Mike Ciresi released his statement on General Patraeus’ report today and used the opportunity to call again for a change in direction in Iraq. You can read the full release below the break, but this paragraph really gets at the meat of it:
We must change direction. Establishing a new course is neither abandoning our friends nor cutting and running. Despite ever changing objectives by Mr. Bush of what he wants to achieve in Iraq ‚ one truth remains immutable ‚ there has been no manifestation of political will by Iraqi leaders to accept the responsibility for establishing a national government. The longer we delay in setting forth a new direction, the more blood that will be shed and the more of our treasury we will squander.
Well said Mr. Ciresi, well said. He also (gasp!) sets forth a plan going forward, but I’ll use that fact to tease you into reading below the break.
Statement by Mike Ciresi on the Congressional Testimony of
General David Patraeus and Iraqi Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker
September 11, 2007
General Patraeus should receive the gratitude of the nation for his service. Attacks on his veracity and patriotism have no place in the critical debate that Congress must have on Iraq. There never has been any question of our military’s ability to achieve the “military objective” of dampening down violence as a result of our troop surge. Indeed, the nation’s resolve in going after terrorists is an objective supported by all Americans.
However, the essential question that needs to be asked is whether the Administration’s Iraq policy is in the best interest of the nation. I believe it is not. This war has led to the further destabilization of the Middle East, which has made the world less safe. The war has created a training ground for terrorists who are exporting their terrorism beyond Iraq. The policy is bankrupt and constitutes a betrayal of trust by civilian leadership.
We must change direction. Establishing a new course is neither abandoning our friends nor cutting and running. Despite ever changing objectives by Mr. Bush of what he wants to achieve in Iraq ‚ one truth remains immutable ‚ there has been no manifestation of political will by Iraqi leaders to accept the responsibility for establishing a national government. The longer we delay in setting forth a new direction, the more blood that will be shed and the more of our treasury we will squander.
Any course of action in Iraq is fraught with difficulty and unforeseen consequences. General Patraeus says that sectarian competition “is inevitable” within Iraq. I agree with him, but I believe that competition has the best chance of a relatively favorable outcome if it is in an environment where America is leading in peace and not in war. My long stated plan offers that new direction.
The key points include:
- Support a surge in diplomacy and convening of an international peace conference under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council which would involve all regional governments.
- Establish a withdrawal plan from the civil war for our combat troops within a given time period.
- Redeploy our troops with an emphasis on combating terrorism, training of Iraqis and the protection of Iraqi borders.
- Calibrate the reorientation of our troops with a concomitant obligation by the Iraqi government to meet the economic and political benchmarks that they established and agreed to.
We need leaders in Congress who have the judgment, courage and leadership to establish a coherent policy and move the country in the right direction. It is time to get out of the civil war and redirect our national efforts to fighting terrorism and meeting the needs of our people at home. We owe that not only to our troops, but to all Americans. We must once again lead with moral might and not just our military might.
Loading ...
Patreus’ veracity should definitely be called into question. His BS dog & pony show has been filled with misleading information and he has a history of being flat out wrong about what is going on in Iraq.
The surge is not working.
Uh huh, Petraeus has no idea what he is talking about in Iraq…
So, SeanH, since you *know* the surge is not working, when will your report come out and when will you de-brief Congress on it? When you receive the Moveon.org talking points blast email?
Well lets see, he said things were going great and we were making amazing progress in 200……4. Guess what-He was wrong. Odd how he said that riiiiight before the election.
Keep defending this debacle. PLEASE!!!!!!
So, based on your comments, SeanH, you also believe Ciresi is defending “this debacle.” Interesting. I’m sure Ciresi would be surprised at that idea, given his press release.
I know Ciresi isn’t defending the debacle that is Iraq. If my post gave that impression I apologize.
My problem with the release is that he seems to be implying that any criticism of Patraeus is out of line. I disagree with that strongly.
When will Ciresi’s report come out? How about when will Petraeus’s report come out? Oops, I guess Petraeus isn’t going to issue a report. All we get is his unsworn “testimony” about how the surge is working. What an absolute joke.
The Iraqi people need to get in touch with those of us in America who are progressive, rather than the face of America being this ugly face, this broad brush of us being represented by George W. Bush.
Only then will a truly free America be experienced. Lets do what it takes to get there.
“Attacks on his veracity and patriotism have no place in the critical debate that Congress must have on Iraq”
Who’s attacked the patriotism of Gen. Patraeus? Does Mike Cerisi really believe that asking hard questions of the man in whom Bush has placed all faith/responsibility/blame/hope is the same as calling his patriotism into question? Is demanding accountability for War Without End an attack on the patriotism of those who wage this war in our name?
