Gooper Brownshirt Tactics On Dissent

I can't believe that Move On didn't know they were gonna get hit hard for this ad. Anyone who has watched the GOP over the last 6 years would certainly know that the reaction from the Right would be over-the-top.

However, I don't see the American people being swayed by the opinions expressed on Cabal News so much anymore.

The Republican Brown-Shirts Are at it Again

A. Alexander, September 16th, 2007

The Republican Brown-Shirts are at it again. They're being oh-so-Nazi-like in their attack on an American group that has dared to exercise its right to dissent (John McCain says they should be thrown out of the country .. Nazi, much?). This time the Republican Jackboots are assailing MoveOn.Org, for articulating something that a recent poll found a majority of Americans believe to be the case, i.e. General Petraeus would, during Congressional testimony, willfully misrepresent and manipulate the facts and data regarding Iraq.

The Republican Brown-Shirt Brigade is attacking MoveOn even though they know that Petraeus has a history of being both a known Bush-backer and, when it comes to the situation in Iraq, a proven manipulator of reality. Should anyone not believe the above stated facts, just read the General's Washington Post op-ed published on September 26, 2004; Page B07 and titled, "Battling for Iraq."

Does any of this sound familiar ... like recently before Congress, familiar? In 2004, three years ago, Petraeus claimed, "18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress," and he insisted, "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country." Petraeus's biggest 2004 lie: "Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) are performing a wide variety of security missions."

Really? There were, in 2004, "100,000 Iraqi police and soldiers trained and equipped"? There may not even be that many Iraqi police and soldiers trained and equipped in 2007 ... there certainly weren't that many in 2004. Sure, the 'Loyal Bushies' and their lapdog Generals, Petraeus included, liked to make such claims, but every assessment had proven them liars.

Still, despite Petraeus's track record of lies, manipulations, and a willingness to prostrate himself before Bush and for Bush's benefit, the Republican Brown-Shirts are attacking MoveOn. And, of course, America's corporate-owned media goes along with the absurdity. The media never once point out Petraeus's history of dishonesty, dishonor or, getting down to the real issue, his dream of running for president as a Republican.

On some level the GOP's Jackboots do want to defend Petraeus's "integrity," such as it is (no doubt it is fully inline with the 'integrity' of a party of perverts and corrupted politicians) but mostly they really hope to bully the media into being too afraid -- using the New York Times as the example -- to allow dissenting voices access to their pages and airwaves. Ultimately, intimidation is the real objective of the Republican Brown-Shirts. MoveOn's truthful Petraues portrayal is simply one more excuse for the Republicans' oh-so-Nazi-like Shock Troops to try and intimidate dissent into submission.

The tactics that are being employed by today's Republicans are not a little like the tactics employed by Hitler's Brown-Shirts, their tactics of trying to intimidate dissent into silence are EXACTLY the tactics that Hitler's henchman employed. America's feckless corporate-owned media, New York Times included, will cower to these attacks ... MoveOn and other Progressive organizations must not! They must hit back and, too, begin to expose the Republican tactics for what they are ... an oh-so-Nazi-like attempt by Republican Brown-Shirts to stifle dissent.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

"Swear Him In." Is that so difficult?

What good is non-sworn testimony? Does anyone believe our court system would work at all if there was not a threat of perjury charges hanging over a witnesses's heads like the sword of Damocles?

Why not simply make it law that anyone testifying before Congress must be sworn to tell the truth? That way no big-wig will get his/her feelings hurt when they have to stand and raise their right hand. Everyone should have to swear to tell Congress, and therefore the American people the unvarnished truth, just like the rest of us mere mortals must do so if we are testifying in a court of law.

Jeebus, it isn't as if anyone in their right mind doesn't know by now that politicians, citizens with a personal agenda and, yes, generals have and will lie their asses off if the situation calls for it.

