WASHINGTON, Sept. 8, 2007
Petraeus, Crocker To Say Stay The Course
Bush's Top Iraq Advisers To Warn Congress About Changes In War Strategy
-
Play CBS Video Video Eye To Eye: Gen. Petraeus
Gen. David Petraeus takes Katie Couric on a tour of Fallujah, which he sees as an example of how Iraq can make a comeback.
-
Video Deadly New Weapon In Iraq
Armor-piercing hand grenades have become a favorite al Qaeda weapon in Iraq. There's virtually no defense against them. Lara Logan reports.
-
Video Iraq's Elite Special Forces
Iraq's has an elite military trained by U.S. special forces, but it is regularly caught in Iraq's political crossfire. Lara Logan reports.
-
Photo
President Bush stands with Gen. David Petraeus as he arrives for a surprise visit at Al-Asad Airbase in Anbar province, Iraq, Monday, Sept. 3, 2007. (AP)
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Special Report
The Road Ahead
Katie Couric reports from Iraq on the future of U.S. involvement there.
U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who has been less forthcoming than Gen. David Petraeus in advance of his testimony, will join Petraeus in pushing for maintaining the U.S. troop surge, seeing it as the only viable option to prevent Iraq and the region from plunging into further chaos, U.S. officials said.
Crocker and Petraeus planned to meet on Sunday to go over their remarks and responses to expected tough questioning from lawmakers - including skeptical Republicans. But they will not consult Mr. Bush or their immediate bosses before their appearances Monday and Tuesday, in order to preserve the "independence and the integrity of their testimony," said one official.
Petraeus and Crocker did have lengthy discussions with the president, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when Mr. Bush visited Iraq on Labor Day.
Crocker, a career diplomat with extensive experience in the Middle East who opposed the war when it began in 2003, is pushing for political change where progress has been elusive and the administration's options are limited under the fragile Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Yet the diplomat will say that as poorly as al-Maliki's government has performed, it would not be advisable at the moment for the U.S. to support new leadership or lobby for a different coalition of Iraq's fractious Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, the officials said.
Crocker also will discuss the challenges of corruption, reconciliation, de-Baathification and the difficulties of enacting wide-ranging legislation such as an oil law, according to officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.
Both Crocker and Petraeus will say the buildup of 30,000 troops, bringing the current U.S. total to nearly 170,000, has achieved some success and is working better than any previous effort to quell the insurgency and restore stability, according to officials familiar with their thinking.
Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Crocker were in the Washington area on Saturday working separately on final drafts of opening testimony on Capitol Hill. Later in the week, Mr. Bush plans a national address.
The assessments by Petraeus and Crocker are intended to be considered equally. But officials expect Congress to focus on military matters, particularly possible troop withdrawals. Unless there are changes, the increase comes to a natural end starting in the spring and continuing through the end of next summer.
At the same time, officials close to Crocker pointed out that any revisions to the military strategy will have a profound affect on the political side.
"Clearly, the political, economic and diplomatic elements are directly related to what happens with security and our involvement in it," one official said.
The officials disputed suggestions that either Petraeus or Crocker would recommend anything more than a symbolic reduction in troop levels and then only in the spring.
Petraeus offered some insights into his testimony on Friday. In a letter to troops serving in Iraq, he cited "uneven" but quantifiable progress in the security situation and acknowledged that the political side "has not worked out as we had hoped."
"We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field," he wrote. It was perhaps the clearest indication he favors carrying on with the troop increase.
Officials said Crocker is focused on trying to do the best he can with the tools available to him now before completing his tour in Baghdad and retiring. More is at stake for Petraeus because he is believed to have higher ambitions, including possibly elected office.
In their testimony, the two will lay out for Congress the situation on the ground, discuss the merits of possible revisions to Mr. Bush's strategy, including troop drawdowns and a reduction in support for embattled al-Maliki and conclude that such changes are unwise, officials told the AP.
The testimony will set the stage for an announcement by Mr. Bush on how he will proceed in the face of widespread public unhappiness with the war and criticism from congressional Democrats, especially senators seeking the party's 2008 presidential nomination.
