due near the end of September.

Last, but not least, there is no "Petraeus report" due. That's not to say we're not going to hear from Gen. Petraeus. But the law mandates no written report from him or Amb. Crocker. What it does mandate, however, is that Petraeus and Crocker deliver an assessment via testimony to the Congress prior to the Sept. 15th benchmark report to be delivered by the WH. And they will indeed do that in both open and closed session.

Again, from the language in the law:
(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.
So when you read all the stories spinning through the news and blogosphere about how the White House is trying to muzzle Petraeus, or that he's not going to do a "report" because the WH wants to control the spin, be aware of what the law mandates so you can properly filter the BS from the rest.

The WH is required to present the Sept. 15th report, not Gen. Petraeus. Gen. Petraeus is required by law (as is Amb. Crocker) to testify before Congress prior to the delivery of the WH benchmark report. This has never been in doubt. The fact that it may fall on the 11th of September isn't necessarily due to anything but the Congressional mandate that his assessment be delivered prior to the WH report.

And, you can look for two reports (well actually 3 since MNFI will be issuing its own quarterly report on Iraq around the 1st of the month) from other entities as well - the report from the Comptroller General (due near the 1st of the month) and CSIS (due near the end of the month).

Hopefully this info makes it all a little clearer as to what the law is, who is required by law to do what and how they'll do it.

UPDATE: A couple of relevant posts from The Influence Peddler provide even more details concerning the topic.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
How thick can you be? The only person making a big deal of the ’Petraeus Report’ is the President, who keeps talking about how policy needs to be set by ’commanders in the field’ and not by ’politicians in Washington’ (like himself). The whole Petraeus thing has been White House bamboozlement all along, so that the White House can dress up their policies in the borrowed raiment of the General.

Of course it is going to be a White House report. It has always been supposed to be a White House report, especially, as you point out, that is what the terms of the law state. What is newsworthy is that the pretense has been revealed, and some sources in the White House have admitted to all the phoniness.

For you to then turn around and say "BS! It is supposed to be a White House report AFTER ALL" is just plainly disingenuous.
 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
How thick can you be?
Apparently not quite as thick as you.

My goodness, how can anyone blow a fairly easy reading comprehension assignment such as this as badly as you have.

Ideological blinders and BDS really do effect the thinking of some, and you’ve been kind enough to prove it.

Thanks.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
My reading comprehension is fine. What you wrote is correct, but it does not support the point you are making.

Who has built up expectations for the ’Petraeus Report’? What has been the intended effect of the repeated references of the ’Petraeus Report’? Given this historical fact of what the President has said, and what use he has put this rhetoric to, it is clear that he has been systematically dishonest.

That is the story here.
 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
Sure Xenos, Congress hasn’t been waiting and talking about the report either, have they?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Who has built up expectations for the ’Petraeus Report’
The Dems, who were hoping desperately that it will contain enough cover for them to try to end the war via defunding....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Who has built up expectations for the ’Petraeus Report’?
What part of "there is no ’Petraeus report" did you miss?

He is, by law, required to testify before Congress prior to the Benchmark report. He will do it in both open and closed sessions.

No one said a darn thing about ’expectations’ except you.
Given this historical fact of what the President has said, and what use he has put this rhetoric to, it is clear that he has been systematically dishonest.

That is the story here.
Even if you believe that, what has that to do with the fact that Petraeus will testify before the President’s report as a matter of law?

The story here is you trying to make something that was never even intimated in the post ... which goes back to my first comment and, it appears, an accurate assessment of you.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The Dems, who were hoping desperately that it will contain enough cover for them to try to end the war via defunding....
Who called it a failure before it ever started and the general running it "incompetent" and someone they wouldn’t believe when he did report?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Um, what?

Since Congress is hundreds of people, half of which are politically allied with the White House, I don’t understand what ’Congress’ has had to say on the issue that would be relevant or meaningful.

Since you are making a partisan point, I would say that Democratic Congressmen have not been the ones talking up the meeting as a major event, that will prove once and for all whether the Baghdad escalation has been a successful policy/strategy/surge/whatever. The President is the one who has talked up the report, linked to and given credibility by Petraeus, as the reason why Congress should sit on its hands and let the war proceed until the end of the summer.