'Swear Him In' Provokes Expulsion

By Ray McGovern
September 10, 2007

“Swear him in.” That’s all I said in the unusual silence this afternoon as first aid was being administered to Gen. David Petraeus’s microphone at the hearing before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.

It had dawned on me that when House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Missouri, invited Gen. Petraeus to make his presentation, Skelton forgot to ask him to take the customary oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I had no idea that would be enough to get me thrown out of the hearing.

I had a flashback to a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in early 2006, when Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, reminded chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, that Specter had forgotten to swear in the witness, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; and how Specter insisted that that would not be necessary.

Now that may, or may not, be an invidious comparison. But Petraeus and Gonzales work for the same boss, who has a rather unusual relationship with the truth. How many of his senior staff could readily be convicted, as was the hapless-and-now-commuted Scooter Libby, of perjury?

So I didn’t think twice about it. I really thought that Skelton perhaps forgot, and that the 10-minute interlude of silence while they fixed the microphone was a good chance to raise this seemingly innocent question.

The more so since the ranking Republican representatives had been protesting too much. In the obverse of “killing the messenger,” they had been canonizing the messenger with protective fire.

Ranking Armed Services Committee member Duncan Hunter, R-California, began what amounted to a SWAT-team attack on the credibility of those who dared attack the truthfulness of the sainted Petraeus, and issued a special press release decrying a full-pager in the New York Times equating Petraeus with “Betray-us.”

Hunter served notice on any potential doubters, insisting that Petraeus’s “capability, integrity, intelligence...are without question.” And Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, echoed that theme, unwittingly choosing another infelicitous almost-homonym for the charges against Petraeus—“outrageous.”

Indeed, Hunter’s prepared statement, which he circulated before the hearing, amounted to little more than a full-scale “duty-honor-country” panegyric for the general.

On the chance we did not hear him the first time, Hunter kept repeating how “independent” Petraeus is, how candid and full of integrity, and compared him to famous generals who testified to Congress in the past—Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Schwarzkopf. Advisedly, Hunter avoided any mention of Gen. William Westmoreland, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, who fell tragically short on those traits. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Is Petraeus Today’s Westmoreland.”]

If memory serves, the aforementioned generals and Westmoreland were required to testify under oath. And this was one of the main sticking points when CBS aired a program showing that Westmoreland had deliberately dissembled on the strength of Communist forces and U.S. “progress” in the war.

When Westmoreland sued CBS for libel, several of his subordinates came clean, and Westmoreland quickly dropped the suit. The analogy with Westmoreland—justifying a White House wish to persist in an unwinnable war —is the apt one here.

If Petraeus is so honest and full of integrity, what possible objection could he have to being sworn in?

I had not the slightest hesitation being sworn in when testifying before the committee assembled by Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, on June 16, 2005. Should generals be immune? Or did his masters wish to give him a little more assurance that he could play fast and loose with the truth without the consequences encountered by Scooter Libby.

With the microphone finally fixed, it quickly became clear. Petraeus tried to square a circle in his very first two paragraphs.

In the first, he thanks the committees for the opportunity to “discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command for the way forward.” Then he stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point—at least for me:

“At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress.”

Is not the Commander-in-Chief in Petraeus’s chain of command?

As Harry Truman, D-Missouri, would have said, “Does he think we were born yesterday?”

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Savior in Washington, DC. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer in the early sixties and then a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990. He had a front-seat for the charades orchestrated by Westmoreland in Vietnam. His e-mail is RRMcGovern@aol.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers..

Petraeus is Paying The Sunni Sheiks to Side With U.S.

So, the question arises, Why the hell weren't we paying Iraqis (Sunni, Shia, whomever, to side with us all along, by hiring them to re-build their own country instead of Halliburton and other pet corporations of the administration and to secure their own country, instead of American mercenaries like Blackwater.

Then again, maybe we have been paying them to turn on each other. Maybe that is where much of the lost money, weapons and military equipment went.