Petraeus and Crocker previewed their thoughts to Mr. Bush during his stop in Anbar province last Monday. It is one of several regions where the administration has claimed success with the additional troops, with decisions by local leaders to join with U.S. forces against insurgents, the officials said.
To that end, the presidential advisers will press lawmakers to recognize achievements at the local level and argue that such results will force Iraq's national leaders into action.
But that development is not covered by any of the 18 military and political benchmarks Congress set out for judging the effectiveness when it approved the new policy that was announced by Mr. Bush in January and reached its full strength in July.
In their testimony, Petraeus and Crocker are expected to repeat the assertions made in the White House's July report that progress is being made, official said. A new updated report is due Sept. 15.
They also are expected to make the oft-stated case that an independent report by congressional auditors, who found only three of 18 benchmarks fully met, set unfair standards for judging success, the officials said.
In Other Developments:
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: July 6?July 12
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 29-July 5
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 22 ? June 28
- Latest in Iraq After Saddam
- Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
- Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
- Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 10
- next
See all 456 CommentsThey could not shoot the two insurgents themselves, this required a drone?
It is like asking a son to testify against his criminal father. Unless there is bad blood...it just ain''t ever gonna happen--no matter what the evidence is.
A new buzz phrase for the 21st Century that will be defined as:
- Blind and arrogant loyalty
- The use of others'' lives and/or livelihoods (pawns) to achieve a self-centered agenda
- Driving off the proverbial cliff
- Posted by downtowner97 at 06:29 PM : Sep 08, 2007
One who comes to mind is Norman Schwarzkopf.
Colin Powell is also not in open opposition to the war.
The ones who haven''t spoken out, in other words.
But you''re right, this war has more ex-generals speaking out against it than any previous American war, Vietnam included.
He''s not exactly leading cheers, however.
"In July 2007 Powell revealed that he spent two-and-half hours trying to persuade George W. Bush not to invade Iraq but that he did not prevail upon the U.S. President. At the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado Powell stated, "I tried to avoid this war. I took him [Bush] through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers."
Powell went on to say that he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war. "The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms. It''s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don''t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now." He further noted, "It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States," and suggested that all the U.S. military could do was put "a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew".
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell#View_of_the_U.S._war_in_Iraq
(with external references)
Did anyone REALLY think Bush''s handpicked team was going to say anything else?
I believe Colin Powell is telling the truth about this, as self-serving as it may sound now.
Powell prevailed on Bush''s father not to lead America into a quagmire earlier by driving on Baghdad in the first Gulf War.
- Posted by downtowner97 at 06:55 PM : Sep 08, 2007
Considering how this war has turned out, that has to be the easiest battle of his life.
The decision not to go to Baghdad in the first Gulf War looks like strategic genius now.
'' ... giving away free advertising to the many entreprenuers for small tips from a few is the ultimate capitalist adventure ... ''
'' ... don''t dance porno hike naked dance dressed get sick tax world get well feed world songs rallied round the tens millions sick beds drifting the tens millions farm trail groups ... ''
There were letters from generals last election both pro and con.
Many generals also have a sword to sharpen as they were passed over for the top jobs (CINC''s)and were forced to retire as is the law.
Most of them made their stars in peace time and were never tested by war. Their focus is on the soft side of leading and not the requirement to win.
If Bush had cut some of the leaders who could not "win" during the last few years (including Rumsfeld) and changed horses sooner, we might be done with this thing and not losing lives.
Undeserved loyalty by Bush is a big personal deficiency.
Way up the hill
It''s last call somewhere in
The wordl
The reptiles blend in with the
Color of the street
Life is sweet at the edge
Of a razor
And down in the front row of
An old picture show
The old man is asleep
As the credits start to roll
And I want to know
The same thing
Everyone wants to know
How it going to end?
Did anyone REALLY think Bush''s handpicked team was going to say anything else?"
- Posted by jimfinster at 06:53 PM : Sep 08, 2007
I for one am shocked.