So your point is what, exactly? I have good reading comprehension, but I am not psychic.

 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
Since Congress is hundreds of people, half of which are politically allied with the White House, I don’t understand what ’Congress’ has had to say on the issue that would be relevant or meaningful.
OK, The MAJORITY Leadership of Congress if it makes you feel better....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Since Congress is hundreds of people, half of which are politically allied with the White House, I don’t understand what ’Congress’ has had to say on the issue that would be relevant or meaningful.
Who mandated the reports and testimony? Apparently the benchmarks they included in the law are what they believe to be "relevant" and "meaningful".
Since you are making a partisan point ...
Heh ... how freakin’ dumb do think people are here? Go reread your first comment and tell me who introduced partisanship into this commentary.
So your point is what, exactly?
It is an informational post. An attempt to clear up any misunderstandings as to how this whole process was set up and supposed to work.
I have good reading comprehension, but I am not psychic.
Uh, no ... if this has to be explained to you, you gave up the claim to good reading comprehension a long time ago.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Who has built up expectations for the ’Petraeus Report’?
Generally, the White House, and that is something MSM is perfectly fine with, because Petraeus’s good offices are the source of most of the information in the report, the GAO to independently confirm that. It is such a clear thing from the law I doubt if it occurred to the Democrats to try and spin that until they were quite desperate for a loss in Iraq.
What has been the intended effect of the repeated references of the ’Petraeus Report’?
To show the Administration is putting no effort into a Potemkin report, and they are not.
Given this historical fact of what the President has said, and what use he has put this rhetoric to, it is clear that he has been systematically dishonest.
No such thing is remotely correct. The President and several of his cabinet officers and subordinate officials are required to author several reports by a law passed by both houses of Congress. Petraeus and his officers will be the source of the information in those reports, those reports to be validated by Petraeus personally in his testimony and by the GAO, independently.

These are certainly more General’s reports than the White House’, because the Administration is required by law to essentially take dictation from the General.

Spin will be done, but on verified and not invented facts.
I would say that Democratic Congressmen have not been the ones talking up the meeting as a major event, that will prove once and for all whether the Baghdad escalation has been a successful policy/strategy/surge/whatever. The President is the one who has talked up the report,
And this says nothing about the accuracy of the reports or their authorship, it says the Administration has confidence the reports will be generally positive. As for partisanship, the Democrats only stopped talking about the report—only stopped saying listen to the generals—when the generals likely had positive things to say.

The Democrats have no reticence to publicize military views which are negative and not supported by facts.


Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
McQ!

sit down and take your Adderall.

The point of your original post is that there never was supposed to be a "Petraeus Report’, because the written report was supposed to be by the White House all along. This serves the larger point you were implying, which was that any fuss over the authorship of the report is bullsh*t. Indulge mere here — have I got that much right?
 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
No such thing is remotely correct. The President and several of his cabinet officers and subordinate officials are required to author several reports by a law passed by both houses of Congress. Petraeus and his officers will be the source of the information in those reports, those reports to be validated by Petraeus personally in his testimony and by the GAO, independently.

These are certainly more General’s reports than the White House’, because the Administration is required by law to essentially take dictation from the General.


Tom, then take it up with McQ, not me. He is the one saying it is wrongheaded to attribute the written report to Petraeus and not to the White House.
 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
The point of your original post is that there never was supposed to be a "Petraeus Report’, because the written report was supposed to be by the White House all along.
No.

Try again.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
He is the one saying it is wrongheaded to attribute the written report to Petraeus and not to the White House.
Huh?

You are thick as a brick, aren’t you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
You are a master of Calvinball, after all.

Oh, sorry, you were just informing everybody of what the law is. No partisan point here at all.

Of course, armed with this knowledge..."be aware of what the law mandates so you can properly filter the BS from the rest."

 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
Tom, then take it up with McQ, not me. He is the one saying it is wrongheaded to attribute the written report to Petraeus and not to the White House.
You idiot. McQ is saying the law dictates who produces which report and with facts from what particular sources.

