White House: No 'cooking the books' with Petraeus

Iraqis say security is getting worse since the surge started.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6983841.stm

The American public trusts the military far more than Congress or the administration to honorably end the war, according to a poll in the NY Times today. Let's allow them to do it.

Of course they are cooking the books. Of course Tony is going to deny it, that is what he gets paid to do.

Does anybody still believe these guys? They lie about darn near everything.

"trying to stay away from politics".

What a joke - that's why he goes on Fox News to support his case. Worthless.

Did I just hear that the only sit down interview that Patraeus is going to give over the next 2 day is to Brit Hume and Faux News??? Talk about hard hitting!!!

Brit: "Thank you General for being with us. Things are really going great in Iraq, aren't they?"

Patraeus: "Yes they are Brit - thanks for asking"

Brit: "You're welcome - and thanks for the time. Now, stay tuned for the O'Reilly Factor".

The White House has already admitted that they're writing the report, yet Tony Snowjob blatantly lies to reporters about it. Why am I not surprised?

Why should anyone believe the White House or Fox Lies Tony Snowjob regarding this report from our lap dog Republican General Petraeus. This report is contrived to make the administrations 'surge' look favorable. It has been shaped by the White House.
Petraeus is a proven liar who also campaigned for and contributed to Dubya's candidacy; Mr. $168,000 Snowjob is a tool who lies, spins and distorts the truth and facts; Bush and this administraton have lied to, mislead, and deceived the American people regarding Iraq since 2003.
Current Iraqi government powerless, corrupt, and incompetent. Incapable of defending their own country or providing security for its citizens. Any additional funding this Mr. Bush asks for should be attached to a troop withdrawal timeline.

The Loony Defeat-at-all-costs Left, taking its cue from Moveon.org and DailyKosLies, will do and say whatever it wants, especially when it comes to the U.S. military. They will denigrate whomever they want, disparage whomever they want, because that is all they know.

"...boorish, unworthy, childish attack..."

The Bush administration in a nutshell.

So the Whitehouse is not going to alter the Petraeus report. First off I'd like to call "bushit"
Secondly:
Who cares? Does anyone expect us to have any faith or belief in a man that "lost track" of 190,000 weapons while it was his sole responsibility. The fact that he was given this command is just another example of the Administration's maxim for failing upwards.
How does a man, let me rephrase, a GENERAL "lose" 190,000 weapons for U.S. Troops and then get to head up the entire war? Let me guess: its because he has a unique and independent perspective.
Or... allowances have been made for his repeated failures since his views are in line with those that promoted him.
Cpt. Obvious asks, "which do you think?"
Let's face it, this guys head is so far in his ankles are brown.
Is this someone that congress, the news, or anyone at all should even acknowledge as having a worthwhile opinion?

I don't believe that the WH has not seen, reviewed, or shaped the Petraeus testimony. The WH has lied continuously from the beginning and will continue to lie until they can dump the war onto the next president.

First the dems say "listen to the military." But when the military says good things, then they trash them.

Anything good for the US is bad for the libs. Think about it. What good thing has happened in the last few years that the dems supported?

Amber

Americans learn slowly. It is the Pentagon who advises the White House, not the other way around. It was the Pentagon who wanted to go into Iraq in the first place. Bush works for them, not the other way around. Of course the Pentagon wants to continue the war, job security. Let's face it, we have the wrong people running this Military State. They are trying to justify more money for them and their hi-tech toys. Read "The Pentagon's New Map" - Barnett. This is how the military thinks. We're big, we're tough, and we have a moral obligation to attack anyone who doesn't agree with us.

Bush lied from the beginning about Iraq. He had to scare us with the bs 9/11-Iraqi connection because he knew there was no good reason otherwise to invade Iraq.

Bush should be impeached just for the fact he keeps emberrasing this country to the rest of the world.

The media is carrying water for the far left once again, by the nature of the questions they ask.

