The Times article also says: "It remains possible that the Joint Chiefs may opt to weaken their stance before approaching Bush." "Pace is expected to offer his advice privately instead of issuing a formal report"
======================
Well,.....being one in the same as the islamists in terms of experiencing defeat resulting from U.S. progress in Iraq, the Times cannot wait to inaccurately and publicly overdramatize that which should be left to unfold as it otherwise would - quietly.... and privately - in the interest of the best strategic outcome. The press is invested in our defeat. They do not appreciate the stakes!

I don't know why they just won't say it. I will. I want us to lose. It is time for America to say bye bye.

No rift. This is the excuse Bush et al will use to reduce troop levels going into the general election. Fits into their plan along with backing a military coup in Iraq.

LA Times:

Petraeus is expected to support a White House view that the absence of
widespread political progress in Iraq requires several more months of
the U.S. troop buildup before force levels are decreased to their
pre-buildup numbers sometime next year.

kmcolo:

No rift. This is the excuse Bush et al will use to reduce troop levels going into the general election.

davboz's comments are the most apt in this thread. Isn't it slightly illogical to imply that President Bush is compelled to accept the advice of his subordinate, General Pace, if Pace himself rejects the advice of his subordinate, General Petraeus? I detect an air of hopefulness in the MSMs reporting on this so-called development.

It is a ruse
the US will lose
then we'll be free
to live without a fee

Another big soft hug for you lorigrace

It is wise to try cutting down the forces abroad so resident idiots can try to establish their will