Holy mackerel.
Those of us who have been trying to ask hard questions since the beginning of this debacle have grown tired of being called traitors. We are sick of having our patriotism questioned at every turn, and to hear that Mr. Cerisi thinks that demanding answers is the same as calling Gen. Patraeus “unpatriotic” is very disturbing. If the man who wants to be my senator truly believes this, I won’t be voting for him.
More on the right’s willingness to question our patriotism for daring to ask questions: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/12/klein/index.html
How is labeling General Petraeus a traitor, as Moveon.org did in its ad, not questioning his patriotism? Are you that blinded by Bush derangement syndrome to not understand the implication of the “Betrayus” appellation? And, yes, we should seriously question the patriotism of anyone who equates our military servicemen and women with Nazis, terrorists, traitors, or any of the other vile names the Left has used.
wtm, you take orders well. As David Neiwert points out, you seem to have received the fax and are proceeding as directed:
“Everywhere you turn, it seems, Republicans are repeating what’s clearly going to be their main theme for the 2008 election: Democrats are traitors. They want us to lose in Iraq because they hate Bush so much they’re willing to let the terrorists win. Next thing you know, Al Qaeda’s gonna be blowing up the Peoria mall.
* * *
Republicans, both in the White House and Congress, are responsible for creating one of the most catastrophic military screwups in American history, largely through a toxic combination of incompetence, malfeasance, and mendacity. At this point, the actual grownups — those who understand that the war in Iraq and our continued presence there makes us more vulnerable to future terrorist attack than if we remained, because it has exponentially fueled the underlying causes of terrorist recruitment — are going to have to wrest control of the matter from them and begin seriously cleaning up the mess they’ve made.
Of course, Republicans don’t want to hear such talk because it’s not only the truth, but it makes clear that their looming removal from power is richly, even profoundly, deserved. Evidently their recourse is simple: Shout ‘traitor’ and ‘stabbed in the back’ long and loudly enough and maybe it’ll stick. That has been largely their approach to liberal criticism of Gen. Petraeus’s ‘stay the course’ report to Congress.” http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/09/identifying-enemy.html
Patriotism has its place when applied to the rights and laws our constitution sets out to provide. Part of that patriotism is to question the words and actions of our leaders whether they are civilian or military. Wearing a uniform does not give anybody a free pass any more than it automatically makes them a criminal.
Ciresi never says that questioning Petraeus’s decisions or conclusions would be unpatriotic. Just that simply calling the general unpatriotic is not productive or meaningful. I think he is trying to keep the focus on the facts at hand rather than get caught up in name calling.
MNObserver-
Careful there - you’re exactly right. Just remember which country and what time period covering incompetence by talking about secret cabals and a ‘stab in the back’ came from. When Keith Ellison made that connection a month ago, Sean here jumped on Brodkerb’s talking points pretty quick.
“Who’s attacked the patriotism of Gen. Patraeus?”
Ever heard of Moveon.Org? How about the New York Times? George Soros ring any bells in that empty head?
If I didn’t know better, I might wonder if this woman was *really* this stupid.
But after having read the ignorant blather
GerthMkNOB leaves on the ‘net, like so many shiny slug trails leading from whatever pit she calls home, I take such stupidity at face value.Unfortunately for the righties, everything in the Moveon ad is accurate.
To distract from the uncomfortable facts that contradict the BS dog and pony show that was Patraeus’ testimony, they fire up the faux indignation machine and pretend to be OUTRAGED that someone’s patriotism is being called into question (even though that really isn’t what the ad is doing) For heavens sake! Conservatives would NEVER do such a thing!
There is a track record of lies, and that is what the MoveOn ad was really about.
Again and again we are told we’ve turned a corner in Iraq, that everything will be better in 6 months.
Remember Colin Powell’s speech at the U.N.? He sure does.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/
Nobody questioned Powells integrity, yet there he was lying to the U.N. Anyone who questioned the intelligence back then was labeled a traitor, or branded as unpatriotic.
Lies trickle down from the top, and everyone down the right wing food chain is FORCED TO REPEAT THE LIE, including the army of pundits, the media, and Republicans in office. That is why Patreus should be scrutinized. Why on earth should anyone trust anything we are being told by this morally bankrupt, devious, arrogant administration.
Can anyone tell me why we should trust this White House? Convince me, please.