The far left believes in pre-emptive strikes against our soldiers, but not against US enemies.

Amber,
Oh my gosh you are so TOTALLY right! Those dems haven't done anything good with their 49 Democrats vs. 49 Republican majority?!?!? Protecting our civil liberties, getting rid of the unqualified bush appointed staff, working on actual strategies for advancement in stem cell research, national healthcare, protecting the middle class, and educating our children. With their massive ZERO PERSON majority they should completely be able to overwhelm the Republicans who are obviously pursuing more important issues like hacking down trees and stopping gays from getting married.

SHAME SHAME the Dems for not getting more done in these times.

Oh, I have a heart over my name...Do you also? :)

Amber asks - Think about it. What good thing has happened in the last few years that the dems supported?

1) The 2006 election
2) The Downfall of Brittany Spheres
3) The jailing of Paris Hilton
4) Larry Craig's wide stance
5) The absolute implosion of the Republican Party
6) Mark Foley
7) Falafel Bill Oreilly's nasty talking

All kidding aside, Amber has a point. Politics are like that though. Remember when Clinton was in office? The GOP did the exact same thing, but they were much more effective and aggressive. The Democrats seem to have a, “We don't have to do anything… let's just give the GOP a whole bunch of rope and let them hang themselves." It is kind of a passive aggressive approach to political warfare, but it seems to be working. The Dems strategy hinges on the idea that the Republicans are completely incompetent. If the GOP ever smartened up and actually tried to govern, instead of fixating constantly on how best to funnel money to campaign contributors, the Democrats would be in a world of hurt.

Amber: "What good thing has happened in the last few years that the dems supported?"

Gee, Amber, let's see ... Fixing the horrendous conditions at Walter Reed; Mandating body armour for all of our troops; Requiring mandatory rest between rotations in Iraq for our weary troops ...

Should I continue or has your short attention span rhetoric already forgotten the topic.

Ambassador Crocker mentions that there is little movement toward the legislative benchmarks the Iraqi government is to meet, including passing laws on oil wealth, and ending gov't employment prohibitions against ethnic and sectarian groups. These are just some key issues that the US congress has been pushing to have resolved.

Now, wasn't it GW who just last week announced in Austrailia that the Iraqi government was progressing more than the US's own Congress? It's comments like this that confirm he speaks from his Ars.

Now, as much as I would like this to end...it is widely known that a quick withdrawal would make things worse for the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. Since small steps are still being made w ethnic and sectarian groups on long term security in Iraq, I see some hope that 0-12 months might be a good time line to start demanding the Iraqi gov't step up, as the US troops start stepping out.

But this is just one persons opinion.

"White House: No 'Cooking The Books' With Petraeus"

Yeah right, this must be code to the feeble minded Republic Party goons to alert them that they need to "stay the course".

The Republicants are going to pay dearly at the ballot box in 08 for allowing the Decider to stay the course with his stupid civil war in Iraq until Jan 09, when he can hand off his self-created mess to the new Democratic President.

Pres. Bush is Gen. Petraeus' boss - we have civilian leadership over the military for a reason. It is entirely appropriate for the White House to have oversight over the actions of our military leaders both in the field and on the Hill. I have every faith that if the General's report is full of BS then we'll all see and 'smell it' soon enough. Until that time I trust Gen. Petraeus... I certainly trust him more than I trust Congress and I know that, regardless of your opinion of him, President Bush will do what HE thinks is the right thing to do regardless of what the Polls may say. And that is what a leader is supposed to do.
Ron

Patrick, please tell me how the Dems have fixed Walter Reed Hospital? Please show some sort of legislation or something that they fixed Walter Reed.
And, while you're at it, please show me where the Dems provided the troops with body armour. I believe that was done before the Dems took over Congress.

