White House plans to muzzle the Patraeus Report!?!

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#1
Early clash over Iraq report
Specifics at issue as deadline approaches for Petraeus report

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20290144/

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.

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.

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.

etc etc

unfuckingbelievable. the people running this country are fucking terrible.
 

MrAbovePar

En Taro Anthony
Mar 14, 2005
13,782
3,174
678
Covington. La
#2
Dems got themselves covered on all bases. They said that Petraeus would be a Bush lackey and support him totally. Now they're saying he'll be honest and Bush will censor him. You just can't win.
 

Razor Roman

Save the USH!
Aug 27, 2002
10,393
0
366
Sayreville NJ
#4
unfuckingbelievable. the people running this country are fucking terrible.
Have you ever seen these public hearings? They are nothing but a sham, with various congressmen and senators trying to get camera time. No one learns anything from them. Why do it if you don't have to.

And honestly, what difference is it gonna make anyway? Bush is the commander in cheif, he can do what he wants with the troops and congress can decided to fund them or not.
 

FMDoug

Registered User
Nov 29, 2005
1,306
0
451
#5
Does anyone expect a General of the Armed forces to speak out harshly against the armed forces which he commands? There is no way he will say the war is going poorly. I think that he might instead make a case that there is no reason for us to be there.

If Congress had any balls they would go back to their constituents and do a survey after a debate of the war from both sides. Then present the survey and a petition of signatures to the President. This should be done in a non partisan way. If it's for the war, do it that way. If it's against the war, do it that way.

Or they can try to do a public referendum to stop the war. This way Congress doesn't have to make the decision itself.

How about a true democracy for a change?
 

Larz

****Self-Banned****
It's My Birthday!
Feb 12, 2006
2,678
2
228
NYC E. Village, No Homo
#7
Or they can try to do a public referendum to stop the war. This way Congress doesn't have to make the decision itself.

How about a true democracy for a change?
The U.S. is a representative democracy (republic). The founders specifically designed our system to avoid what you're advocating, namely mob rule/anarchy.

If you want to change policy you vote for new representation. With regards to Iraq it would mean voting for Hillary or Obama in the general election (since all the viable republican candidates are pro-war). Can you really stomach doing that? War on.
 

TheDrip

I'm bi-winning.
Jan 9, 2006
5,051
3
228
#8
The problem with this government started with 9/11, in my opinion. Rather than using that event as a bringing together of both parties to hammer out an approach that strengthens the country (the rallying cry at the time), it seemed like the parties began to compete against each other in a race to become the savior party. "Which one will emerge as the killers of terrorism", type shit. That carried over into the war, rather than getting together to figure out what they're doing over there and how they're going to accomplish their goals, they've drawn lines in the sand to, on one side "win the war, and damn the dems" or "prove to the repubs they totally fucked up".

Jesus, I know I'm wishing on a star, but can't these fuckers get together and pass collective legislation that benefits us, rather than continue to play divide and conquer politics? I mean fuck, they never have bipartisan squabbles over congressional pay raises. The differences between the parties and their hatred of each other is larger than it's been at any point that I can recall in my lifetime. Granted I'm only in my mid 30's but still.
 

FMDoug

Registered User
Nov 29, 2005
1,306
0
451
#9
The U.S. is a representative democracy (republic). The founders specifically designed our system to avoid what you're advocating, namely mob rule/anarchy.

If you want to change policy you vote for new representation. With regards to Iraq it would mean voting for Hillary or Obama in the general election (since all the viable republican candidates are pro-war). Can you really stomach doing that? War on.
Thanks for the political science lesson. But what? It is true that we are a representative democracy, but it isn't true that the only way to get our voices heard is by voting. And i'm not even suggesting mob rule. Mob rule is marching on washington and taking over the exec/leg/judiciary branches and running the government that way. The referendum idea has to be voted on by congress first. Someone can't just say, "let's let the people vote on national policy." It goes through congress and if they feel that it would change the country or spark debate, then it goes to the people. So, in other words, it is still this representative government, but they are allocating a vote to the public. Just look to California to see how it's done. They might have taken referendums overboard, but it makes sense in certain situations.

