Now, not only will there not be metrics but there won’t even be a written report. It will be a repeat of Gonzales type testimony where words are spun and it will be impossible to pin down any objective facts.

Go easy on drinking the koolaid before the facts come out……….there is both a written report and 15 pages of metrics.

Democracy is messy, a free press is messy. If it isn’t, then it’s absent

Talking about sense-free, I’m struck by how offended you are by posturing and distortions in Congress and other news outlets, but the question of whether the administration might not be doing the same is not even considered.

I am the administration, and I’m here to help you…

The whole thing revolves back to the question of trust. All the pre-tesstimony acrimony is caused by the fact that this administration has lost the trust of the public, except for the lemmings, who will follow it any direction, inlucding way down a cliff side
It would be in the administration’s, and the nation’s interest, to try to rebuild that trust by, at least, appearing to be open about its methods and means and reasoning. That means accepting the legitimacy of being challenged, instead of trying to avoid it.
Instead, the opposition is demonized, pushing it further into mistrust.
If the asministration, and its fans, were purposfully trying to energize the oppositon, it couldn’t do a better job.

.

.

Yeah, he should only appear on Fox after he appears before Congress and gets grilled by Tom Lantos and company, as talking to ANY of the other networks would be going off-message, and the Democrats in Congress sure aren’t going to posture or make speeches or attempt to misrepresent histestimony. And ABC would hardball him…oh wait, he already gave ABC’s Charles Gibson an interview, didn’t he? What a lovefest that was. That whore Gibson–didn’t he know he was supposed to beat Patraeus up, and soften him up for Lantos?

Preserving the freedom of the press was meant to safeguard the public against invalid assertions by the governemtn and to protect the right to dissent.
We ended up with the international mess that is the Iraq war precisely because the press voluntarily chose not to exercise that right. By that failure, it helped to create a nation of lemmings.
At this stage, it is vitally important that we don’t repeat the lemming swan dive over the cliff again, and again and again.

We;ll have to wait and see how the actual interview goes, but FOX is the most likely venue where the government won’t be challenged and the primary purpose of having freedom of the press in the first place won’t be exercised.

The exercise of all freedoms becomes messy, with conflicitng views and slants. The press is no different, but at least, at its basis, it should report on the government with a healthy dose of scepticism. By choosing a venue whete that is least lekely to happen, the administration is choosing a venue where it is most likely to encounter a happy lemming comunity.

I don;t favor a quick withdrawal, or a complete withdrawal, BTW. I favor not being sold on a policy without it being laid open to challenge.

It is very curious that conxervatives, who claim such distrust of the government, are also the defenders of having the governemtn’s policies presented without challenges or questioning.

On top of everything, what is a military general doing selling a political policy in the first place?
For too many, nothing seems to matter except the preservation of the echo chamber in their minds.

Now, not only will there not be metrics but there won’t even be a written report. It will be a repeat of Gonzales type testimony where words are spun and it will be impossible to pin down any objective facts.

Bush is once again resorting to an “in your face” approach. His mind is made up and since he is the “decider” the only person he has to pay attention to is himself. The Fox News angle is just symptomatic of his arrogance. I’m surprised Patreaus is going along with all of this – without metrics and without a written report – it’s his credibility that will be damaged for all time.

Maybe they can generate enough support to keep the surge going for a while. But it comes at the expense of attempting to unite the country over the issue, and worse, comes across as a purely partisan move. It will cause many who are still undecided to determine, fairly or unfairly, that Petraeus is politically motivated and that will in turn taint his report.

LMAO. Yeah, sure, “a more neutral venue,” such as, say, MSNBC? Or CNN? Or CBS, maybe? Pull the other one.

Blue Crab is dead on when they say:

“Sure, Petraeus and the administration are going to get hammered for this. But they are already getting hammered anyway. “

Fox News has the highest ratings of the cable news nets, routinely clocking twice or more the prime-time viewers of runner-up CNN. The broadcast networks certainly aren’t going to poke an hour’s hole in their prime-time schedule, especially if it might help the White House in any way. Not the week before season premiers, they won’t–they’d alienate some segment of their viewership no matter how they handle it. Of the remaining venues that might open an hour of prime-time for Petraeus, Fox is the logical choice on ratings alone.

It’s true that the Dem base has completely shut their minds to any possibility that positive news from Iraq might be true, and to that extent, the WH is not wrong to aim it’s message more toward the remaining people who will still listen. However, just as some here tend to overgeneralize the distrust of all things related to Bush or Fox News, the WH is also wrong to overgeneralize by assuming that Fox viewers are the only ones who matter. Things are certainly polarized, but there are Fox viewers who aren’t part of the hardcore Republican base and there are non-Fox viewers who aren’t part of the netroots. Granting an exclusive to Fox implies that the WH doesn’t believe that, and I join Joe and others in thinking that they are mistaken in that thinking.

Since I’ve been one to complain about lack of moderation here lately, I have to join Marlowe in praising Joe for the extreme moderate tone in this article.

Of course, I have this feeling that if I tune in to Faux Nooz, I will be told that it is, in fact, a giraffe.

This is a great point. For those of you who don’t recall what Petraeus wrote JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION, here’s are some excerpts:

Specifically, he declared that “Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt,” that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward” and that “there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security.”

Sheesh Krit, the Kossacks/MoveOn Dems are calling Petraeus a traitor in tomorrow’s NYT.

Appearances matter. By failing to find a more neutral venue, we are given the appearance of them tyring to rig the game, whether that’s true or not. I say it’s not worth it, Of course, I care more about the nation that about either party of the President’s legacy.

When Cheney travels, his hotel rooms must be tune to Fox and Fox alone- he’d never be caught dead watching MSNBC.

This signals that outreach to Democrats and Independents by the WH is nominal, Bush will do whatever he pleases in Iraq.