Thing is, these warlords will take as much money as we will give them and all the weaponry they can find, but the minute the money is cut off, they will switch sides. This is one of the tactics by which we will be finally defeated. Bush is just trying to buy time. This strategy is going nowhere and they all know it.

No one should be so delusional as to think that any Iraqi is the natural ally of the U.S., now.

They all have the same enemies and none of those names are Arabic. They are Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld and others known as well to them as to us.

We are the problem. How can we,therefore, be the solution.

The snippet below is from a London Times article awhile back.

"American forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow....

"In a letter to US troops, the general wrote that 'local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists and establishing provisional units of neighbourhood security volunteers.'

"The Sunday Times has witnessed at first hand the enormous sums of cash changing hands. One sheikh in a town south of Baghdad was given $38,000 (£19,000) and promised a further $189,000 over three months to drive Al-Qaeda fighters from a nearby camp...."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

What Now, Congress?

This article speaks of what Democrats plan to do or not do. We are more concerned with the Congress, period, since the Democrats do not have anywhere near a veto proof majority in the Senate.

Little will be slipping down the old memory hole between now and the election in 2008, and we don't really give a damn who continues to vote for this incredibly vile war nor do we care which party they are in. They will pay for their continuing support of what is essentially the mother of all war crimes.

While the Bushites may have stopped using the term, "stay the course," that is exactly what they are doing in an effort to dump Junior's failures in someone else's lap.

Democrats Weigh Moves on Troop Cut

By CQ Staff |

10:05 AM; Sep. 11, 2007

By John M. Donnelly and Josh Rogin, CQ Staff

After the top U.S. general in Iraq recommended the withdrawal of some 30,000 troops by next summer, Democratic leaders now must decide whether to press for legislation that would bring troops home sooner.

In more than six hours of testimony Monday, Gen. David H. Petraeus told a joint hearing of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees that a Marine Corps unit that typically totals about 2,200 personnel can come home this month, and an Army brigade, about 3,500 soldiers, can return home in December.

His recommendations, which President Bush has indicated he will adopt when he reports to Congress on the progress of the war by Sept. 15, appeared to complicate the Iraq calculus for Democrats, who have been planning to introduce compromise legislation as soon as next week that would require the beginning of a troop reduction by the end of the year but would include no deadline for completing the withdrawal.

Petraeus’ recommendation also takes political pressure off Republicans, who had warned that they might break away from supporting Bush’s Iraq strategy if Petraeus could not show progress in his testimony.

Petraeus said that in 2008 he plans to bring home the remainder of the roughly 30,000 U.S. forces that Bush added this year in Iraq as part of his so-called surge strategy, which would reduce U.S. forces there to the pre-surge level of about 130,000. That decrease was all but inevitable, however, because the Pentagon cannot sustain the larger force without extending tours of duty, which officials have rejected.

But Petraeus, who testified along with the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said he would disclose in March how soon U.S. troop levels could go below 130,000. A more rapid withdrawal would lead to “catastrophic consequences” in Iraq, he warned.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., responded that the Petraeus plan was too little, too late and called on the administration to pull out more troops sooner.

“The president promised the American people that this surge would be a short-term effort to provide space for political reform and national reconciliation in Iraq,” she said in a statement. “Today, despite overwhelming evidence that neither goal has been achieved, Gen. Petraeus testified that the surge would last at least until next summer. This is simply unacceptable.”

In the Senate, where Petraeus and Crocker are scheduled to appear Tuesday before the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees, Democrats also expressed skepticism about their testimony.

“Nothing today suggested that President Bush’s eight months of escalation have done anything to achieve political progress in a deadly civil war,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

But translating such protests into legislation will be no easy task, and in coming days Democrats in both chambers will have to sort out their next steps. Although the defense authorization bill (HR 1585) is scheduled to return to the Senate floor next week, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has not decided whether to consider any Iraq-related amendments to it or to take up the issue in stand-alone bills. Democrats are mulling over several such ­measures.

