Bush on Iraq: Let's wait for Petraeus' report...oh, wait, forget I said that...

College Confidential Community
1

<p>Bush counseling us to listen to Petraeus' assessment on how the war is going to make any judgements about the "new course" in Iraq. Let's respect what the general says and his judgement, said the President:</p>

<p><a href="http://usatoday.feedroom.com/?fr_story=FRTHEBRAIN204120&rf=sitemap%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://usatoday.feedroom.com/?fr_story=FRTHEBRAIN204120&rf=sitemap&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>What a difference 5 weeks make. Now the White House doesn't want an open report by Petraeus. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Petraeus has been saying he would recommend drawing down troops. Or is it simply that he was showing an uncomfortable level of independent thinking, even for a reputed "yes man"?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081501281.html?nav=most_emailed%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081501281.html?nav=most_emailed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Excerpt:
An Early Clash Over Iraq Report
Specifics at Issue as September Nears</p>

<p>By Jonathan Weisman and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 16, 2007; Page A01</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, seated second from right, meets Abu Abed, left, the leader of the Amariyah Volunteers, former insurgents who have joined forces with the U.S. and Iraqi troops to fight al-Qaida, and Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Saleh, right, in west Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2007. The top American commander in Iraq said Wednesday he was preparing recommendations on troop cuts before he returns to Washington next month for a report to Congress and understands the U.S. footprint in Iraq will have to be "a good bit smaller" by next summer. (AP Photo/Steven R. Hurst) (Steven R. Hurst - AP ) </p>

<p>The skirmishing is an indication of the rising anxiety on all sides in the remaining few weeks before the presentation of what is widely considered a make-or-break assessment of Bush's war strategy, and one that will come amid rising calls for a drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>White House officials suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that Petraeus and Crocker would brief lawmakers in a closed session before the release of the report, congressional aides said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would provide the only public testimony.</p>

2

<p>Ha, we all know it's going to happen. It's gonna have to happen. and lol @ the two-facedness of the Bush administration.</p>

<p>In other news, the democrats are still kicking ass in the opinion polls. >8]</p>

3

<p>Actually, you are 100% wrong. Congress currently has lower approval ratings than the President. <strong>Democratic controlled Congress</strong> that is. </p>

<p>So really, Dems are not "kicking ass", as you state, in the opinion polls either.</p>

4

<p>I was talking about the bid for presidency -- I thought that was obvious, but I suppose not to you...</p>

5

<p>Who is this "Bush" you speak of? I do now know of any Bush. What an odd name. My name is Bush.</p>

6

<p>No, your response about "opinion" polls was vague. There are tons of polls concerning the opinions of political parties, and not just for the presidency. </p>

<p>Wow, I thought that everyone knew that was common sense, but you obviously skipped that class! Do they offer Common Sense 101 at your university, or should I teach you the basics here on CC, because, golly, you sure do lack it! </p>

<p>Next time, be more specific and drop the attitude if you wish to discuss politics with me. It just proves that Dems are really loose cannons and that doesn't help your party's image much.</p>

<p>Thanks. :)</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
Actually, you are 100% wrong. Congress currently has lower approval ratings than the President. <strong>Democratic controlled Congress</strong> that is. </p>

<p>So really, Dems are not "kicking ass", as you state, in the opinion polls either.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, Democratically controlled Congress is made up of roughly equal numbers of Dems and Reps. And the polls show that a) Reps are viewed very poorly, much more poorly than Dems and b) the negative views of Dems is owing to their being insufficiently aggressive in undoing some of the stupidities and damage of the last 6 years of monopoly exec/leg branch rule by the Reps, who are widely viewed as having been failures and also morally suspect.</p>

<p>If Dems are loose cannons, Reps are liars or stupid or both.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pollingreport.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.pollingreport.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

8

<p>rasmussenreports, the polling center which came the closest to predicting the 04 and 06 elections, has guiliani/clinton within 1% point of each other, essentially a tie. Furthermore, they show that the approval rating for Pelosi, D-Speaker of the House, is lower then the approval rating for Cheney. Also, Hiliary Clinton has the highest unapproval rating of any of the major pres candidates. If the dems nominate Clinton it will be fun to see them lose the 3rd straight presidential election that they should have won. Seriously, I don't get what is wrong with the dems. Nominating Clinton would be beyond stupid, but then again there really is no alternative.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
Actually, Democratically controlled Congress is made up of roughly equal numbers of Dems and Reps. And the polls show that a) Reps are viewed very poorly, much more poorly than Dems and b) the negative views of Dems is owing to their being insufficiently aggressive in undoing some of the stupidities and damage of the last 6 years of monopoly exec/leg branch rule by the Reps, who are widely viewed as having been failures and also morally suspect.</p>