Regarding the Brain Dead Left like Roman B., no good reason to invade Iraq? Iraq violated the peace treaty from Desert Storm. Iraq violated 18 UN resolutions. The Clinton administration and Democratic Senators advocated AND pushed for regime change in Iraq since the late 1990s. Please tell me how the Bush people lied about Iraq, but the Democcrats of the 1990s and into 2004 did not, OK?
You weirdos on the Loony Left really have no ability to think, to reason, to understand, to comprehend, to be rational, to be anything worthwhile other than being annoying little mosquitoes, isn't that right?

"THE ADMINISTRATION THAT CRIED WOLF"

So is this an admission of this White House or George Bush's Government that he has COOKED the books in the PAST!

Appears to be an admission of THEFT BY DECEPTION to me.

OH WE THANK YOU OH GREAT POPPY FOR YOUR HONESTY!

Then comes Next Week! No Secretary of State, No Vice President, No Supreme Court, No U.S. Attorney General, More U.S. Attorney Vacancies. Katrina Victims still a victim.

Most of all Still no Diplomatic solutions on the ground, in the White House, in this Government, by this President.

Status Quo, No Progress, Dead Soldiers, Dead Iraqis, Dead Civillian Workers, ADA 'MISSION ACCOMPLISH" in Iraq.

WHAT's the PLAN George, What's the Plan Dick, What's the Plan Condi Rice?

WHAT IS THE PLAN

You weirdos on the Loony Left really have no ability to think, to reason, to understand, to comprehend, to be rational, to be anything worthwhile other than being annoying little mosquitoes, isn't that right?

Posted by: John D | September 10, 2007 12:58 PM

Lil Johnny Rapture, shouldn't you be out leading the cheer at a "more War and Death rally" again today?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rapture/241044580/

You need to quit spanking yourself and go out and find a girlfriend.
The Republic Party shouldn't be a replacement for your manhood.

From the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,1634199,full.story?coll=la-home-center

“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.”

Johnny:

Please stop throwing softballs at us.

Bush LIED about the WMD's - when George Tenet went to Georgie and said there were no WMD's left, he told him he was wrong. Funny thing was, he was right.

Secondly, they told us all about how Iraq was involved in 9/11 - which they were not. Cheney still says this.

We left Afghanistan to go into Iraq - and now the Taliban are back in Afghanistan. And the Afghan government is powerless to stop them.

And it was the Democrats who complained the most about no body armor - but Bush and his cronies ignored them. Why did so many National Guard units have to write home to get materials to upgrade their Humvees??

John D claims Democrats "will denigrate whomever they want, disparage whomever they want, because that is all they know."

I think you meant to write Republicans, considering that all you're doing is denigrating your opponents because that's all you know.

If you have an argument to make or a position to support, then do so. Please spare us such schoolyard absurdities.

"Gen. Petraeus is not going to be cooking the books" -Tony Snow

That is absolutely literally true! It would bring dishonor to our military if General Petraeus cooked the books himself. That's why the general's staff, with help from the White House, will selectively choose the data, omitting unhelpful data points like car and truck bombs, to make his case. But there will be no book-cooking done by the general.

And that proves another important point...It is actually possible for Tony Snow to speak a truthful sentence.

John D,

Your comment just goes to prove that you are the leading A%&hole in the state.

See - even the school ma'arm from "Blazing Saddles" is on to you, Johnny!!!!

Bobin, if anyone is the LIAR,. it is you. You said George Tenet told Bush there were no WMDs. WRONGO, Loony Left Liar.

The truth is George Tenet told Bush, "it's a slam dunk," when asked about the intelligence that says WMDS are in Iraq. That, blithering idiot liar, has been a fact ever since Bob Woodward's book came out in 2005.

John D,
Tenet said the 'slam dunk' was selling the idea that Saddam had WMDs as the best justification to go to war; they were searching for reasons to justify what they had already decided to do. The fear of the mushroom cloud was the best card they could play. It had nothing to do with actual intelligence. The CIA knew Bush & Co was lying.