There is no "Petraeus report" to the extent Petraeus personally is not supposed to produce it. There most certainly is a "Petraeus report" in the sense he and his officers will be the source for the majority of the information contained in the report, and he will give testimony to Congress as to what the facts are and the significance of those facts, although there will be cross checking by other independent sources—all this done according to law and not by whim of the White House.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
You are a master of Calvinball, after all.
You are a complete and utter idiot - and I mean that in the nicest way possible. I mean I have no idea how else to characterize you. Perhaps idiot savant since you seem to have mastered getting on the internet and leaving a message, but other than that, wow ... I mean, just wow.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
While Petreaus is going to report to Congress, meaning give testimony to, several other reports, meaning documents, are due.

And, obviously, someone thinks there will be a "Petreaus Report" meaning a published document.

http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2007/08/slow-motion-political-theater
The much anticipated September progress report is still weeks away, and yet it has already started skirmishes up in the nation’s capitol. The latest volley having specifically to do with who would be delivering the report, the White House hoping to employ the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, ostensibly to minimize the exposure of General Patraeus to both congress and to the public forum.

Personally, I’m getting more than a little impatient with all this.

The fact is, we already know how this story is going to end. We know Patreaus has already been out there saying that there’s been some military improvement. We know that Bush is going to spin Patreaus’ report to the maximum extent possible. We’re talking, even if the General comes back and says, “It’s a lost cause, sir,” Bush is of the ilk where he’ll turn around and say, “We’re making progress, and need more time.”

It’s predictable and tiresome and at this point I just want to know when can it all be over. There would be validity in having a progress report at a set time if the results were not going to be predetermined, but that’s just not the case, particularly when we learn that the report in general will be coming not from General Patreaus, but from the White House with the General’s “input”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081501281.html
Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration’s progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.

White House officials did not deny making the proposal in informal talks with Congress, but they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. "The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday.

...

With the report due by Sept. 15, officials at the White House, in Congress and in Baghdad said that no decisions have been made on where, when or how Petraeus and Crocker will appear before Congress. Lawmakers from both parties are growing worried that the report — far from clarifying the United States’ future in Iraq — will only harden the political battle lines around the war.

...

Although the reports from Petraeus and Crocker are the most eagerly awaited, several other assessments are also required by the May legislation. The Government Accountability Office is due to report on Iraqi political reconciliation and reconstruction by Sept. 1. An independent committee, headed by retired Marine Gen. James Jones, has been studying the training and capabilities of the Iraqi security forces and will report to Congress early next month. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, said that the chiefs are making their own assessment of the situation in Iraq and will present it to Bush in the next few weeks.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
There is no "Petraeus report" to the extent Petraeus personally is not supposed to produce it. There most certainly is a "Petraeus report" in the sense he and his officers will be the source for the majority of the information contained in the report, and he will give testimony to Congress as to what the facts are and the significance of those facts, although there will be cross checking by other independent sources—all this done according to law and not by whim of the White House.

Is there a real difference underlying your distinction? Maybe, but the White House’s rhetoric has has sought to conflate it all in order to borrow the credibility it lacks from Petraeus.

This assertion on my part has been so far not been refuted by McQ. Rather, I am apparantly a dunce for inferring anything from his post beyond the most simple, pedantic conclusions in it.

 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
Let me save you the trouble, McQ:

’Xenos! You twerp! How did you get to be so dumb?’
 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
This assertion on my part has been so far not been refuted by McQ.
Why in the world would I attempt to refute something I’m not arguing!?!
’Xenos! You twerp! How did you get to be so dumb?’
Now there’s an assertion I can back.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Why in the world would I attempt to refute something I’m not arguing!?!

So you don’t deny that I am right?
 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
The only person making a big deal of the ’Petraeus Report’ is the President, who keeps talking about how policy needs to be set by ’commanders in the field’ and not by ’politicians in Washington’ (like himself).
Invalid premise...

There are many people making a big deal of the report to Congress that Petraeus is going to make.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
So you don’t deny that I am right?
LOL!

You’re priceless.

You’re welcome to make whatever silly assertions you wish but the fact no one bothers to refute them doesn’t make them either right or credible.