As for public debate in front of congressmen so they can take that opinion back to washington... that is completely "representative." The congressmen know what we want and then vote on it. Congressmen have two options: they vote by what the people want or by what they want. When they vote by what they want then it dosen't serve the country too well.

As for the candidates, they all suck. There is not one worth voting for. Obama might have been a good candidate a few years ago or if he had gotten into the election cycle later, but we found out that he is just another person pandering to the same moderate ideas of no change. The rest really just suck. I'd like to see Nader run and spark debate on some issues and then pull out of the election.
 

Larz

****Self-Banned****
It's My Birthday!
Feb 12, 2006
2,678
2
228
NYC E. Village, No Homo
#10
Thanks for the political science lesson. But what? It is true that we are a representative democracy, but it isn't true that the only way to get our voices heard is by voting. And i'm not even suggesting mob rule. Mob rule is marching on washington and taking over the exec/leg/judiciary branches and running the government that way.
No... the framers viewed mob rule as direct democracy which includes things like referendums (not literally mobs marching on branches of the government with pitchforks and torches). Their reasoning against direct democracy on the national level was to protect the rights of the minority from the power of the majority. Its all thoroughly explained in the federalist papers (specifically by James Madison).


Basically what you're asking for is unconstitutional. There are plenty of polls that inform senators/congressmen about the public's view on issues (hell they conduct their own internal polls constantly). The closest thing we'll ever have to a national referendum is the Presidential election.
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#12
Dems got themselves covered on all bases. They said that Petraeus would be a Bush lackey and support him totally. Now they're saying he'll be honest and Bush will censor him. You just can't win.
Pretty much. The Democrats don't want honesty here, they just want to continue playing the game. Actually, Democrats WANT the war to go bad, because, in the words of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, ""We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."

You want to know what Petraus is going to say? Pay attention to what he JUST said in the last few days. Which was: We need to stay in Iraq for now. We still have work to do there, but progress is being made and the security situation has improved. Troop levels should be reduced within a year's time. If we do leave now, you'll see a genocide that will look very similar to Darfur.

Does anyone expect a General of the Armed forces to speak out harshly against the armed forces which he commands?
Yes, actually, I do. And, in fact, the whole theme of this article - that Petraeus is going to be "censored" in his report - lends itself to proving your assertion wrong.
 

bethm1b

person of interest
Dec 1, 2006
2,606
2
0
Just past the line.
#13
We're a nation of idiots, led by morons. Anyone intelligent enough to realize we're fucked is too old, too powerless, or too afraid to do anything. As WBL exclaimed " Doomed"
 

Kris_LTRMa

LoseTheRadio.net's Ma
Nov 17, 2006
9,749
1
333
right where I wanna be
#14
The problem with this government started with 9/11, in my opinion. Rather than using that event as a bringing together of both parties to hammer out an approach that strengthens the country (the rallying cry at the time), it seemed like the parties began to compete against each other in a race to become the savior party. "Which one will emerge as the killers of terrorism", type shit. That carried over into the war, rather than getting together to figure out what they're doing over there and how they're going to accomplish their goals, they've drawn lines in the sand to, on one side "win the war, and damn the dems" or "prove to the repubs they totally fucked up".

Jesus, I know I'm wishing on a star, but can't these fuckers get together and pass collective legislation that benefits us, rather than continue to play divide and conquer politics? I mean fuck, they never have bipartisan squabbles over congressional pay raises. The differences between the parties and their hatred of each other is larger than it's been at any point that I can recall in my lifetime. Granted I'm only in my mid 30's but still.
The competition started long before 9/11 and unfortunately will continue....if it's not the war, it's going to be health care, immigration, or whatever other hot button issues are affecting (effecting?) this country. Each party wants to say that it was the one who fixed this that or the other thing.

I've wished on the same star as you, Drip, but I don't see that it's doing much good. It seems that each time we elect a new congress, the arguing becomes more and more contentious. Too bad we can't all clap loudly to make them get along like we had to do in Peter Pan in order to bring Tinkerbell back to life.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,851
6,935
763
F.U.B.A.R
#16
We're a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution trumps democracy.