Senate Democrats were expected to continue to put political pressure on the administration Tuesday, pressing Petraeus and Crocker not only to bring more troops home sooner but also to change the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Changing the Mission

“The biggest [question] for me is: If they are asking for more time, it’s to do what?” said Ben Nelson, D-Neb., a Senate Armed Services Committee member who is leading moderates in an effort to write new Iraq legislation that would force a change in mission away from policing sectarian strife.

The challenge for Democrats will be to move beyond rhetoric. They had previously endorsed legislation that would set firm dates for starting a withdrawal of most troops this year and ending it in April. In recent weeks, they started drafting alternatives that would drop the end date.

Now Petraeus has pre-empted that idea by recommending that Bush begin a withdrawal this year.

As a result, Democrats in both chambers are expected to focus on how quickly troop levels can drop from the current level of 168,000 to 130,000 and then fewer. Many Democrats said Monday that although it may not be clear where they will end up legislatively, they are not going along with the schedule that Petraeus laid out.

“The battle lines are exactly the same,’’ said Louise M. Slaughter, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Rules Committee.

“If what Gen. Petraeus said is that things are getting better and let’s wait for next summer, we won’t go along with that,’’ Slaughter said as she entered Pelosi’s office for a late-afternoon leadership meeting to discuss Iraq strategy, among other topics.

Chief Deputy Majority Whip Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., said the 2007 part of Petraeus’ withdrawal plan is not sufficient.

“It’s a beginning, but it’s not nearly as big or as much as people would like to see,” he said.

Republicans, however, said the Petraeus plan represented a real change of course.

“I don’t think beginning the drawdown, particularly since some of it comes immediately, is saying, ‘Stay the course,’ ” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters in a conference call. “I think what it’s saying is that what we’re doing is successful.”

Hey, Mitch, If that is what it means why didn't Petraeus simply say that. What he said was that there would be a 30,000 troop draw down in June of next year. Due to troop rotations, that many troops would have to come home anyhow, or start losing their minds, committing suicide or war crimes. Petraeus said that he could request they be held over, so therefore it was a drawdown. Say what?

Only 5,700 personnel (not all combat troops) will be leaving this year. Wonder when they arrived in-country this time? This is all total B.S.; political cover for Goopers.

Petraeus undermined not only the Democrats’ budding legislation but also the criticism some of them had leveled against his credentials. Several Democrats had said Petraeus would be delivering a report written by Bush or that Petraeus had doctored data on security trends. MoveOn.org stirred partisan passions with a full-page New York Times ad questioning Petraeus’ veracity under the headline, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”

Petraeus began his testimony with a shot at such contentions.

“Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself,” he said as he began his remarks. “It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or Congress.”

Petraeus appeared to successfully parry Democratic assaults on the surge strategy Monday, countering their claims of failure with statistics that showed a sharp decrease in violence over the past eight months. Crocker acknowledged that there had been little political progress by the Iraqi government, but he pointed to progress at the local level, where Sunnis have joined U.S. forces in the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq and have offered to join the Iraqi army and national police. He said the central government had responded by sending more money to Sunni areas.

Democrats also found it difficult to sustain their questioning because each lawmaker was limited to five minutes in the hearing, which more than 100 members attended.

Alan K. Ota, Adam Graham-Silverman, Bart Jansen, Kathleen Hunter and Edward Epstein contributed to this story.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Senator Webb Agrees: Call Adm. Fallon To The Hill

It's beginning to seem that MoveOn.org's advertisement on TeeVee wasn't all that far off.

No wonder the far-right and neocon pundits are screaming bloody murder. That's what they always do when someone hits the nail on the head.

Just a thought...if Junior fires Fallon, impeachment hearings should begin forthwith. To hell with everything else. Bush and his whole gang of rotten thugs must go.


During the Iraq war, the Central Command (CENTCOM) head — who leads U.S. operations in the entire Middle East region — and the Multinational Force Commander (MNF) have regularly testified together about the course of the war in Iraq.