Even you should know that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Maybe, but the White House’s rhetoric has has sought to conflate it all in order to borrow the credibility it lacks from Petraeus.
The Democrats—when they still wanted to talk about it—were no less interested in "conflating" the reports than the White House or the media; neither, given the primacy of importance vested in the Benchmark report due the 15th, and the fact Petraeus is the primary source for that report, is it even inaccurate to refer to it as the "Petraeus report".
This assertion on my part has been so far not been refuted by McQ.
Your assertion has no significance. It simpy has no relevance. Petraeus’ and hos officers are the source of the information in the 09/15 Benchmark report. Petraeus will testify in Congress as to the report. The report will have all the credibility he has, and it should have that.
Rather, I am apparantly a dunce for inferring anything from his post beyond the most simple, pedantic conclusions in it.
Your assertions are simple and pedantic. I’m sure your being a dunce is a result of nature and nurture, your posts here merely reflect that.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
I do know that.

It is the sort of ’stupid rhetorican trick’ that you appear to specialize in.

Just descending your level, McQ.

Keep up the performance art. Your game is so weak I mistook it for a spoof site, anyway. Ciao, bella.
 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
and hos officers /= and his officers TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
I do know that.

It is the sort of ’stupid rhetorican trick’ that you appear to specialize in.

Just descending your level, McQ.

Keep up the performance art. Your game is so weak I mistook it for a spoof site, anyway. Ciao, bella.
Ah, a version Martin Lewis defense.

Brilliant.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
O come on, McQ., you think I thought I got ya with me superpowerful cross-examination skillz?

You blockhead...

Still, what is unrefuted may be treated as admitted by a trier of fact...

heh.
 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
O come on, McQ., you think I thought I got ya with me superpowerful cross-examination skillz?

You blockhead...

Still, what is unrefuted may be treated as admitted by a trier of fact...

heh.
Oh ... you still here?

How nice.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Xenos is trying to be the new MK.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
So you don’t deny that I am right?


Interviewer Good evening. I have with me in the studio tonight Mr Norman St. John Polevaulter, who for the last few years has been contradicting people...Mr Polevaulter, why do you contradict people?

Polevaulter I don’t!

Interviewer You told me that you did.

Polevaulter I most certainly did not!

Interviewer Oh. I see. I’ll start again.

Polevaulter No you won’t!

Interviewer Ssh! Mr Polevaulter I understand you don’t contradict people.

Polevaulter Yes I do!

Interviewer And when didn’t you start contradicting people?

Polevaulter Well I did, in 1952.

Interviewer 1952?

Polevaulter 1947.

Interviewer Twenty-three years ago.

Polevaulter No!
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I am going now...
 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
PSYCHE!
 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
Still, what is unrefuted may be treated as admitted by a trier of fact...
What is pointless may be ignored, and neither denial nor accession can be imputed thereby.

And as far as ignoring goes, I’m ignoring you now.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
What is pointless is McQ’s post. He denies ever having a point, or a position from which he is making a point. He just puts this stuff out there, you see.

I have been childish here, as a way of pointing out how childish McQ has been.

Enough wrestling with pigs.
 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
Who were you talking to Tom Perkins?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Interesting, this CNN poll doesn’t say what methodology was used in this poll, or how the numbers break along political affiliations...

But, it would seem CNN is making a "big deal" about the Petreus report.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/16/poll-americans-dont-trust-iraq-report/
A majority of Americans don’t trust the upcoming report by the Army’s top commander in Iraq on the progress of the war and even if they did, it wouldn’t change their mind, according to a new poll.

President Bush has frequently asked Congress — and the American people — to withhold judgment on his troop surge into Iraq until Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker issue their progress report in September.

But according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Thursday, 53 percent of people polled said they don’t trust the military assessment of the situation without trying to make it sound better than it actually is. 43 percent said they do trust the general’s report.
And The American Progress...

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_utter_uselessness_of_the_petraeus_report

Just a few weeks from now, the most eagerly anticipated premier of the year will finally be here, complete with fierce disagreement among the critics and relentless hype by the producers, cameras furiously clicking when the starring players emerge in public. That premier is the report coming in mid-September from U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and, more importantly, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of American forces there. If you’re expecting a surprise ending, you shouldn’t hold your breath.
And the Washington Post, reporting on Rep. Clyburn’s statements...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
What is pointless is McQ’s post.
Really?