<p>If Dems are loose cannons, Reps are liars or stupid or both.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's all and well, except nobody cares that congress is pretty much equal. Dems have control, albeit by a slim margin, and that's all that matters. Sure, they can't be expected to put into effect huge changes, but the American people are only gonna see the dems, who control congress, not making changes. It's not fair, but it's the way it is. Furthermore, it looks like your party is about to nominate clinton. Her negative ratings are so high that I am not sure anything could get her a win. The republicans hate her and will be motivated to beat her, and the left-wing of the democratic party (daily kos types) don't like her either. She supported the war and now refuses to give a straight answer about it. The liberals who came out strong in support of democrats in 2006 (and who are now disappointed that their votes changed nothing) are not going to support hillary with the same passion. Also, expect Rove to be involved with the republican nominee and, despite what one may think of him, he is a very smart and successful man when it comes to getting people elected against people who should easily win (see: bush/gore, bush/kerry).</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
That's all and well, except nobody cares that congress is pretty much equal. Dems have control, albeit by a slim margin, and that's all that matters.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's all that matters if you're stupid, or if you are trying to spin things a certain way.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, it looks like your party is about to nominate clinton. Her negative ratings are so high that I am not sure anything could get her a win.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't know -- could be true. On the other hand, the presumptive Republican candidates pretty much b***.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, expect Rove to be involved with the republican nominee and, despite what one may think of him, he is a very smart and successful man when it comes to getting people elected against people who should easily win (see: bush/gore, bush/kerry).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree he will be behind the next Republican candidate, but he had better be invisible because a lot of people, not just partisan Democrats, think he b***s. Regarding whether against people who should easily win, that's not something everyone agrees with...</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
That's all that matters if you're stupid, or if you are trying to spin things a certain way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Frankly, that's the American public. This will get spun by everyone, and when push comes to shove the democrats DO control congress. Sure, it's not fair that they take the blame, but do you think it's fair that Bush takes the blame whenever something goes wrong? No....but as the leader, or party in power, you get the blame whether you like it or not. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Don't know -- could be true. On the other hand, the presumptive Republican candidates pretty much b***.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll admit, the republican candidates aren't anything to write home about, but they pale in comparison to the dems. The dems have a former first lady, seen by many as a cold b!tch, who is absolutely hated by many people (including independents) as their leading candidate. This says nothing of the fact that she voted for the war, widely supported it, and now refuses to give a straight answer about it. Lets face it, Clinton opposed the war from the beginning but saw the immense support the war had (initially) among the American people and decided to vote for it because if she was wrong at least she was wrong with everyone else. Not to mention she's a woman (and, hate to say it, but it WILL turn some people off). Coming in second place you have a smooth talker who has no real experience and keeps shooting himself in the foot everytime he makes a big statement. I love the way he talks, but everything he says lacks substance, and once again he's black which WILL turn some people off. After that you have a bunch of candidates who stand no real chance (and saying Obama has a chance is being generous). Once again, the democrats will nominate a new england liberal who is a big spender and has an air of entitlement, same with kerry, and unless the democratic party has figured out how to run a presidential campaign in the last 8 years (evidence says otherwise) they will stumble numerous times. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree he will be behind the next Republican candidate, but he had better be invisible because a lot of people, not just partisan Democrats, think he b***s. Regarding whether against people who should easily win, that's not something everyone agrees with...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>He will be invisible and will be very effective....this is the same guy who (with the help of horribly run democratic campaigns) got Bush elected in 00 and 04, both of which should have gone to the dems.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
Frankly, that's the American public.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You said it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This will get spun by everyone, and when push comes to shove the democrats DO control congress.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And it's getting spun by you. And your spinning is counting that people are stupid or not paying attention. As I said, people are angry a) much more at Congressional Republicans than Dems and b) toward the Dems not because they've acted decisively but because they have acted decisively enough to counter the disastrous policies of the past 6 years of Republican monopoly rule.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sure, it's not fair that they take the blame, but do you think it's fair that Bush takes the blame whenever something goes wrong?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Bush has done so much so wrong. This is why he'll be remembered as the dumbest, most ineffective president of modern times. Most people would agree that Carter though ineffective was at least smart. But Bush won't get that consideration except among the 29% who would follow a Republican candidate as he literally plunged over the cliff. And since Bush quickly claimed credit for "Mission Accomplished," he now deserves vilification for the quagmire that we're in in Iraq.</p>