Former-MNF Commander Gen. George Casey and his CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid constantly briefed Congress about the situation in Iraq and its regional effects. In at least four public hearings after Casey took office in 2004, the pair testified together:

Senate Armed Services [6/23/05]

House Armed Services [6/23/05]

House Armed Services [9/29/05]

Senate Armed Services [9/29/05]

In January, President Bush replaced Abizaid and Casey, who were “surge” skeptics, with Adm. William Fallon and Gen. David Petraeus. This week, Petraeus — in the first public hearings since taking on his new role — delivered his Iraq assessment to great media fanfare. But where was his boss, Admiral Fallon? Inter-Press Service suggests animosity between the two might be one reason for Fallon’s absence:

Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

The Washington Post reported this weekend that there is an internal military debate, described as “Armageddon,” brewing between Petraeus and Fallon because the two men have “profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq.”

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) announced today that he will be asking Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to call Fallon to testify on “his views on the region.” Webb decried the lack of independence in Petraeus’s reporting, observing that there are “a lot of control factors going on that haven’t been visible” from the one-sided testimony of Petraeus:

WEBB: [T]here’s something of a kabuki going on right now. You know, the Petraeus report was brought in. On the one hand they’re calling it independent; on the other, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, from my understanding, gave a one-hour exclusive interview to Fox News after their first day of testimony. […]

So it was a very narrow and focused two days of hearings…we need to hear from people like Admiral Fallon and others to get a sense of how the region is in play. … He was, by many accounts, questioning keeping these troop levels this high. […]

So I’m going to be recommending to Senator Levin that we get Admiral Fallon in and get his views on the region.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Petraeus For President? OMG!

He can't be serious. This war will never be a success for the simple reason that it has already cost too much....way too much, much of the cost due to Petraeus, himself, according to the record.

Besides, it will be a cold day in hell before we forget anyone associated with this regime of thugs and their many crimes.

Tell the truth, General. You have nothing to lose.

President Petraeus? Iraqi official recalls the day US general revealed ambition

By Patrick Cockburn

Published: 13 September 2007

The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq's Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.

"I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, 'No, that would be too soon'," Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.

General Petraeus has a reputation in the US Army for being a man of great ambition. If he succeeds in reversing America's apparent failure in Iraq, he would be a natural candidate for the White House in the presidential election in 2012.

His able defence of the "surge" in US troop numbers in Iraq as a success before Congress this week has made him the best-known soldier in America. An articulate, intelligent and energetic man, he has always shown skill in managing the media.

But General Petraeus's open interest in the presidency may lead critics to suggest that his own political ambitions have influenced him in putting an optimistic gloss on the US military position in Iraq .

Mr Khadim was a senior adviser in the Iraqi Interior Ministry in 2004-05 when Iyad Allawi was prime minister.

"My office was in the Adnan Palace in the Green Zone, which was close to General Petraeus's office," Mr Khadim recalls. He had meetings with the general because the Interior Ministry was involved in vetting the loyalty of Iraqis recruited as army officers. Mr Khadim was critical of the general's choice of Iraqis to work with him.

For a soldier whose military abilities and experience are so lauded by the White House, General Petraeus has had a surprisingly controversial career in Iraq. His critics hold him at least partly responsible for three debacles: the capture of Mosul by the insurgents in 2004; the failure to train an effective Iraqi army and the theft of the entire Iraqi arms procurement budget in 2004-05.

General Petraeus went to Iraq during the invasion of 2003 as commander of the 101st Airborne Division and had not previously seen combat. He first became prominent when the 101st was based in Mosul, in northern Iraq, where he pursued a more conciliatory line toward former Baathists and Iraqi army officers than the stated US policy.

His efforts were deemed successful. When the 101st left in February 2004, it had lost only 60 troops in combat and accidents. General Petraeus had built up the local police by recruiting officers who had previously worked for Saddam Hussein's security apparatus.

