Wash. Times falsely claimed Petraeus will give "Sept. 15 progress report to Congress"
SUMMARY: The Washington Times reported that "[t]he White House since July has highlighted gains ahead of a Sept. 15 progress report to Congress from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq." But the assertion that Petraeus will give a "Sept. 15 progress report to Congress" is not consistent with the law, which provides that by September 15, the White House will prepare and submit the report to Congress, after receiving input from senior foreign policy and military officials, including Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker.
An August 21 Washington Times article about a statement issued by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and John W. Warner (R-VA) reported that "[t]he White House since July has highlighted gains ahead of a Sept. 15 progress report to Congress from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq." But the assertion that Petraeus will give a "Sept. 15 progress report to Congress" is false. As Media Matters for America has noted, the 2007 supplemental funding bill for the Iraq war requires that President Bush prepare and submit the report to Congress, after receiving input from senior foreign policy and military officials, including Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker. As an August 15 Los Angeles Times article reported: "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."
The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 provides that "[t]he President shall submit" a "report to Congress not later than September 15, 2007," assessing the status of 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government "and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved." The bill also provides that the Unites States ambassador to Iraq and the Commander of Multi-National Forces in Iraq will be available to testify "prior to the submission" of this September report. On August 20, The Hill reported that Petraeus and Crocker "likely will testify before Congress" on September 11 "in open hearings" where "[t]hey will answer lawmakers' questions about the situation in Iraq, the success of the troop surge and the next steps to be taken."
As Media Matters noted, the Times article also falsely claimed that in a speech a day earlier, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) said the Bush administration's so-called "surge" policy is "working."
From the August 21 Washington Times article:
"It's working," Mrs. Clinton said of the troop surge yesterday in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City, Mo., a group at odds with her votes for a pullout and against emergency troop funding.
[...]
The White House since July has highlighted gains ahead of a Sept. 15 progress report to Congress from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq. In his weekly radio address Saturday, Mr. Bush predicted political progress at the local level in Iraq will help end the stalemate at the national level.
I wonder if the report of "progress" will note what is happening to the soldiers being sent back again and again and how the military is suffering
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,146257,00.html
Mary I just finished another piece by Rieckhoff
www.huffingtonpost.com/paul=rieckhoff/the92nd-airborne-vs-the_b_61201.html
It seems that 7 solider decided to speak for themselves instead of blowhards like Mark Williams speaking on their behalf. Who to believe, Brookings scholars Michael O'Hanlon/Ken Pollack or actual soldiers? I wonder if Fox will cover their op-ed on their "fair and balanced" news programs?
Pearl, thanks for this. Makes the blood boil to see how much coverage those preppies from Brookings got after their 8 day visit; and how the cable shows gave them all that air time.
Then when actual soldiers weigh in that no, this temporary escalation (which is unsustainable) does nothing to solve the complex problems in Iraq, who is talking about their op-ed?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html
"To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day."
There are some that are talking about this op-ed...the only problem is the focus of the story seems to be if these guys are going to get in trouble for writing it and if they were allowed to write it. There seems to be no focus on the actual content of the op-ed. It really amazes me that they can read such a powerful first hand account from the guys on the ground and take nothing away from it and find nothing worthy of discussion except if they should get in trouble for writing the piece.
Mary, Sorry about the link.
If not, some brave soul might ask Petraeus. I believe he would answer honestly. He stands a good chance of being a sacrificial victim for the administration. I don't envy the position he's in.
Media Matters seems to be ahead of any media on the written proceedures for this potential farce. Everyone else is saying the General will present and read the report. Firedoglake is the only other source I'd say is up to speed. Other sources may be one the same page. I just haven't been there
Oh, Petraeus will get asked a lot of questions. He's supposed to be made available to Congress for various hearings. But he isn't the one that delivers the report.
The progress in Iraq seems to be as comparable as unplugging your drain in your tub and Hurricane Katrina. Sure progress is made but does it compare?
I'm a "silver lining" type of guy, always looking for the positive in any bad situation. I just am getting tired of the media trying to force this idea that if any good can be found in Iraq (WOT in general) it negates the entire mess.
Critics of the war are left with two equally undesirable positions; Nothing good has happened (pessimist, anti-American, ideologue), or, some good has come of it (Invasion validated, critics wrong, making progress, Victory imminent).
The trains run on time under authoritarian dictators, plantation economies flourish with slavery, the holocaust probably created a "buyer's market" in Jewish neighborhoods, but the total effect needs to be considered before mindlessly making lemonade out of life's most horrific lemons.