I was sure Crocker and Petraeus were going to denounce Bush''s Iraq strategy from the rooftops of Washington, and call for his impeachment.
I never saw this coming.
This is news? And the Righties whine about the MSM not trotting out the latest neocon dog and pony show with enough spirit?
The other side
Don''t want to die
Any more than we do
What I''m trying to say,
Is don''t they pray
To the same God that we do?
Tell me, how does God choose?
Whose prayers does he refuse?
Who turns the wheel?
And who throws the dice
On the day after tomorrow?
Mmmmmmm...
I''m not fighting
For justice
I am not fighting
For freedom
I am fighting
For my life
And another day
In the world here
I just do what I''ve been told
You''re just the gravel on the road
And the one''s that are lucky
One''s come home
On the day after tomorrow
- Posted by donbl1 at 07:03 PM : Sep 08, 2007
Bush is the horse America should never have got on in the first place.
It''s too late after the iceberg has been struck.
Colin Powell is right. It is naive to think that any cosmetic changes like that would turn this into a John Wayne ending.
Bush may be the wrong horse (only history will tell us) but he is the only horse. Vociferous complaints were made against FDR, Lincoln and Truman. Only the saintly Eisenhower escaped the wrath of Monday morning quarterbacking.
'' ... if dirt is compost, and compost with air and water and less density and more surface area becomes sort of super compost, i wonder if just removing density and adding surface area to desert gardens can improve the ability of the terrain to support life despite low water levels, or if it would make it worse? ... ''
'' ... giving away free advertising to the many entreprenuers for small tips from a few is the ultimate capitalist adventure ... ''
'' ... don''t dance porno hike naked dance dressed get sick tax world get well feed world songs rallied round the tens millions sick beds drifting the tens millions farm trail groups ... ''
'' ... god said dare the u.s. kids, jihad the u.s. kids, yee haw the u.s. kids, shock and awe the u.s. kids, and then he said: just teasing, what idiots took me seriously ... ''
'' ... it''s really funny to see them stand up and pledge someday to cure death and live eternal and then turn around and laugh and scream at those what think that eternity came before the earth ... ''
'' ... jupiter / saturn was forged in quite the mighty fire, and to think i was forged in that fire but a flicker of motion filled dust cradled in defiance of those mighty fires ... ''
'' ... eternal storyboards swimming infinite oceans of eternal storyboards ... ''
That adolescent football metaphor must have been dictated to the general by Dubya himself.
Petraeus, who holds a doctorate, would never have come up with such insulting drivel himself.
Posted by donbl1
So what? Doubtless vociferous complaints were also made about Andrew Johnson, Millard Fillmore and Herbert Hoover, three of the USA''s most pitifully worthless presidents. But Georgie W. (Curious) Bushit has them beat by a mile.
Will some one please take the paper bag & airplane glue away from Bush ???
- Posted by donbl1 at 07:18 PM : Sep 08, 2007
This is not Monday morning quarterbacking.
It was Friday night quarterbacking that Bush ignored before the game.
Only losers like Dubya attribute all legitimate criticism to Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.''s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different %u2014 and perhaps barren %u2014 outcome."
- The Elder Bush, George H.W. Bush, and Brent Scowcroft, 1998
"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we''re going to show our macho? We''re going into Baghdad. We''re going to be an occupying power %u2014 America in an Arab land %u2014 with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."
- The Elder Bush, 1999
Source:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush
Democratic Candidates
Joe Biden
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Chris Dodd
John Edwards
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
Sam Brownback
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Fred Thompson
Posted by donbl1
How many of them would dare allow someone who had planned and carried out attacks against this nation to go free because they were to proud to admit they were wrong? You people who continue to defend this Incompetent Loser a few still call a President do not care that the REAL Enemy the one who actually DID attack us is gaining strenght each and every day. Stay the course so our Leader wouldn''t look bad. It''s a very hard thing for a combat veteran to swallow my friend.... very hard indeed. The SECURITY of this nation should be first in the minds of all... this President should be willing to resign if he can''t capture the man who attacked us. That''s what FDR, TRUMAN or Ike would have done. By the way NONE OF them took their eye off the Enemy until he was defeated.
