A question about the General.?

Question

General Petreaus was asked to give a report. He did. He gave it to congress.
Then why is congress so upset, just because the report didn't say what congress wanted it to say?
Is this congress's way of trying to cover up the fact that they don't have a clue as how to run the war?

Answer 1

The general gave a sworn statement about how the war was going before the white house could whitewash it. It wasn't what those in Congress wanted to hear and could not be used by either side for any large political advantage, mostly because the liberally biased media has the general populace so overwhelmed with misinformation. I would like the troops out now, but unlike those in Congress and the liberal bulls**t left, I have to put my emotions aside and rely on those who are there on the ground and trust their judgement. General Petraeous is not going to make anyone happy telling the truth here!

Answer 2

The Dems in congress spent the months leading up to the full implementation of the Surge saying that it was a mistake, that it was doomed to failure and that it was a waste of time and resources. Now that GEN Patraeus has reported back with statistics that show military gains, lower levels of violence and general success, the Dems look awfully stupid.

So, their response is to attempt to shift public perception. Now they are saying that despite the fact that the surge has been effective, and despite the fact that we militarily we have the upper hand, we should STILL leave because the Iraq Government isn't making enough progress. When 3 months ago they wanted us to leave because they believed that we "can't win militarily" or that we have "lost this war."

Answer 3

No, they're upset because he contradicted things he had said earlier and manipulated the statistics to intentionally give misleading information that would reflect positively on the liars and bozos running the White House.

Answer 4

Congress, and not just Congress but a great deal of the American people, are upset because they feel they were given a sanitized report that cherry picked the "ups" and didn't acknowledge the "downs" of what is really happening in Iraq. It isn't the job of the Congress to run the war, that job belongs to the President. It is Congress' job to continue to fund the war. In order to do so with confidence Congress needs to hear every facet of what is happening, not just the successes touted while the failures and problems are downplayed.

Answer 5

I don't think they are trying to cover up that they don't no how to run the war, that is obvious to the most casual observer. I think that they want to use the war politically to gain advantage, which I don't have a problem with either. What I have a problem with is that they denounced the Generals report before he ever uttered a word, then they asked him questions for 6 hours and didn't like his answers so they claimed foul. They unanimously approved his appointment by the way.

Answer 6

Greetings. the general gave his report to congress, who are all traitors far as I can see since they all swore to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic and yet refuse to impeach the president for doing exactly that, destroying the constitution. Congress is nothing. but the general is a slippery one. he did not testify or give his report under oath so he could lie like our president and not get charged with it. his testimony actually is just a repeat of one of our presidents old "Speeches" if you can call what he does making a speech. no new information given by him. no new recommendations either. just parrots his political leader, our president. Congress does not have to cover up anything. they are traitors to their position and to the nation, that is pretty well known and no cover up will do them any good.

Answer 7

General Petreaus didnt say what the Democrats wanted to hear to further their left winged agenda so they refute his assessment. They (Democrats) will only listen to what they want to hear.

Answer 8

Congress is upset because the general's report was not his alone but was spun by the White House spinmeisters before he gave it.

Central fact Petraeus, Crocker can't voice
Article Launched: 09/15/2007 09:57:34 PM PDT


THE most important testimony to Congress on Iraq was not provided this week by Gen. David Petraeus or Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

It came several weeks ago in a blunt statement by the incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Michael Mullen.

He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that, unless Iraqis use the "breathing space" created by the surge to pursue national reconciliation, "no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference." Mullen also warned that (as Petraeus and Crocker acknowledged) "there is no purely military solution in Iraq."

Mullen stated this central fact more directly than could Petraeus or Crocker. The military knows that tactical military gains in Anbar province and elsewhere can't be consolidated - allowing a greater U.S. troop drawdown - unless Iraqis stop killing each other.

Questioned at the hearings about political progress, the general and ambassador focused more on hope than on substance. I am sympathetic. The only chance for real political progress in Iraq lies beyond their pay grade; it requires a shift of strategy in the White House.

Gen. Petraeus acknowledges political progress at the national level in Iraq hasn't worked out as


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
he hoped. The surge theorists argued that better security would make Iraqi sects less fearful about compromising over power and resources. As Crocker put it to the Senate Foreign Relations committee: "When security improves, political life starts up again."
But sectarian killing and ethnic cleansing continue in Baghdad and elsewhere - even if levels are lower. The United Nations says Iraqis are fleeing their homes in ever greater numbers. There is scant sign of reconciliation.

Without national reconciliation, the country will continue to splinter. Iraqi security services will be split by sectarian loyalties. As Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey put it last week: without reconciliation, the surge will have only "a temporary tactical effect."

At the hearings, Petraeus and Crocker put forward a new theory of bottom-up reconciliation. Crocker talked of "progress ... in revenues." He meant the Shiite-led central government is finally budgeting funds for services and salaries in Sunni provinces and neighborhoods. I know from conversations with Iraqis that this is happening only after heavy pressure from U.S. officials.

Indeed, Baghdad's central government is "dysfunctional" as Crocker said on Tuesday. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's secretive party, the Dawa, distrusts even his Shiite allies. Shiite parties still distrust Sunni intentions, while Sunni groups fear their dispossession by Shiite militias allied with Iran.

No wonder the general and the ambassador are focused on the provinces. They are encouraging tribal sheikhs in Sunni Anbar province to set up their own police forces to fight al-Qaida and create jobs; salaries are being paid by Baghdad. American officials are pumping in aid funds. U.S. officials are trying to create similar programs in troubled Shiite provinces in the south.

Yet no one is certain whether these tactics will knit Iraq together, or speed its disintegration. Some argue this is the prelude to soft partition - a division of Iraq into three sectarian regions, with a divided Baghdad that would look like Belfast in the bad old days.

That may be where things wind up, but the result would be far from stable. Sunnis and most Shiites oppose a formal break-up, as do most of Iraq's neighbors. A failed state with a collapsed center would endanger the region. It's not where the general and ambassador want to go.

Which brings me to the reason these two are so dependent on the White House. The best chance to hold Iraq together rests with George W. Bush.

As Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel urged at Senate Foreign Relations hearings for Petraeus and Crocker: "Let's look at (Iraq in) a strategic context, which we've never done." He meant let's look at an Iraq solution in the context of the entire Middle East.

The only way to push Iraqis together is to promote a diplomatic initiative that convinces Iraq's Sunni and Shiite neighbors to stop fighting a proxy war on Iraqi soil. I don't mean the narrow talks between Crocker and his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, which he admitted at the hearings have gone nowhere. Nor do I mean the conference of Iraq's neighbors convened by the Iraqis; despite his talents, Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari can't do it alone.

"We should be calling an international conference with the major powers to bring Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia in and say `Here's the political solution,"' said Delaware's Democratic Sen. Joe Biden on Sunday on "Meet the Press." He's got it right.

Without a strategic approach, the tactical gains in Iraq's provinces will evaporate. The White House should be using this window to press for a regional solution. Otherwise Bush is hanging Crocker and Petraeus out to dry.

[e-mail]

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101.

Admiral William J. Fallon who is Petraeus' immediate superior disagrees with the assessment made by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Crocker is, of course part of the Administration and Petraeus has been proven wrong before.

Answer 9

I have another Military question:

Why isn't General Tso very hot?

Answer 10

Those on the left can't stand it when things work! Always need a crisis...always doom and gloom....always fear...always want to tell folks how to live...AFTER they got theirs. Never solutions...just whiners...