As an ex-Marine, I appreciate what Ciresi said regarding Patraeus…but I also agree with his progressive position on Iraq. He’s hardly defending the general’s statements on Iraq, only his honorable service to our country.
I’ve often contributed to MoveOn’s pleas for funds for ads…not this time. I don’t agree with their characterization of this man as “General Betrayus.”
The polarization that consumes in our political system simply has to stop! Democracy demands some gray area in our political positions. No issue is purely black and white. We’ve dismissed nuanced positions from the debate becasue we insist on a level of political purity that verges on the absurd.
SeanH and Nitro,
Attacking the patriotism (General Betray-Us is what they are calling him) of the top serving General in Iraq is dispicible. The Democrats are bowing to the MoveOn types and it’s no wonder their approval ratings are half of Bush’s.
What’s worse than attacking Petraeus’ patriotism is the fact that for the Democrats to claim victory at the ballot box in 2008, they need to ensure defeat in Iraq. That startling fact was admitted to by Rep. James Clyburn, the number three ranking Democrat in the House who said that good news in Petraeus’ report would be “a really big problem for (Democrats).”
Of course if Chris leaves out what Clayburn said in the next sentence:
“None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that.”
Add to that the fact that Clayburn was on the topic of withdrawal legislation, not elections, you get the double whammy of that quote not meaning what Chris said it did.
So Chris is either being deliberately disingenuous or was merely duped by the right wing noise machine.
“Attacking the patriotism (General Betray-Us is what they are calling him) of the top serving General in Iraq is dispicible.”
THey aren’t attacking his patriotism. They are attacking his honesty-and rightfully so.
Once again the righties cannot overcome the fact that Patraeus’ testimony was a steaming pile of BS so they fire up the faux indignation machine and pretend to be OUTRAGED that someone’s patriotism is being called into question, a technique they themselves mastered years ago.
“In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus’s superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.
Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon’s mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus’s recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.
The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to “bad relations” between them is “the understatement of the century”. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
Chris,
A tip of the hat to you for convincing me why we should trust anything we are told by this White House. You precise answer was suprisingly devoid of political spin, and I sure appreciate that, given your usual method of simply repeating talking points. The talking points do get old after a while, and I see that you finally realize that. I’m glad nothing on this list applies to your arguments. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
General Petraeus Claimed the Pentagon’s Methodology for Tracking Sectarian Killings Was Reviewed By Two US Intelligence Agencies, But Did Not Name Them. In his prepared remarks, General Petraeus argued, “We endeavor to ensure our analysis of that data is conducted with rigor and consistency, as our ability to achieve a nuanced understanding of the security environment is dependent on collecting and analyzing data in a consistent way over time. Two US intelligence agencies recently reviewed our methodology, and they concluded that the data we produce is the most accurate and authoritative in Iraq.”
However, U.S. Intelligence Officials Questioned Pentagon’s Methods of Tracking Violence in Iraq. “The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. ‘If a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s sectarian,’ the official said. ‘If it went through the front, it’s criminal.’” [Washington Post, 9/6/07]
A Military Spokesman Admitted It Did Not Track Shiite-on-Shiite or Sunni-on-Sunni Violence. “According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military’s statistics. ‘Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances,’ the spokesman said, ‘we do not track this data to any significant degree.’” [Washington Post, 9/6/07]
And, the GAO Found Claims of Decreased Sectarian Violence Could Not Be Verified. “On trends in sectarian violence, we could not determine if sectarian violence had declined since the start of the Baghdad Security Plan. The administration’s July 2007 report stated that MNF-I trend data demonstrated a decrease in sectarian violence since the start of the Baghdad Security Plan in mid-February 2007. The report acknowledged that precise measurements vary, and that it was too early to determine if the decrease would be sustainable.” [GAO Report: Securing, Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq, September 2007]
General Petraeus Claimed the Number of Car Bombings Has Come Down. In his prepared remarks, General Petraeus argued, “The number of car bombings and suicide attacks has also declined in each of the past 5 months, from a high of some 175 in March, as this chart shows, to about 90 this past month. While this trend in recent months has been heartening, the number of high profile attacks is still too high, and we continue to work hard to destroy the networks that carry out these barbaric attacks.”