- Posted by donbl1 at 07:18 PM : Sep 08, 2007
Comparing Dubya to Eisenhower ?
Wash your mouth out with soap.
It goes without saying that in his two terms in office, Eisenhower didn''t initiate any quagmires like the one in Iraq.
He ended the Korean War shortly after taking office. (*)
Respect is earned. Eisenhower earned it. Dubya has not, and never will.
"All of us have heard this term ''preventative war'' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don''t believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn''t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, Press conference (1953)
(*) On November 29, 1952, U.S. President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower fulfilled a campaign promise by going to Korea to find out what could be done to end the conflict. With the U.N.''s acceptance of India''s proposal for a Korean armistice, a cease-fire was established on July 27, 1953.
Posted by Iceman_1960
No, Bushit can''t form a sentence of that length due to his dyslexia.
Doubtless it was written by the PhD psychologists who judge to a "T" the mental abilities of the average American white male.
Eisenhower
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, and its stupidity.
Posted by radiob at 07:31 PM : Sep 08, 2007
Maybe you need to get a grip here pal. I''ll admit that there''s far to much MONEY in Elections and it needs to be cleaned up but we need someone to lead this nation right now. Since there are but TWO political Parties and since ONE has shown NO ability to govern, maybe we''d better take care of the ENEMY before we start arguing about the electorial system? This guy is dead serious and he''s going to kill us all, Republican, Democrat or other party. We need someone who can unite the world and NOT look like some sort of IDIOT Bully when caught on world wide TV with one of your Former Friends. Let''s stop with this hate them because they don''t agree with me stuff too. Democrats are NEVER EVER going to agree and it''s always going to be a process of give and take and slow movement. That''s what they are now and always have been. Unlike Republican''s Democrats rely on COMPROMISE and looking at ALL views before going forward. Sure it''s not as clean but history clearly shows it''s MUCH more effective in defeating people like the Klan here in America and the Nazi''s in Germany.
Good to see you all researching a worthy example.
A doctorate from Princeton University, in International Relations, no less.
He wasn''t the author of that moronic analogy.
"Petraeus left the 24th''s 19th Infantry to continue the higher education he began at West Point, earning the General George C. Marshall Award as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He subsequently earned a MPA and a Ph.D. in international relations from Princeton University%u2019s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1985 and 1987, respectively, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy. His doctoral dissertation, "The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era," dealt with the influence of the Vietnam War on military thinking regarding the use of force. He also completed a military fellowship at Georgetown''s School of Foreign Service in 1994-95, although he was called away early to serve in Haiti."
- Wikipedia
And just who out of all the "poodles" would you vote for in either party?
The democrats who wanted to give our nation to Mexico, who ruled congress from 1954- 1995 and passed legislation that promoted the outsourcing of our jobs or the republicans who as presidents and members of congress voted for the tax breaks to corporations, trade agreements etc. started this stupid war in Iraq. Yes we need a uniter to fight OBL''s kind and all of the other terrorist corporate and jihad alike.
Eisenhower has been blamed by some for Vietnam.
Actually it was Truman who repeatedly ignored Ho Chi Minh''s requests that Vietnam be declared an American Protectorate.
Eisenhower''s greatest crime was in financing the brutal French recolonization of "French Indochina" after World War II, in blatant violation of stated American pieties about "national self-determination."
Nevertheless Einsenhower sent no troops, to Vietnam or anywhere else that developed into an American quagmire during his administration.
+ report abuse
There must be a message in there somewhere, what the heck are you saying speaka da english
- Posted by j-whitman at 07:32 PM : Sep 08, 2007
Impeachment. It''s been tried. But we''re a long way from that goal line, and the clock is running out. The other side has fumbled a lot, but they keep moving the goalposts.
Best thing now is, don''t renew that coaching staff''s contract in 2008. Get a whole new coaching staff in there.
