As for cheerleading, I assume you mean the Iraq’s Inconvenient Truth site? How is that cheerleading? How is that not showing facts?

You are laughable because your points are laughable. You ask for proof, yet when you get proof written by people on the ground it is not good enough because it doesn’t back your particular point of view. If you want us to take you seriously, come back with some hard facts, or at least stuff written by people on the ground before spewing misinformed nonsense. You ask for hard numbers on things like number of attacks, iraqi deaths, infrastructure progress, political progress etc, yet you are unwilling to read the link provided which describes those details. Not in a nice table format, but the data is there.

Seriously, you just don’t like it and call it cheerleading because it doesn’t support your point of view.

Even Anbar province seems still to be very violent (too violent for reporters to wander around).

DesertLover said:
I feel pretty sure the President would prefer that as well … but the Dems pushed through this whole bill with the caveat that although Petraeus reports to Congress the final written (and therefore official) report comes from the President

I don’t know if whatever agreement does/would exclude an address by the General to Congress,DL.

Of course, there are ulterior motives in the idea. First, to stress the deep, historic importance in fighting and winning this war/ Second, it would also be an address “over the heads” of Congress to the American people.

Also, Petraeus may not have a MacArthur or Geo C. Scott-like Patton delivery but it’s good in general (accidental pun) to get a “military face” front and center in wartime.

As a side note, didja know the Constitution doesn’t require the President to give a yearly “State Of The Union” address? It says the President is to give such an address “from time to time”, without specificity. The President can give as few or as many during his term, as he chooses. I think it would be great to rattle their cages unexpectedly every now and then. Kinda “get the whole gang together next week, I’m gonna talk to ya”.

We have an all volunteer military, other countrys have mandatory military service, right off the top of my head Spain and Israel. Imagine countrys, that insist on Service to your Homeland.

If we had mandatory service maybe all the people who critize the Military, would at least have had the experience to know what they are critizing. Imagine instead of 2nd hand and 3rd hand critism, they could have 1st hand knowledge to back up all their anti Military claims. Until then if you are not in or not have not worn a pair of combat boots. I am going to send your anti American Military critisms to the round file.

morning …

ahhh … what’s a consonant here and there amongst friends? … lol

I feel pretty sure the President would prefer that as well … but the Dems pushed through this whole bill with the caveat that although Petraeus reports to Congress the final written (and therefore official) report comes from the President … in other words the RINOs let the DEMs set the President up so that they can brand anything that Petraeus reports as being what he has been directed by the White House to say … thereby letting them ignore the report and continue their unabated BDS BS …