I mean the Petraeus seat in congress is not even cold and Bush has already announced he is accepting all it says and following all recommentdations. Strangely enough, even though the report was independent of the white house, Bush and Petraeus both agree that 30,000 surge troops will come back home next summer. Is this just a coincidence or is someone think we are stupid?
2007-09-12 07:22:34 · 25 answers · asked by ningis n 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Gmoney is in line for the 10 points
2007-09-12 07:38:27 · update #1
because the White House wrote the report for Gen. Petraeus.
2007-09-12 07:25:36 · answer #1 · answered by GMoney 4 · 4⤊ 12⤋
I don't know, but you think it might be because the general is there every day and gets daily reports about what is going on there?
I'm not too sure, but I was under the assumption that first hand experience and knowledge of what is going on in Iraq might add a little credibility.
Further, Petraeus has never lied to Bush, you, or me before. So I would believe him before I would believe any democrat in our government. All of them have admitted they have lied to us.
Hey Jamie S, it has been the democrats in Congress who have been pushing for immediate withdrawl from Iraq. When the media asks a republican, they simply re-iterate what was agreed upon by ALL of Congress some 5 months ago. So if you really look at what has been happening over the past few days, you see that the democrats have gone back on their word yet again, prepared to disregard the general's report, and blame Bush for writing the report. Diane Fienstein even said so over the weekend.
So again, who would you believe more?
2007-09-12 07:41:09 · answer #2 · answered by Michael H 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, you're not stupid, just programed to be critical of whatever report General Petraeus gives. President Bush, unlike the average citizen, gets an on-going report of our troops and the war on terrorism. He doesn't mess with the 'politics' that constantly demeans our troops and those who are laying down their life for us. Bush wants our troops home just as bad as anyone else. General Petraeus is one of the greatest Generals American has ever had, his record proves it! Why shouldn't our President trust the man he put in charge? Just because the General wrote his own speech, that doesn't mean that our President has just heard the facts for the first time. Our Commander and Chief knows what he is doing and he's doing it with great people.
2007-09-12 07:35:54 · answer #3 · answered by Mercedes 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Patraeus is a general, he is the expert on this, he has been trained and educated on combat and war. He got his stars from Congress, not the president.
Besides, if you think that yesterday was the first time the President, and Congressional leaders saw the report, you would be wrong. They have probably had the report since the final copy was finished.
On top of that, I am sure Patraeus has been briefing the President on an almost daily basis so he is not making the decision based on yesterday's report. He is making it on Months of briefings.
That briefing was not done for the President or even for the leaders of Congress, it was done to show WHY the President will do what he is about to do, it was more of an explination to The US and the rest of the world of why he will make certain policy decisions in the next few weeks or so.
2007-09-12 07:37:31 · answer #4 · answered by joseph b 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It might be because General Petraeus is a professional and is giving his honest professional opinion on how the troop build up is working.
I am much more inclined to believe and trust a man who has served this country for many years and is a professional soldier than some bleeding heart liberal that some how got elected and know thinks he/she knows more about what is going on over there than the General.
And as for your last question, "is someone think we are stupid?" I'm not too sure who "we" is, but I would have to say that I think you are.
God bless America and our troops!
2007-09-12 07:33:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The general is not running for re-election and has nothing to gain from whatever is in that report. Congress is concerned with their political futures, and as far as handling the war they have yet to show a plan other than to blame Bush.
I haven't seen the most recent polls. What is the approval of Bush?What is the approval of congress?
2007-09-12 07:32:28 · answer #6 · answered by TedEx 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Bush and Co. hand picked this General who knew his mission, extend the War, from jump. Bush knew every line of that report before the General spoke it. The troops were already coming out, that was already documented. Petraeus is a fraud, the messenger who's message was pre-ordained.
2007-09-12 07:41:45 · answer #7 · answered by song1709! 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'd accept the general's report over any of the drivel coming out of Congress. In fact, if many congresspersons disagreed with the general, I'd take that as an indication that what the general was saying was spot on.
2007-09-12 07:39:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, they are purely pissed off on the comparable human beings falling for the comparable lies persistently and as quickly as greater, and the media enjoying alongside. The violence in Iraq isn't being decreased. Their government is in crumple. The Sunnis have thoroughly left their government. there is not any end to the sectarian violence devoid of a few form of political compromise. it fairly is the comparable administration that offered us stockpiles of WMD that completely everyone believed on the time. this is the comparable administration that lied approximately links between Saddam and 9/11 that grew to become out to be bogus. this is the comparable administration that has pronounced all alongside we are "turning the nook", that the insurgency is interior the "final throes", and that the mess we've made in Iraq is ultimately getting greater powerful. they have lied all alongside, so what makes you think of they are telling the fact now. Even on the sectarian violence statistics, the Pentagon is now no longer counting anybody killed in a bombing as "sectarian violence". They began to count extensive type anybody shot from the front as purely a sufferer of against the regulation, and not counted in sectarian violence statistics. purely human beings shot interior the back of the top are considered to have been killed in sectarian violence now. I recommend, whilst are you human beings going to learn out of your blunders? This administration purely knows a thank you to LIE. I pass over the Bush from 2000 who improve into against u . s . a .-construction, and improve into an fairly conservative.
2016-10-04 11:02:02 · answer #9 · answered by pihl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uhh..wasn't that the plan the whole time? This wasn't an actual evaluation of progress it was an update of an already established plan. A SURGE is a temproary increase. In this case it was an increse of 30,000 troops for one year. that year is up in the Summer of '08 and the 30,000 troops will be redeployed to the stations they came from. It was all a media set up..a bunch of Crap. Once again Bush treats the American Public lie we are a bunch of idiots who can't see the truth through all of his crap.
2007-09-12 07:30:14 · answer #10 · answered by Myles D 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
The only reason he has stated that he is "reducing troops by 30,000" by next summer is that the rotation is set for that time. Some are scheduled to come home then anyway.
2007-09-12 07:27:23 · answer #11 · answered by Leather and Lace 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