Another sign of executive contempt for congress. And they are part of the problem, because they allow it.

I’m sure they’ll send him a strongly worded letter.

Eli @ 280

I’m not afraid to listen to him. I just don’t think what he says is going to be very truthful, considering that he’s already cooking the casualty numbers.

And as I keep repeating, we *already* know that The Surge isn’t working; it’s been confirmed by three different reports, all of which are far more plausibly non-partisan than Petraeus or the White House. It would be different if Petraeus’s testimony was the *only* report on The Surge, but it’s not – it’s simply the most partisan and least credible one.

He’s mandated to give the report–is that not correct? It’s not as if he has a choice.

I personally have most faith in the GAO report. And unlike O’Hanlon, I think rigor is a good thing. But the GAO Comptroller General told congress in hearing that Petraeus likely had better information in certain areas than GAO did.

He’s mandated to testify to Congress about the progress; the president is mandated to give the report… but apparently won’t.

casual observer @ 279

Eli,

If his report is bullshit, then that will readily be apparent, I hope. But it would not be consistent with a liberal approach, in my view, to judge what he is going to say before he says it. As liberals, we are not afraid to listen to people, even if we don’t agree with them.

I’m not afraid to listen to him. I just don’t think what he says is going to be very truthful, considering that he’s already cooking the casualty numbers.

And as I keep repeating, we *already* know that The Surge isn’t working; it’s been confirmed by three different reports, all of which are far more plausibly non-partisan than Petraeus or the White House. It would be different if Petraeus’s testimony was the *only* report on The Surge, but it’s not – it’s simply the most partisan and least credible one.

He’s mandated to give the report–is that not correct? It’s not as if he has a choice.

I personally have most faith in the GAO report. And unlike O’Hanlon, I think rigor is a good thing. But the GAO Comptroller General told congress in hearing that Petraeus likely had better information in certain areas than GAO did.

Eli @ 276

My point is that three impartial reports have already told us The Surge is a failure. I can’t imagine what Petraeus can say that would convince any rational person that the White House spin is correct, and those three other reports are all wrong.

Eli,

If his report is bullshit, then that will readily be apparent, I hope. But it would not be consistent with a liberal approach, in my view, to judge what he is going to say before he says it. As liberals, we are not afraid to listen to people, even if we don’t agree with them.

I’m not afraid to listen to him. I just don’t think what he says is going to be very truthful, considering that he’s already cooking the casualty numbers.

And as I keep repeating, we *already* know that The Surge isn’t working; it’s been confirmed by three different reports, all of which are far more plausibly non-partisan than Petraeus or the White House. It would be different if Petraeus’s testimony was the *only* report on The Surge, but it’s not – it’s simply the most partisan and least credible one.

casual observer @ 258

Eli, I can’t answer that, because I’m not clairvoyant. Or is it telepathic? I can never keep that stuff straight. My only and extemely simple point is I don’t see how one can argue with his report until he’s given it.

My point is that three impartial reports have already told us The Surge is a failure. I can’t imagine what Petraeus can say that would convince any rational person that the White House spin is correct, and those three other reports are all wrong.

Eli,

If his report is bullshit, then that will readily be apparent, I hope. But it would not be consistent with a liberal approach, in my view, to judge what he is going to say before he says it. As liberals, we are not afraid to listen to people, even if we don’t agree with them.