<p>
[quote]
He will be invisible and will be very effective

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't doubt it, and our country is thus still in trouble. Heck, even Gingrich said Rove is "maniacally dumb"; I imagine he was referring to the long-term consequences of Rovian politics-above-all.</p>

<p>And this is what your posts fail to understand. Rovian politics, delivered by Bush, have wracked our country and have killed more than 3,500 soldiers in a war that has made us less, not more, secure.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
And it's getting spun by you. And your spinning is counting that people are stupid or not paying attention. As I said, people are angry a) much more at Congressional Republicans than Dems and b) toward the Dems not because they've acted decisively but because they have acted decisively enough to counter the disastrous policies of the past 6 years of Republican monopoly rule.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is just completely false. Why do you think the approval ratings are so low for the democratic congress? Why does Pelosi have a lower approval rating then Dick Cheney? The dems won in 06 because people were sick and tired of the same old republican bs in congress, and guess what, nothing has changed. I think it's funny that you say that the republicans had "monopoly rule" for the past 6 years, essentially saying that the republicans controlled congress from 00-06 but wont admit that the dems control it now. The democrats, now, control congress way more then the republicans did from 00-06. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Bush has done so much so wrong. This is why he'll be remembered as the dumbest, most ineffective president of modern times. Most people would agree that Carter though ineffective was at least smart. But Bush won't get that consideration except among the 29% who would follow a Republican candidate as he literally plunged over the cliff. And since Bush quickly claimed credit for "Mission Accomplished," he now deserves vilification for the quagmire that we're in in Iraq.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This part shows just how blind you are about modern american politics. Bush has also done a whole lot right (yes, believe it or not) and nobody gives a crap if Carter was smart....hell nobody gives a crap if any president is smart, what matters is what they do when they are in charge. Carter, far and away, was a worse president then Bush. It should also be pointed out that the same person the dems are about to nominate for pres voted FOR the war in Iraq (and dont give me "we were lied to" bs). </p>

<p>
[quote]
And this is what your posts fail to understand. Rovian politics, delivered by Bush, have wracked our country and have killed more than 3,500 soldiers in a war that has made us less, not more, secure.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Rovian politics have not wrecked our country. Cmon, grow up. Quit running around with "the sky is falling" mantra, this isn't the daily kos. And many people would argue we are safer now then we were in 2000 when Bush first took office (me being one of them).</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
Carter, far and away, was a worse president then Bush.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wow, you are out of touch, a total minority. More people are with Donald Trump on this:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a30rJQbDDno%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a30rJQbDDno&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
I think it's funny that you say that the republicans had "monopoly rule" for the past 6 years, essentially saying that the republicans controlled congress from 00-06 but wont admit that the dems control it now.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wow, spin spin spin away. Oh my god. The Dems can't control anything in the Senate because Joe Lieberman, among others, is a not-so-closet Republican. And you keep pushing this line that they should own up to outcomes. Well, Bush should own up to the outcomes of his terrible presidency.</p>

<p>
[quote]
hell nobody gives a crap if any president is smart, what matters is what they do when they are in charge. Carter, far and away, was a worse president then Bush. It should also be pointed out that the same person the dems are about to nominate for pres voted FOR the war in Iraq (and dont give me "we were lied to" bs).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You can't have it both ways. He was in charge. What he did was take us in a horribly asinine direction. You claim exclusion for him as president, and yet want to pin it on a Senate who ratified his initiative. Ha? Republicans don't stand for anything principled anymore; at one time they did.</p>

