Despite Expectations of a Call for a Partial Pullout by Petraeus, Bush Will Dictate Report

[bigtree]

August 14, 2007

Troop pullback is expected in general's status report

By Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- Intent on demonstrating progress in Iraq, the U.S. military commander is expected by top Bush administration officials to recommend removing American troops from several areas soon, possibly including the al-Anbar province.

According to the officials, Gen. David H. Petraeus is expected to propose the partial pullback in his September status report to Congress. Administration officials who support the current troop increase hope Petraeus' recommendations will persuade Congress to reject pressure for a major U.S. withdrawal.

The recommendation would authorize U.S. commanders to withdraw troops from places that have become less violent and turn over security responsibilities to Iraqi forces. But it does not necessarily mean Petraeus will call for reducing the overall number of troops. Instead, he could move the forces to another hot spot or use them to create a reserve force to counter any rise in violence.

{snip}

Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq's warring sects has created some tension with in the White House.

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 actually will be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And while Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data. The senior administration official said the process has created "uncomfortable positions" for the White House because of debates over what constitutes "satisfactory progress."

During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in such policy areas as legislation to divvy Iraq's oil revenues, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous . . .


report: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?coll=la-home-center

[Ninja Jordan]

1. Bush can write?

[bigtree]

2. dictate

[Spinzonner]

3. Because he's the Dictator

[bigtree]

4. If Only I Were A Dictator, by George W. Bush

Yes, George W. Bush has stated he'd prefer to be a dictator at least three times, according to BuzzFlash.com: http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/10/29_Dictator.html

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)

-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " said.

-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

[Blackhatjack]

5. That report was written by the Bush WH weeks ago ...."we're making good progress"

... we just need more time.

[bigtree]

7. Military Offering Bleak Picture of Iraq's Future, Despite Claims Violence is Down in Baghdad

U.S. military leaders: Iraq security effort hampered by lack of political progress

McClatchy Newspapers
2 hours, 2 minutes ago

BAGHDAD — Despite U.S. claims that violence is down in the Iraqi capital, U.S. military officers are offering a bleak picture of Iraq's future, saying they've yet to see any signs of reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite Muslims despite the drop in violence.

Without reconciliation, the military officers say, any decline in violence will be temporary and bloodshed could return to previous levels as soon as the U.S. military cuts back its campaign against insurgent attacks.

{snip}

The number of Iraqis killed in attacks changed only marginally in July when compared with December— down seven, from 361 to 354, according to McClatchy statistics.

No pattern of improvement is discernible for violence during the five months of the surge. In January, the last full month before the surge began, 438 people were killed in the capital in bombings. In February, that number jumped to 520. It declined in March to 323, but jumped again in April, to 414.

Violence remained virtually unchanged in May, when 404 were killed. The lowest total came in June, the first month U.S. officials said all the new American troops were in place, with just 190 dead, but then swung back up in July, with 354 dead.

One bright spot has been the reduction in the number of bodies found on the streets, considered a sign of sectarian violence. That number was 44 percent lower in July, compared to December. In July, the average body count per day was 18.6, compared with 33.2 in December, two months before the surge.

But the reason for that decline isn't clear. Some military officers believe that it may be an indication that ethnic cleansing has been completed in many neighborhoods and that there aren't as many people to kill.

Whatever the rate of violence, however, military officers believe that military progress will last only if there's political reconciliation.


report: http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20070815/wl_mcclatchy/20070815bcusiraqsurge_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop

[spanone]

6. The only mystery in this story, is what will the Democrats do in response.

[bigtree]

8. or, what they actually will be able to do

but, let's continue for now with exposing divisions among the Bush lackeys and the military. That will be an important element in forcing action from the republican enablers in Congress who are responsible for obstructing legislation containing a date certain for withdrawal.