However, The Military Does Not Include Car Bombings in Sectarian Violence Statistics. “According to U.S. military figures, an average of 1,000 Iraqis have died each month since March in sectarian violence. That compares with about 1,200 a month at the start of the security plan, the military said in an e-mailed response to queries. This does not include deaths from car bombings, which the military said have numbered more than 2,600 this year.” [LA Times, 9/4/07 ]
And, The Number of Car Bombings In Iraq Was Five Percent Higher in July 2007 than in December 2006. The number of car bombings in July actually was 5 percent higher than the number recorded last December, according to statistics given to the McClatchy news organization, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same. [McClatchy Newspapers, 8/15/07]
General Petraeus Claimed the Number of Ethno-Sectarian Deaths Has Come Down By Over 55 Percent. In his prepared remarks, General Petraeus argued, “The number of ethno-sectarian deaths, an important subset of the overall civilian casualty figures, has also declined significantly since the height of the sectarian violence in December. Iraq-wide, as shown by the top line on this chart, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by over 55%”
However, The Overall Death Toll in Iraq Has Risen. According to Iraq’s Interior Ministry, which provided figures to The New York Times 2,318 civilians died violently in the country in August, compared with 1,980 in July. Statistics compiled from Iraqi government sources by Reuters and The Associated Press also showed significant increases, although the precise figures varied. [New York Times, 9/2/07]
And The Comptroller General Said There Were Various Sources of Violence Statistics in U.S. Government Which Did Not Agree. “Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers — most of which are classified — are often confusing and contradictory. ‘Let’s just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree,’ Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.” [Washington Post, 9/6/07]
Nitro and SeanH,
Calling the top General in Iraq dishonest takes a lot of Chutzpah. Just because he doesn’t agree with MoveOn and the anti-war left doesn’t mean he is dishonest. I’d put his service to our country above anyone in MoveOn or even Congress. To call him a liar just because you disagree with the policy he is advocating is truly pathetic. I hope you continue to attack our military throughout the election next year. I look forward to a repeat of the 1972 elections.
SeanH,
Admit it, you want to see failure in Iraq. Just as Dick Durbin, who compared our troops to Nazis and Pol Pot wants to see failure in Iraq. Just as Chuck Schumer who, the night before Petraeus’ testimony, said that our troops were failing in Iraq. “Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al-Qaeda said to these tribes, “We have to fight Al-Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here.”
Democrats are banking on failure in Iraq to win next year’s Presidential elections. Is there any doubt of this in light of the MoveOn ad?
Some day, I may pass a lefty on fire on the sidewalk. I hope for his sake I really have to piss and don’t have a can of lighter fluid in my pocket.
It doesn’t take much Chutzpah to call someone a liar if they are in fact lying. And Petraeus, despite his high standing in the military, is a liar. The reason he is a liar is not because he disagrees with MoveOn and the anti-war left. He is a liar because just about everything he said is contrary to the known facts about what is actually happening in Iraq. And it would be one thing he had something to back up his claims. But he doesn’t. There is no report. There is no source for the data. The verification of the claims was done by unnamed “intelligence agencies.” Petraeus’s performance was disgraceful. Given the past representations by the administration (including prior representations by Petraeus himself) that have been repeatedly shown to be wrong, if not outright falsified, you would have to be a complete moron to believe a word Petraeus had to say.
Dan,
So Petraeus is a liar? That’s pretty pathetic. I guess you didn’t watch his testimony for three hours like I did. I guess you don’t watch reporters like Katie Couric who are saying that things have improved significantly in Iraq. I guess you don’t pay attention to even Hillary Clinton who said the surge is working.
Dan, it’s one thing to be against the war, it’s another thing to call the top General fighting in Iraq a liar or a traitor (like MoveOn did). If you think that kind of rhetoric is going to be good for your party next year, all I can say is bring it on. I’m seeing McGovern in the air.
I don’t doubt Gen. Petraeus’s service to this country, I thank him for that. I do however have trouble with his rosy picture of what is taking place in Iraq.
General Patraeus is an outstanding soldier, intelligent and resourceful. The general is, I am sure, doing yeoman’s work, not only dealing with military problems in Iraq, but also dealing with the Bush administration.
However, I am sure he is well aware that he is being used by President Bush to cover for the obvious lack of strategic thinking and planning by the White House. Had he reported that the surge was not contributing to the stability of the Iraqi government, the main reason for the surge, Bush would have rejected his report and told him to return at a later date with happier news. Americans are well aware that Bush is not kind to messengers who bring him bad news.
Gen.Patraeus’s report of limited military success gave Bush some bragging rights. It has made bush agree to a small reduction in troops - a reduction he probably would have had to make anyway given that the army is stretched to the limits. It would be best not to interpret the limited draw down of troops to mean the war is coming to an end. It is not. The war will drag on well into 2009.