15

<p>BedHead:</p>

<p>1) You cited a youtube video of Donald Trump to make your point? What are you going to do next, wiki cite me? Maybe you could link me to something from the daily kos? Way to not address ANY facts. I'm sure you think Nixon was worse then Carter to huh? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Wow, spin spin spin away. Oh my god. The Dems can't control anything in the Senate because Joe Lieberman, among others, is a not-so-closet Republican. And you keep pushing this line that they should own up to outcomes. Well, Bush should own up to the outcomes of his terrible presidency.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Once again, please try using some logic and facts....in case you haven't noticed we're in college now (at least I am) and that's how people argue. Joe Lieberman, closet republican? You must be kidding right? Here's some insight, just because he agrees with the war in iraq doesn't make him a closet republican. It's OK to agree with a part of the other parties platform....that doesn't make you a part of the other party. Oh, and last time I checked, everyone is blaming bush for everything going on in the war....so he is being held accountable for the outcomes, just as the dems are being held accountable for their unwillingness to do anything to stop the war (Once again, please address why Pelosi...the face of the democratic congress, has a lower approval rating then Cheney...why do you think that is?)</p>

<p>
[quote]
You can't have it both ways. He was in charge. What he did was take us in a horribly asinine direction. You claim exclusion for him as president, and yet want to pin it on a Senate who ratified his initiative. Ha? Republicans don't stand for anything principled anymore; at one time they did.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Want what both ways? I never claimed exclusion for him as president...in fact, I'd like you to link me where I said that. Do you know what a straw man argument is? Perhaps you should check it out because it's exactly what you're trying to do to me. </p>

<p>Republicans don't stand for principals anymore? Please. The democrats abandoned their principals for the past 6 years. Voting to pass the patriot act? Voting to go to war in Iraq? Had the democrats stuck to their principals they would have won in 04. Fact of the matter is whether you agree with the republicans or not you have to admit that they stick to their guns, everyone knows what they are going to do....the democrats can't seem to make their mind up on something on way or another. One day they want this, a year later they want that.</p>

16

<p>Actually Carter was pretty terrible. Bush somewhat stood up to the terrorists. Carter let Iran take our men hostage. Possibly the weakest and most unprincipled president to ever hold office.</p>

17

<p>Put aside the foreign policy (which was atrocious) and just look at how cripled our economy was at home. Stagflation was in effect, unemployment was rampant, oil was so expensive people COULD NOT buy it. Then you add in that he had a majority in the house of 292-143 and a majority in the senate of 62-38 yet still accomplished NOTHING and you begin to realize why he was a horrible president. </p>

<p>Henry Kissenger, in 1980, stated that, “The Carter Administration has managed the extraordinary feat of having, at one and the same time, the worst relations with our allies, the worst relations with our adversaries, and the most serious upheavals in the developing world since the end of the Second World War.” </p>

<p>You think Bush has low approval ratings? Carters sank to below 25% at one point.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
You cited a youtube video of Donald Trump to make your point?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Even he gets it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Republicans don't stand for principals anymore? Please.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/06/missouri_attorney_a_focus_in_firings/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/06/missouri_attorney_a_focus_in_firings/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
"Schlozman didn't know anything about voting law. . . . All he knew is he wanted to be sure that the Republicans were going to win."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yep, that's your party sticking to its principles: let the Justice Department fall apart and undo a system that more or less has been one of the bedrocks of this nation just to make sure that it's all about the Republicans doing well.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
even he gets it

[/quote]
</p>

<p>your point? I can post a video of Jeb Bush saying George is doing a good job? Thanks for the "evidence" you bring forth however, it was REALLY convincing.
Your article was pretty weak to, as if to suggest anectdotal evidence is going to convince any sensible human being. The difference between republicans and dems is that republicans voted for the patriot act, and stand by it. They voted for the war in iraq, and stand by it. They vote for funds for the war and, guess what, stand by it. The dems? They voted for the patriot act because it was popular at the time, and now they are against it. They voted for the war in iraq because it was popular at the time, and now they are against it. It seems like one party sticks to its "principles" while the other party abandons them for popular opinion.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
Possibly the weakest and most unprincipled president to ever hold office.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, indeed Carter was not a good president, but he's nowhere close to the basement that Bush does, and will, find himself in over time:</p>

<p><a href="http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/politics/blog/2006/06/poll_bush_worst_president_sinc.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/politics/blog/2006/06/poll_bush_worst_president_sinc.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>