In the recent news there have been many headlines that a military general named Patreaus, will give a report to congress next week regarding the current condition and progress of war in Iraq. The problem is that so far all assessments about iraq and how the war is going, has been made by Bush administration itself or the military generals who aren't retired. That is a clear conflict of interest because unretired military generals cannot speak against war since Bush is commander in chief. Shouldn't assessments and war situation reports in Iraq be provided by a NON-PARTISAN and NEUTRAL agency which has no affiliation to Bush or military? I seriously doubt credibility of such generals and the Bush administration regarding iraq because they are all for war. What do you think -- should a non-political, non-military organization assess iraq situation or would you believe word per word what aides of Bush and military generals speak?
2007-09-06 18:53:04 · 14 answers · asked by Math 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. Patreaus is a hand picked "Yes" man for Bush. I might give his words a little weight if he would tell us where all the guns disappeared to but not much.
To Stony: Patreaus will say whatever Bush tells him to say.
To $: If you think that Patreaus's report won't be bias then you are insane. We aren't looking for some left-wing bias report we are looking for the TRUTH and there will be very, very little of that in the Patreaus/Bush report. Also, any rational, thinking person doesn't need to have moveon.org tell them that the "Surge" is failing ... all one needs to do is open their eyes. I suggest you put your "rose-colored" glasses back on before you see the reality of this mess ... if you have a bad heart the shock of seeing the truth might be more than you ticker can handle.
2007-09-06 19:20:18 · answer #1 · answered by Jedi Dude 28 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He was tasked by a Democrat controlled congress to give this report. And as far as this administration being all for war, you are sadly mistaken. There has never been a president that was for war. Remember, this war was essentially started more than thirty years ago. Terrorists have been attacking U.S. interests since the mid '70's. Bill Clinton was to worried about his public opinion ratings to do anything serious about terrorism. But since boy Clinton basically turned his back on terrorists, even to the point of refusing to do anything about Bin Hidin', on at least five occasions (that are documented) we had an event called 911.
You Know you are right, we need a non-partisan like maybe Wesley Clark, or maybe Bin Hidin' himself.
Oh and by the way, if you were take your head out of your #@$, you see that we are making great progress there. Both Sunni, and Shia tribal leaders are turning against the A.Q.I. and coming together for the first time in Iraq's long history. In the past few months, terrorist attacks are WAY down. But you don't care, if were up to you, we would send all terrorists roses, and ask them to play nice........please Mr. terrorist I know you want to rid the world of all non-believers, but can't we be friends....pleeeeeeease?
2007-09-07 02:32:18 · answer #2 · answered by Kirk 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If General Petraeus thinks that the war is not going well, he has every right and responsibility to do just that. That wouldn't be a knock against President Bush; it would be a representation of the current situation, and nothing more.
General Petraeus knows more about Iraq than any one else in the Coalition. That's his job, so I think that gives him plenty of credibility.
2007-09-07 02:05:19 · answer #3 · answered by DOOM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Certainly not.
Defeat is so vitally important to the Democrats, that Generals they appointed, and Presidential reports they requested, MUST be denigrated at all costs.
An election is coming up, any hint of success, any whisper of justification must be eradicated from the public mind.
~
Bush is evil.
Mosque bombing baby killers are just misunderstood.
2007-09-07 02:35:01 · answer #4 · answered by Phoenix Quill 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No because he is a Bush crony........otherwise he would have been pushed out by Rummy before he resigned!Yes we do need a non-political,non-military assessment of Iraq!
2007-09-07 02:01:18 · answer #5 · answered by honestamerican 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What would a non miltary organization know about war and military matters to begin with?
2007-09-07 02:02:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It depends on whether the dems like what they are hearing. If he says that things are improving then they will claim that he has no credibility, if he says that things are not good, the dems will hail him as a great general and laud him for his honesty.
2007-09-07 02:01:34 · answer #7 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a real conspiracy when you cannot criticize your boss and not get fired.
Since when is war and the military a neutral issue?
What color is the sky in your world?
2007-09-07 01:57:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I assume you're looking for some left wing bias report that will tell you that the surge is failing. If you want to hear that I suggest you go to moveon.org. They will tell you all day that the surge is failing if that's what you want to hear.
2007-09-07 02:01:44 · answer #9 · answered by - 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
How about we let the players play before we start monday morning quarterbacking?
2007-09-07 01:57:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