It did exist once. Nowadays, with all the ridiculous bullshit laws that have been passed and the spineless judges who rubber stamp them, not so much these days.

The roots of Liberty have been dried out long ago.
 

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#17
god damn this thread is depressing. so many people that have lost hope and faith in what this country stands for. i used to be in that same position, and am glad to say that there is still hope left.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,200
27,688
898
Seattle
#18
Okay, help me out with this. From the way I read that, the information would be passed on to congress, but it would be done so in closed session so it's not public information. That seems about right to me. Our military strengths and successes shouldn't be public knowledge for the enemy to use that knowledge at their whim.

Am I missing something?
 

bethm1b

person of interest
Dec 1, 2006
2,606
2
0
Just past the line.
#19
god damn this thread is depressing. so many people that have lost hope and faith in what this country stands for. i used to be in that same position, and am glad to say that there is still hope left.
Have you seen the presidential candidates? I really wish I was as optimistic as you are. It sucks that we're left with such lousy choices.
 

Fr. Dougal

Registered User
Feb 17, 2004
5,853
0
216
#20
Okay, help me out with this. From the way I read that, the information would be passed on to congress, but it would be done so in closed session so it's not public information. That seems about right to me. Our military strengths and successes shouldn't be public knowledge for the enemy to use that knowledge at their whim.

Am I missing something?
No, you're not.

Unfortunately as it stands right now:
political grandstanding and partisan politics > safety of our armed forces
 

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#21
Have you seen the presidential candidates? I really wish I was as optimistic as you are. It sucks that we're left with such lousy choices.
i disagree. i think the key to the candidates is looking past the "front runners"

Ron Paul helped make me realize this country isn't dead yet, and is in desperate need for a revolution.
 

bethm1b

person of interest
Dec 1, 2006
2,606
2
0
Just past the line.
#22
i disagree. i think the key to the candidates is looking past the "front runners"

Ron Paul helped make me realize this country isn't dead yet, and is in desperate need for a revolution.
I agree about Ron Paul, but Americans aren't going to look past the two dolts that are handed to them. It would be nice to give the two party system some competition though huh?
 

Sct Ptersns Twn

Looking 4 a New 1st Mate
Dec 4, 2005
7,620
127
536
Gloucestershire
#23
I agree about Ron Paul, but Americans aren't going to look past the two dolts that are handed to them. It would be nice to give the two party system some competition though huh?

Holy fuck! Finally, someone that agrees with me! :clap::clap::clap::clap:
I vote my conscience, not party lines. I even use the write in vote often. Most people don't use that option because it's a wasted vote maaaaaaaaaaaaaan.
NO its not a wasted vote. A wasted vote is one that votes on party lines like all of the lemmings out there.

Oh yea, one more thing:

http://www.wackbag.com/showthread.php?t=63254
 
#24
Ron Paul helped make me realize this country isn't dead yet, and is in desperate need for a revolution.
Ron Paul helped me realize this country is as dead as Elvis.

In the face of everything people see happening daily out of the people we charged to run this country they continually choose to vote, elect, and re-elect the same garbage into office time after time again.

They fall for the same tired old excuses, and the same tired old lies again and again. And in the face of someone like a Ron Paul they'd choose to vote for garbage like a Giuliani, or a Hillary knowing that superior candidates exist.

This country is dead and cold and rotting when the things we allow happen everyday and people are not only satisfied with it, they relish it.

And why would I bother myself enabling it? Why should I sacrifice or try to help one of them? People who perpetuate this garbage. 95% of the people in this country are not worth pissing on if they were on fire.
 

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#25
I agree about Ron Paul, but Americans aren't going to look past the two dolts that are handed to them. It would be nice to give the two party system some competition though huh?
i actually felt quite dirty when i changed my party affiliation. and RP is having some really good runs right now. Just dominated two straw polls (one in NH and the other in AL). got third in the IL straw poll and had a strong 5th place in Iowa.