The fact is, Washington was NOT a perfect Commander - he picked, or had Congress (yep, always meddling) mediocre or bumbling commanders like St. Clair, Charles Lee, Horatio Gates, and others. He rejected and jailed the brilliant guerrilla Robert Rogers, who promptly went over to the Brits - and failed to defend his best General Benedict Arnold, so that the embittered Arnold too, turned traitor. He was our best field commander.
But in the end, it was Washington - care to call him an ****** anyone? - who did lead us to victory even during some dark days.
We know have a General who is willing to win the war and has given results - yet, the MoveOn.Org paid traitors - ALL OF WHOM HAVE NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY - Reid, Pelosi, Dean, Byrd, the Clintons and Boy Obama sez we must grovel down and surrender.
Well, tell that to Washington, or to Oliver Hazard Perry, James Lawrence, Francis Marion, Anthony Wayne and a host of others.
The Democrats in Congress are far worst than those Loyalists like the Butlers or Simon Girty who fought alongside our enemies then. When Reid goes over and serves, he has the right to complain - but until then, the *** is wasting my - and yours - tax dollars.
Fight for our country, Democrat cowards, or resign.
- Posted by gkc99 at 07:37 PM : Sep 08, 2007
Perhaps you''re right.
Bush does better with the short verbal outbursts, like "Bring it on !" or more recently (and to a high ranking member of the Australian government, "We''re kicking a*ss (in Iraq)."
As Bush has said over and over "I am the commander-in chief" Why do you think he went to Iraq to tell them what to do just as he did when the democrats got congress he called all the republicans in and told them what to do he loves to undercut the democratic congress at any cost and the pentagon and Petraeus answer to the commander-in chief. I really expected the truth from him as well but seeing Bush is writing the report forget the whole thing
- Posted by USAisdway98 at 08:05 PM : Sep 08, 2007
And did you discover why it is called the American Revolution ?
Because Americans won it.
Not some huge 160,000 foreign army from France or Spain or China. Because then it wouldn''t have been the American Revolution, and it would have meant nothing.
We got some naval help from overseas, but AMERICANS won it.
That''s what Iraqis have to do in Iraq.
Not Americans.
Iraqis.
In the last two elections the country was sharply divided and almost 50/50.
I suspect we will have that type of election again.
BTW, Bush is not running in this election......
In the Carolinas, Tories (the Democrats and MoveOn.Org Nazis of those times) chose to hack down over 100 Americans after they surrendered during a cavalry fight.
We certainly went perfect either. Washington was flawed, Jefferson owned slaves, Franklin and Hamilton in some ways were as perverted as the Clintons are today, yet we had a choice.
The Loyalists kept Canada British - the MoveOn.Org folks and their Democratic friends who are gutless wonders would have us pay fealty to Bin Laden. They chose defeat in Southeast Asia, they went along with their Jimmy when he betrayed the Shah and allowed the hostages to be seized, and even now Pelosi, Reid (the lying Mormon), the Clitons who f*cked up getting Bin Laden in the first place, and Boy Obama wish to do to us what Girty, the Butlers, William Caldwell, and Ben Arnold failed to do the first time.
You call a spade a spade and you call a traitor a traitor. Bush, like Washington, is flawed, but NO traitors there. You can''t say the same for those who behaved like Arnold or Franklin''s son - namely the Democrats. They are TRAITORS.
"I really expected the truth from him as well but seeing Bush is writing the report forget the whole thing"
Posted by starleo146 at 08:07 PM : Sep 08, 2007
-----------------------------------
I must confess I was being a tad sarcastic at 07:06 PM.
"I for one am shocked.
I was sure Crocker and Petraeus were going to denounce Bush''s Iraq strategy from the rooftops of Washington, and call for his impeachment.
I never saw this coming."
- Posted by Iceman_1960 at 07:06 PM : Sep 08, 2007
bush and his people are going to make sure this war is an on-going reality when they leave office no matter how many have to die...
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 10
- next
See all 456 Comments