Actually, John D, you couldn't be more wrong. Tenent DID originally tell Bush that there weren't any WMDs, as reported by Salon and 60 minutes.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/?source=whitelist

John D.- You are naive and clueless to believe whatever you hear on Fox or Limp-baugh. The American people were told time and again that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's and was also capable of producing nuclear weapons. Both statements have been proven false.
We have been lied to, mislead, and deceived by this president and his administration regarding Iraq since 2003.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bin Laden, the matermind behind 9/11, is still at large. Interesting, huh??

"ONE STAR, TWO STAR, THREE STAR, NOW A FOUR STAR GENERAL"

THIS IS HOW YOU WILL KNOW AMERICA THAT THE WHITE HOUSE COOKED THESE BOOKS.

Because this White House Slogans have always been three words. Better way Forward, Axis of Evil...

Patreaus said today

"THE WAY AHEAD" in Iraq.

"BETTER WAY FORWARD is now "THE WAY AHEAD."

Yea, Right, Whomever the speechwriters are for the White House, it is apparent that they wrote it.

No Four Star General has to compel anyone that he wrote something. His Commander in Chief has to approve it. DUH!

Well welcome to the next 90 days of "THE WAY AHEAD" IN Iraq.

BUT NO WAY OUT OF IRAQ IS GIVEN. JUST A WAY AHEAD IN IRAQ.

Let me try to clear up a misconception that I am seeing all over the Swamp. The "report" on Iraq being referred to in the LA Times story will be authored by the White House, with input from military commanders. The funding bill passed by Congress requires that the White house, as opposed to Petraeus, submit the report. Liberal bloggers implying that the report was supposed to come from Petraeus and was hijacked by the White House is nonsense.

There is no Petraeus report to Congress. The only thing he wrote was his opening statement to Congress, with the substance coming from his live testimony, as opposed to in a report. According to Petraeus, his testimony was his own, as was his opening statement.

What I would like to see is the materials Petraeus and Crocker submitted to the Whitehouse that forms the basis of the Whitehouse's report. However, whether this document will be made public is another matter. Petraeus did testify yesterday that he saw a draft of the Whitehouse report, and there are no substantive changes from what he and Crocker submitted.

As for the WMD arguments, while I seriously question the pre-war intelligence gathering and post-war planning, I don't buy the "Bush lied" jargon about WMDs. I don't think the evidence supports such a conclusion, as the prevailing view was that Iraq did possess chemical and biological weapons. Since intelligence decisions are based on consensus, pointing out a dissenter or two that did not believe Iraq had WMDS is a meaningless point. Since none of us were privy to the pre-war classified meetings discussing such intelligence, no one here has the foundation to call anyone a liar. The Bush lied jargon also doesn't make any sense from a practical standpoint. If Bush is this evil mastermind lying to everyone, and all the while knowing there are no WMDs in Iraq, then he would obviously know that none would be found. Then how do you explain him being caught with his pants down when none were found, and being in denial about it for months. And if he is evil enough to lie to everyone about WMDs being in Iraq, surely he would also sink low enough to plant some there following the invasion. Such a ploy would clear his name and justify the war. The irony is that Bush would not sink to that level of dishonesty, so he is left being called a liar.

'“We have not seen it… we have not shaped it,’’ Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, said of Petraeus’ testimony'

TONY SNOW GETS CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!!!

[quote]
(2) REPORTS REQUIRED-

(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.

(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress...

(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above....

(3) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS- Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.
[/quote]

source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2206&show-changes=0

Got that? The law calls for the President -- you know, Bush -- to prepare the report. Petraeus will offer Congress what's known as testimony. So the "Bush report" is far and away the more accurate way to describe the report, unless Petraeus engineered a military coup and installed himself as President.

BC, you're right. The report is coming from the White House, which is what Congress demanded. There is no Petraeus report to Congress and never has been. See my last post.