Heh ... you sure spent enough time on a "pointless" post. Are you positive it wasn’t your comment that was pointless? Or said another way, why does it appear that it was only you who didn’t understand the post?

You might want to pose that question to the mirror tonight. I wouldn’t wait too long for a profound answer, but it might at least keep you amused for a while.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
joe, I’m quoting Xenos in my scathing replies. Why do you doubt to whom I am replying?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
I thought there was a point, but every time I tried to nail it down, so as to respond to it, you denied the point and failed to clarify it.

Talking to you is like nailing jello to a wall. You don’t say what you mean, and deny what a reader interprets you to mean without clarification. There is no there there, beyond empty phrasings and schoolboy rhetorical ploys.

You are either a spoof, or a crank. So talking you is pointless.

Not to dodge out of the scene of the crime, but I am off. I come back and harass you some more the next time I am bored and looking for something pointless to do.

 
Written By: Xenos
URL: http://
Not to dodge out of the scene of the crime, but I am off. I come back and harass you some more the next time I am bored and looking for something pointless to do.
Oh, please do. Your return will be awaited with bated breath and the time will pass oh so slowly until you do.

Alas, if you hang out in front of mirror tonight and do what I suggested you may never get bored and we’d never see you again.

So avoid mirrors, ’kay?

Bu bye.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I like it when a pointless commenter eventually realizes that their participation is pointless...
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
After going through all of the comments in this section, I find the only thing pointless is Xenos! So, Xenos, you can go way and play with yourself! Now that would be dong "something pointless".
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I like it when a pointless commenter eventually realizes that their participation is pointless...
What is always surprising (and funny) is how long it usually takes them to reach that realization.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
So, Xenos, you can go way and play with yourself! Now that would be dong "something pointless".
Freudian slip? ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
joe, I’m quoting Xenos in my scathing replies. Why do you doubt to whom I am replying?
Who? I see you and McQ and Keith Indy, is there someone else here? Don’t feed the trolls and mayhap they’ll go away.

I have completely lost sight of what any of this began as, truth to tell...sometimes it sounds like something from "Shrek the Third" where Pinochio is being interogated, "I don’t know where Shrek isn’t", HUH!?!?!

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I come back and harass you some more the next time I am bored and looking for something pointless to do.
Maybe him and "Nimbus" are off together getting some nookie (that means sex, punk!)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Maybe him and "Nimbus" are off together getting some nookie (that means sex, punk!)
I lol’d

I think we should make Nagl the face-man for this.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Xenos is just being himself... err... being annoying, McQ. Oh. Sorry. Was that redundant?

From Think Progressyve:

The Los Angeles Times reports that Gen. David Petraeus’ upcoming Sept. 15 report on Iraq will be authored by the White House:

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.

In other words, the Sept. 15 report promises to be much like the July mid-term report which purported to show “satisfactory performance on 8 of the 18 benchmarks.” A closer look into those claims revealed that the progress was purely White House spin. Yet, the report accomplished its primary objective of producing media reports which suggested that the overall picture in Iraq was “mixed.”

The White House has repeatedly employed Petraeus as a PR flack, using him to promote failing Iraq policies and the war czar nomination.

...Apparently, Bush doesn’t plan to wait for a report; instead, he’ll have it drafted prior to Petraeus’ return. Markos writes: “Let me predict the future: The report: ‘Success!’ The interpretation: ‘Smashing success!’”

****************

NO mention that that the legislation mandates a report from the President, not Petraeus. How very odd.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/15/petraeus-white-house-report/



 
Written By: Cassandra
URL: http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog
Xenos is just being himself... err... being annoying, McQ.
Yeah, I know Cass. It is alway more fun though if they’re amusing while they’re being annoying. Why is it I picture Xenos right now standing in front of the mirror just as I suggested and being positively enthralled with what he sees?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I think all of the various reports have been short-handed by the media and the pols to be considered "The Petraeus Report"

Now, when the actual reports come out and have discrepancies, the Left will jump all over that claiming its "spin" and where’s the real report, etc.

It will be very predictable, which is why McQ pre-emptively posted this very informative piece.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I understood the "point" of this to be...