Although Mosul remained quiet for some months after, the US suffered one of its worse setbacks of the war in November 2004 when insurgents captured most of the city. The 7,000 police recruited by General Petraeus either changed sides or went home. Thirty police stations were captured, 11,000 assault rifles were lost and $41m (£20m) worth of military equipment disappeared. Iraqi army units abandoned their bases.

The general's next job was to oversee the training of a new Iraqi army. As head of the Multinational Security Transition Command, General Petraeus claimed that his efforts were proving successful. In an article in The Washington Post in September 2004, he wrote: "Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being re-established." This optimism turned out be misleading; three years later the Iraqi army is notoriously ineffective and corrupt.

General Petraeus was in charge of the Security Transition Command at the time that the Iraqi procurement budget of $1.2bn was stolen. "It is possibly one of the largest thefts in history," Iraq's Finance Minister, Ali Allawi, said. "Huge amounts of money disappeared. In return we got nothing but scraps of metal."

Mr Khadim is skeptical that the "surge" is working. Commenting on the US military alliance with the Sunni tribes in Anbar province, he said: "They will take your money, but when the money runs out they will change sides again."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

What A Freakin' Shock: W.H. Is Writing Pertaeus' Report

Just kidding about the "shock" part!

Petraeus must have the brownest nose we've ever seen.

Who is this guy? The sorta white Colin Powell?

Petraeus’ September Report Will Be Written By The White House

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.

President Bush had previously said he would “respect the command structure” and not intercede in the Petraeus report:

I will repeat, as the Commander-in-Chief of a great military who has supported this military and will continue to support this military, not only with my — with insisting that we get resources to them, but with — by respecting the command structure, I’m going to wait for David to come back — David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees.

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!’”

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

al-Maliki wants Petraeus Out

So, is Iraq a sovereign or not, Junior?

Iraqi leader tells Bush: Get Gen Petraeus out

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent

Last Updated: 2:44am BST 28/07/2007

	Stormy relationship: Nouri al-Maliki and Gen David Petraeus

Relations between the top United States general in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, the country's prime minister, are so bad that the Iraqi leader made a direct appeal for his removal to President George W Bush.

Although the call was rejected, aides to both men admit that Mr Maliki and Gen David Petraeus engage in frequent stand-up shouting matches, differing particularly over the US general's moves to arm Sunni tribesmen to fight al-Qa'eda.

One Iraqi source said Mr Maliki used a video conference with Mr Bush to call for the general's signature strategy to be scrapped. "He told Bush that if Petraeus continues, he would arm Shia militias," said the official. "Bush told Maliki to calm down."

At another meeting with Gen Petraeus, Mr Maliki said: "I can't deal with you any more. I will ask for someone else to replace you."

Gen Petraeus admitted that the relationship was stormy, saying: "We have not pulled punches with each other."

President Bush's support for Mr Maliki is deeply controversial within the US government because of the Iraqi's ties to Shia militias responsible for some of the worst sectarian violence.

The New York Times claimed yesterday that Saudi Arabia was refusing to work with Mr Maliki and has presented "evidence" that he was an Iranian intelligence agent to US officials. "Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia's counterproductive role in the war," it reported.

Alongside the firm support of Mr Bush, Mr Maliki also enjoys the backing of Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador and his predecessor, Zalmay Khalilzad, now America's representative at the United Nations.

Mr Khalilzad took a swipe at Saudi Arabia in an editorial published earlier this month that was widely seen as an appeal for a larger UN role in stabilising Iraq.

Mr Crocker, who attends Mr Maliki's stormy weekly meetings with Gen Petraeus, said the Iraqi leader was a strong partner of America.

"There is no leader in the world that is under more pressure than Nouri al-Maliki, without question," he said. "Sometimes he reflects that frustration. I don't blame him. I probably would too."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Is Petraeus Drinking The Kool-aid

June 15, 2007
Sen. Reid Is Right About Gen. Petraeus (Brent Budowsky)
@ 1:26 pm

In a democracy it is extremely unhealthy to put any commander in the position of being the de facto commander in chief for credibility.

