to the extent I had read it at the time of the last post, I must make a correction. I had the link to the prepared text, and had read the 1st three paragraphs rather than just what I thought was one as I claimed. That would be the equivalent of two paragraphs in the White House text.
Having now read the complete text I must comment more fully. It was actually a very good speech, that makes a lot of sense. That is also the opinion of a friend of mine whose experiences and credentials in intelligence are well beyond mine. But that was just the first part of a sentence, which I finished for him in my mind as he was making this comment. Paraphrased: His speech made a lot of sense... except for the facts.
Back to my first read, the paragraph in question has questionable references to "Iraq, an ally" and "terrorists and extremists who are...seeking to topple Iraq's government". These are at odds with the wishes reported that Iraq would like us to leave and some of the administrations allies wishes for a new government in Iraq.
In a related matter, Bush has said he prefers to listen to the generals on the ground rather than Washington politicians. Well how does that play when Petraeus wrote [*] in support of the administration before the last election and has plans for politics already?
[*] [Battling for Iraq September 26th 2004 Washington Post added here 9-21-07: also His Political Hopes and more and Krugman calls him out. and Political Animal Drum(s) him out. ]
No comments:
Post a Comment