Nor would it be prudent to interpret the Patraeus report to mean that Bush’s strategy for Iraq is working. It is not. Bush has had no coherent strategy for Iraq or the Middle East. Nor should we interpret the report as confirmation of Bush’s reasons for invading Iraq. There never was a compelling reason to invade iraq in the first place. Perhaps this is why more and more Americans are realizing that the real Bush strategy is to continue the “course” as it is now while spending mega-billions in borrowed money to fight a war of his choosing for an indefinite period of time.
Does this make sense? Of course it doesn’t!
“I guess you don’t watch reporters like Katie Couric who are saying that things have improved significantly in Iraq”
Couric said that things had improved in Anbahr not Iraq as a whole. She also said she only got to see what the military wanted her to see. More IRAQIS say things are worse since the surge, but what do they know?
“I guess you don’t pay attention to even Hillary Clinton who said the surge is working.”
No she didn’t. She was talking about the new tactics of working with tribal leaders in Anbahr, not the surge.
“So Petraeus is a liar? ”
What do you call someone who knowingly says things that aren’t true?
Military personnel are subject to the same forces that affect the rest of us. Petraeus’s boss is the President and both of them are fully vested in the current strategy which gives the General every reason to present Iraq in a positive light. Should his views be critically questioned? Absolutely!
Petraeus did the Washington two-step during his report by giving a lot of non answers and statistics without context. Nobody can really say if the strategy is working because this war has no real and achievable goals. The answers for Iraq are not military and Bush is hiding behind a General to make people think they are. Patraeus isn’t the problem, he is taking orders.
Chris:
So if Petraeus gets up there and lies for three hours, should we pretend he isn’t lying out of deference to his position? Where was that view 10 years ago? We had an impeachment trial because the last president lied about cheating on his wife. Now we are talking about the fate of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and our national security. Is it too much to ask for the truth?
The reason Petraeus is being called a liar is not because of “rhetoric,” but because what he said was so obviously false, and completely unsubstantiated. As was pointed out in other comments, you have mischaracterized Hillary’s position. As to Katie Couric, every day she signs on at night is a new low in broadcast journalism. It seems though, that you have managed to misrepresent her too.
Dan,
The salient point that you and other anti-war, left-wing groups miss is that the President is elected, whereas a general is not. In political disourse, there is, or at least should be, some deference to the fact that an unelected official should not be attacked in the same manner in which a political figure is. Calling a general a traitor is utterly reprehensible. The fact that you and other left-wing, anti-war groups have lost sight of the need for decorum and civility when dealing with our military officials and servicemen and women not only betrays your ostensible *support* of the troops but it reveals how depraved your thinking on the matter of the war has become.
More faux indignation from the right.
wtm,
Your logic is flawed at best. Nobody here has mentioned the soldiers doing their duty in Iraq. The person in question here is the commanding General in Iraq who was appointed by and receives his orders from the President. Bush decided to use Patraeus to deliver a political message which means he must stand up to the same scrutiny as any politician.
As someone on the Left who is firmly against the Iraq War, I have to admit I found the Moveon.org ad one of the dumbest things they could have possibly done.
Petreaus is a highly intelligent and thoroughly professional soldier who reported on the military situation. And unlike some of Bush’s previous yes-men, he remained admirably silent on those things out side his own purview.
So Petreaus didn’t stand up on the table and demand the dismantlement of the Pentagon. He still gave a report which rather bluntly said how his success was fragile, and contingent on a political success that no amount of White House spin can find.
Here’s the thing to those others on the left: the road out of Iraq runs through people like Petreaus. Military professionals whose read of the situation will be better than any virtuous lefty. Many retired generals have already gotten on this bandwagon.
Because let’s face it: we reap what we so. Enough people on the left have gone to enough lengths demonstrate how they feel contempt for anyone who would volunteer to wear a uniform. Not much credibility there, and why should the country believe use when we talk about military matters? We’re-so-enlightened-we-know-its-all-a-crock is hardly a position to inspire respect.
I think Petreaus’ report offered several important tools to people who want to get out of Iraq. So the ball is now in the left’s court: is it about reaching out to the country, and bringing our troops home, or is about rallying are old base, and showing them how pure we are.
The old base, I’ll note, that was completely powerless to keep us out of this war, and has been powerless in fives years of attempts to end it.
Patreus is a victim of the Republican party’s own track record, laden with corruption, lies, and incompetence. To trust people who have no accountability and suck a poor record would be foolish, and I hope he tried to be independent of all that bullshit….but who knows? If he wasn’t straight up, things are going to get worse, right. We’ll see where we’re at in Iraq 6 months from now.
I can’t help but think about this as to why MoveOn did what they did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