It is true, the president’s credibility is in tatters with a majority of the American people and world opinion doubting the truthfulness of his word. No war policy can be sustained when an overwhelming majority of the nation has lost confidence in the war and in the integrity of the commander in chief.

This is not merely obvious, or my opinion. This is what Republicans have told the president and
what the strong majority of Senators and members of the House, in both parties, believe.

No general should be asked to substitute his name for credibility that can only be held by the commander in chief. No general should be used as a political shield, a political football, a public relations talking point, or a lobbyist in chief.

This is Gen. Petraeus’s third major task in Iraq. In his first task he did a spectacularjob in the aftermath of the first stage of war, when he brought Iraqis together politically within his areas of command. In his second task he was in charge of training the Iraqi military and did a mediocre to poor job.

Regarding what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said about Gen. Peter Pace: The problem with Pace was not his ability as a military leader, but his lack of political courage in speaking out when he knew that policies were wrong.

Gen. Pace was almost universally called “Perfect Peter” throughout the Pentagon andthe command structure. He was seen, very correctly, virtually universally, as constantlyallowing bureaucratic politics and career advancement to trump the courage to speaktruth to power.
Everyone should be clear about one thing.

When the president overruled his military leadership and ordered the escalation:
First, the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously advised against the surge.
Second, the Iraq commanders at the time equally strongly opposed the surge.
Third, as Gen. Abizaid, then the highest ranking commander in the region, testified: He sought the opinion of battlefield level commanders throughout Iraq and they allopposed the escalation.

From the beginning of this war, the president has ignored and overruled much of the most important advice given by the commanders, while he publicly claimed to be the “commander guy,” which was flat out untrue, and a major reason the president’s credibility is in tatters.

Think about this: Gen. Sheehan was offered the job of “Iraq Czar” and flat out turned it down, then publicly attacked both the policy and the manner in which the policy was made and managed by the president.

Think about this: Gen. Lute was named as the “Iraq Czar” and when he was interviewed for the post, and when his appointment was publicly announced, he madeit clear he had joined the others in opposing the surge.

Ask yourself this: Could the president not find one general or admiral for the post who has supported the escalation? What does this suggest? What it suggests is obvious, and true.

Many have reacted to Reid’s remarks, but few have actually understood what he was saying and very few have read the June 13 USA Today story that prompted his warning.

Everyone should read that story closely. In the story, Petraeus painted an almost rhapsodic portrait of the progress he suggested was being made by the surge.

Granted, in other statements Petraeus has been far more direct about the problems. Granted, as all of us who deal with the press know, statements can be taken out of context.

But read the story. It is genuinely alarming because the portrait Gen. Petraeus paints is dangerously out of touch with the reality on the ground in Baghdad. He makes Baghdad appear like a Fourth of July picnic, with soccer balls in green grass parks, and friendly markets with happy faces.

There are places in Baghdad where this is true, but they are few and far between, andthe portrait from Petraeus in this story is far out of touch with the ugly reality in Iraq. Had he given that portrait in testimony before the Congress it would have been a disaster.

Sen. Reid was firing a cannon across the bow of the president to stop the talking points and spin, to end the public relations hype and happy talk of war. Reid was warning that our country has paid a heavy price for the distortions, misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies that have far too often surrounded this war and led us to the crisis today.

The USA Today story, following the sorry history of this war, creates significant doubt that Gen. Petraeus will call it straight in September.

Harry Reid leveled a powerful and important warning and was absolutely right in doing so.
Petraeus’s comments in the story build on doubts that exist for more than two-thirdsof the American people. He should take every opportunity, starting today, to put those doubts to rest. He must speak with total candor and honesty about the good, the bad and the ugly in Iraq today.

If Gen. Petraeus does this, he will well serve the president, the troops, the nationand the truth in what must not become a war without end, pushed by a politics without truth.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.