1. Congress passes laws saying who must report what and how the reports must be assembled and delivered.

2. The administration prepares to deliver reports according to the law passed by Congress.

3. Congressional leadership, the media, and liberal/progressive commentators begin to accuse the administration of intending to subvert the required reports.

4. Examination of the law passed by Congress shows that the very things they are complaining about and that progressive/liberal commentators and media are pointing to as proof of perfidiousness, of subversion of Congressional authority, is in FACT, the administration carefully following the very law that Congress passed in the way that Congress required.

 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
This was a good, informative post. Thank you!
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Synova’s synopsis looks pretty accurate, but let me try an alternate version that better explains xenos’s puzzlement.

1. Some people thought Petraeus would author his own report of progress. They’re mistaken.

2. When these people found out Bush would be authoring the report, they claimed to be misled.
Since they were not in fact ever misled, their bellyaching is evidence of bad faith, or maybe just ignorance.

3. Anything these people, or other people like them, have to say about Bush’s report should be viewed in light or their evident bad faith or ignorance of the basic facts.

4. Since these people will claim Bush’s report is an artifact of spin, their claims should be accepted as evidence otherwise.

Okay, I’m drawing #4 as an inference that I don’t believe McQ can be said to have implied, but isn’t that really what the eventual dispute will be about? My point would be, if McQ isn’t implying #4, that makes his post a simple rehash of arguments about how dishonest or stupid lefties are.

I think McQ had something more in mind than that, but if it isn’t #4, then what is it?
 
Written By: jjc
URL: http://
I think McQ had something more in mind than that, but if it isn’t #4, then what is it?
It was to point out that there was never any such thing promised, mandated or expected called a "Petraeus report". And I think that’s pretty clear in the post.

Given that clarification, it is left to you to decide what that means when you read claims and counter-claims concerning such a report flying around out there.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
OK, so #1 covers it, with #2 and #3 as correlates. (Or maybe not—I think they’re reasonble inferences, but you may be claiming not to have implied them.) Insofar as I ever thought there would be a Petraeus report, I was mistaken and now stand corrected.

Did lefties or righties contribute more to the misimpression that there would be a "Petraeus report?" Seems a possible point of controversy which I hope you would agree is pointless. I admit to having had that misimpression, and to being a lefty, but my being a lefty doesn’t, so far as I can see, account for my having had that misimpression.

What I would say to you is, I think that would have all come out in the wash anyway, and the greater point all along is, how credible will be the Presidential report? All of the most important issues are left to be resolved.

I must say I’m impressed that you got back to me so quickly.



 
Written By: jjc
URL: http://
Did lefties or righties contribute more to the misimpression that there would be a "Petraeus report?"
Frankly I’m not sure although Cassandra at Villainous Company has some info that perhaps you can track back to an origin. My sense is it began on the left as a way to discredit Bush, the September 15th report and to imply that Petraeus was simply going to spin information the way Bush told him too. It also seems to have been portrayed as something promised and then withdrawn because of a implied need by the White House to control what was going to be reported.
What I would say to you is, I think that would have all come out in the wash anyway, and the greater point all along is, how credible will be the Presidential report?
In my experience it is always better to get the facts out in front of the event or the misinterpretations have a tendency to take on a life of their own. A bit like running something in a newspaper that is factually incorrect and then running a correction afterward. Who reads corrections?
I must say I’m impressed that you got back to me so quickly.
I enjoy conversing with people who ask good questions and are genuinely interested in the topics posted here.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Can’t we all just get along?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
9/10/07 - Petraeus said he wrote his testimony himself, and it had not been cleared by or shared with anyone in the White House or Pentagon. That’s the biggest crock I’ve ever heard. Just when I think the White House cannot try to force another turd down the public’s throat, they try with an even bigger one.

However, it throws a wrench into this discussion, dontcha think?
 
Written By: Chilipepa
URL: http://
However, it throws a wrench into this discussion, dontcha think?
According to you that’s not true. So how’s it throw a wrench in this discussion?

Oh, you mean because he actually put something together for his testimony even though it wasn’t mandated by Congress?

Uh, no, it doesn’t at all. Why do you think it would?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider