Petreaus On The Surge

Only because this will be the Grade A debate this fall:

Remember: the surge was supposed to lead to stability... and help rebuild civil society... all of which would lead to national reconciliation. All interwoven, all crucial. The surge was -- never was -- solely about security.

So -- isn't this an admission of ...

Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.

Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.

Page A-10 of the Post? A-10?

Comments

the general's name is misspelled in your headline.

PETRAEUS.

Posted by jonny jones | March 14, 2008 8:00 PM

So Marc can't even spell "Petraeus" and he wants to tell better journalists how to do their jobs?

Amazing.

Posted by Bobby | March 14, 2008 9:06 PM

"So -- isn't this an admission of ..."

It would be if the WaPo article was accurate.

MNF-I Press Release:

"Today's Washington Post inaccurately characterized the discussions General Petraeus and their reporters had yesterday. During the one-hour interview General Petraeus never intimated or stated that Iraqi leaders have "failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences."

The Washington Post has been asked to make a correction on this statement and we are awaiting their decision.

But instead of actually waiting for his report and listening to the facts, let's jump to conclusions! That's so much more fun, as it provides more ammo for the Dems.

Posted by Benson | March 14, 2008 10:28 PM

Getting a little ahead of ourselves, no? Might want to actually read the full interview before believing P said what the Post makes him out to have said.

From Petraeus's staff to the Post:

"Today's Washington Post inaccurately characterized the discussions General Petraeus and their reporters had yesterday. During the one-hour interview General Petraeus never intimated or stated that Iraqi leaders have "failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences."

The Washington Post has been asked to make a correction on this statement and we are awaiting their decision.

Posted by bob | March 14, 2008 10:30 PM

Page A-10? Well, that matches the number of Diggs it has: 10.

I guess the people who said the economy would replace the war in the election campaign were right.

Posted by Tom J | March 14, 2008 11:45 PM

Page A-10 of the Post? A-10?

Page A-1 correction or Page A-10 correction. Which is more embarrassment for Post & MSMites like yourself?

Posted by Michael Ramirez | March 15, 2008 7:28 AM

Pretty damn piss-poor when Petraeus, the guys at Op-For and BlackFive, and of course, Glenn Reynolds, can hoist you and Sullivan up by your petards, simply because the WaPo took the General out of context and screwed the pooch again?

Two words: Jesus wept. BTW, don't expect the WaPo to print a correction or a retraction. That's like expecting Keith Olbermann to show up with Bill O'Reilly in a gay porn flick.

Oh, wait.....

Posted by section9 | March 15, 2008 11:19 AM