[EmperorLiam]

"we had 100% military superiority in terms of technology, as we pretty much always do. But we still lost."

No, the Americans withdrew, and the South 1/2 a year later fell. The only thing America was losing was public support, you can thank the draft for that.

[dougoftheabaci]

We didn't gain ground, they weren't starting to give up, we lost troops, they lost troops. In all respects it was a draw minus one tiny little fact: We left.

How did we not lose? It's like my text book said America won the Battle of the Bulge. This, of course was after we lost loads of men and equipment, were in a full retreat losing territory it had taken us months to claim and whatever wasn't run over by the Germans was surrounded and shelled until it surrendered. Then they ran out of gas. Then we beat them back. Easy to beat back a tank that can't move...

[Interrobang]

Kjorteo: I spotted that and knew I recognized it from I Drew This. I don't agree with some of the opinions on there, but there always are interesting reads...and good comics too!

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the details surrounding the Petraeus Report. But I admit I'm skeptical, especially after the departure of surge opponent and Petraeus' predecessor Gen. George Casey.

[Psudo]

My understanding, Doug, was that the Administration distanced themselves as much as possible from Patraeus' report in order to give it the appearance of independence. Do you have any evidence suggesting the White House edited, regulated, or proofread Patraeus' remarks?

Besides, why would the white house need to be involved? Patraeus already looks bad if things are going badly simply by the nature of his position. Connecting his report to the White House is over-complicating without evidence in a direct conflict with Occam's Razor.

Some relevant quotes from Kjorteo's sources:
"Petraeus has not told the White House where he might recommend reductions."
"White House officials [. . .] said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq [. . .] from public congressional testimony"
"White House this week [assured] reporters [. . .] that Petraeus and Crocker would appear live and in person to give testimony to relevant congressional committees".

They (especially the NPR editorial) have interesting speculations about motivations for the White House to bias the report, but no actual evidence of any attempt to do so. The evidence that does exist suggests the White House being nervous but standing aside anyway. The rest appears to be baseless speculation, at least based on these three sources.

(On a tangent, why do reporters insist on combining a dozen facts into one convoluted sentence? I hate using [. . .].)

[CanadianJeff]

I hear that one ... can be enough alone to distort the entire purpose of the sentence and twist it to a new means the moment you have two ... in any single quote in any eassay I've read it's questionable content at best.

[dougoftheabaci]

I can't send links due to my new-ness of my account...

But if you do some searching you'll find Petraeus worked with the Iraq ambassador. Also, there's been reports that White House staffers helped write it up. Also, depending on your source Cheney may have dictated a few things.

[CanadianJeff]

You know. There are times that I am critical of the Canadian polotical system (aka an mp not being able to vote against thier own party without receiving the boot!) but the fact that this much debate is even required to see weither or not the bush admistration put a foot in this report makes me realize how lucky we are that our government seems to get called on bad deals quickly when they happen.

If anyone tried this in Canada at all the media would hang them out to dry liberal or conservative.

[dougoftheabaci]

But that's the way the American media works. I spent two years in London (going back soon, whoot!) and the way the news is done over there is so different from here. Here in the states it's truly about showmanship and getting the ratings.

It's not like that around the world. I mean, here Al Jazeera is made out to be nothing short of a terror outlet, yet in many other parts of the world they are rather respected for at least showing a side others don't want, or refuse, to show.

[Kjorteo]

I like the system of the US Government. I feel the completely wrong people currently occupy its positions, but in general, I feel our Constitution is among the best in the world. I really do.

But holy Hell, do I hate our media.

[dougoftheabaci]

I'll agree to that. The system itself is pretty good in principle. It just needs some over-hauling.

Hey, Thomas Jefferson said there should be a revolution every 76 years for pretty much a reboot.

[Psudo]

Kjorteo wrote:

But holy Hell, do I hate our media.

I'll drink to that! Well... like soda or something...

[Murray_Smith]

Kjorteo wrote:

I like the system of the US Government. I feel the completely wrong people currently occupy its positions, but in general, I feel our Constitution is among the best in the world. I really do.

Fortunately, our system allows us to correct mistakes.

dougoftheabaci wrote:

I'll agree to that. The system itself is pretty good in principle. It just needs some over-hauling.

Hey, Thomas Jefferson said there should be a revolution every 76 years for pretty much a reboot.

The problem with revolutions is that there is almost no guarantee that the new government is going to be better. The American Revolution is, by many standards, the exception rather than the rule.

Psudo wrote:

Kjorteo wrote:

But holy Hell, do I hate our media.

I'll drink to that! Well... like soda or something...

I smile because Bushmill's is delicious.