Well, the WaPo didn’t use the word “lie”, they used the word “exaggerate” — same thing as far as I’m concerned, and same thing as far as the respondents are concerned, I’ll bet my bottom dollar…
From The Washington Post:
Wide Skepticism Ahead of Assessment
Poll Respondents Doubt Petraeus Will Give True Picture of Situation in IraqBy Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta
Most Americans think this week’s report from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus will exaggerate progress in Iraq, and few expect it to result in a major shift in President Bush’s policy. …”
(Snip!)
“… The findings, from a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, underscore the depth of public antipathy toward the Iraq war, the doubts about the administration’s policies and the limited confidence in the Iraqi government to meet its commitments to restore civil order.
Fifty-eight percent, a new high, said they want to decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. And most of those who advocated a troop reduction said they want the drawdown to begin either right away or by the end of the year. A majority, 55 percent, supported legislation that would set a deadline of next spring for the withdrawal of American combat forces. That figure is unchanged from July. …”
(Snip!)
“… Most Democrats and independents also agreed that, regardless of the report’s findings, Bush will not adjust his administration’s Iraq policy. Even Republicans were closely divided about whether the president will use the occasion to make a shift (47 percent) or stick with his policies (44 percent).
Overall, two-thirds of Americans said they believe Bush will hold to his current course no matter what. In a July Post-ABC News poll, nearly eight in 10 Americans, including a majority of Republicans, said the president was too intransigent on the war. …”
“Intransigent”? Let’s look that one up, shall we?
in·tran·si·gent [in-tran-si-juhnt]
–adjective 1. refusing to agree or compromise; uncompromising; inflexible.
–noun 2. a person who refuses to agree or compromise, as in politics.
A “virtue”? Some say “yes”, I say “no”, because there are too many dead bodies and broken families left in the wake of President Bush’s “intransigence”. If we choose to drive a car while intoxicated, our “intransigence” leads us to kill people, or be arrested before we do. If you are the President, however; and your “intransigence” leads to hundreds of thousands of [ahem... Iraqi] civilians and american troop deaths, the accepted form of punishment, deemed proper by the American People, is to be branded as a HORRIBLE politician forevermore. No prison time — just a sentence to be mentioned as a “horrible President” for decades to come — meanwhile, the rest of us would be imprisoned for being serial killers if we were to try the same “trick” at home.
Stop… the… MADNESS…
***
Thanks again to MemeOrandum for selecting this as a Featured Post -
See also: The Moderate Voice; Donklephant; Crooks and Liars
Loading ...
11:49 am on September 11th, 2007 1
GTL
If most people think that Gen. Petraeus will lie, then most people are maroons. The general will do what anyone who has ever had a crappy situation handed to them with the instructions “fix this” would do. He will attempt to show where he has succeded and put the best face on his unfinished business. I defy anyone who has held a position more responsible than Blockbuster restocker to say they would do differently.
It does this country no service to portray this man as anything but what he is, a career officer handed a mess by his boss. By the same token, it is entirely legitimate for Congress to question the general about his conclusions, and even disagree providing they are civil and respectful. Those members of Congress that choose to disagree in that fashion are no less deserving of our respect. The tenor of debate has fallen so low that I am beginning to doubt if our Republic can survive. No reasoned solution has ever been reached by shouting down the opposition.