What does the Petraeus report have to do with eye surgery?

Kevin, stop referring to general appearances as "optics"! I know it's a trendy usage, but it sounds so ridiculous that it's hard to take anybody who uses it seriously.

As for the content of the looming report, anyone who has ever used the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program knows what's coming next. Americans should expect to see the old "Fill Right" trick. That is, when producing a long-term financial model or forecast, the Excel user in the absence of research, data, or just common sense, simply copies the value or formula from one cell (for, say, monthly or quarterly sales) to all the succeeding cells (months or quarters in ensuing years). The result is an impressive looking spreadsheet, but one whose projections are baseless and without foundation.

As the interim surge report made clear in July, President Bush like any failed CEO has been relying on the old fill-right gimmick since the Iraq war commenced. Starting in 2003, Bush simply selected the cell containing the phrase "We're Making Progress" and filled right...

For a screen shot and more details, see:
"White House to Author 'Fill Right' Iraq Report for Petraeus."

Kevin, I think you're right that Petraeus is going to give his report publicly to Congress. The New York Sun reports a lot of the good news Petraeus is going to talk about which resulted from the Surge. This includes supporting partial withdrawal from certain areas of Iraq a year from now and thousands of Sunni joining in Bush's military response to Al-Qaeda's War against America.

Link

"The emphasis on how success in turning the population against the enemy in Iraq is made possible in part by this year's troop surge"
"he will stress that unprecedented progress has been made against Al Qaeda and Iran's network in Iraq, lessening the need for the current troop levels of approximately 160,000."
"stressed that in regions such as Anbar province, where more than 30,000 Marines have brought relative peace and destroyed most of Al Qaeda's networks, there would likely be reductions in force."
"The military now estimates some 25,000 former Sunni insurgents have put down their weapons and joined the fight against Al Qaeda, a figure General Petraeus is expected to offer Congress when he descends on Washington in September."

Zak: What, you don't want me to be trendy? Come on. I'm already hopelessly fusty when it comes to pop culture references. Can't I at least adopt a few trendy terms from the political punditry biz?

Besides, "optics" actually seems like a useful term to me. I like it. But then, I also like "meme".....

The key to this is not what the White House does with Petraeus but how the Democrats respond and how the corporate press/media reports the story.

If the Democrats spend all their time praising "Our Brave Troops" and kissing Petraeus's ass, then nothing will change.

If the corporate press/media reports the story as if Petraeus is some independent voice, above reproach and not directed by the White House, then nothing will change.

The recent reporting on Pollack and O'Hanlon is an indication that this is probably what will happen.

Hey, everyone's agreeing with me this morning! Must be something in the coffee.....

This would be the time to start considering something is very, very wrong;>

Since we are not living in the Soviet Union, there are headlines in all the news papers that condemn the administration for playing games over decisions that may lead to deaths of more American soldiers and even more Iraqi civilians.

Rozen nails the upcoming Petraeus report:

"... the good general too thinks the surge has done wonders and, with time, might reduce violence to a degree that greater political reconciliation takes hold. He even forecasts that over the next year, he might be able to move troops out of the areas where violence has gone down, hinting at a lower US troop presence by next year, without offering too many specifics."

As James E. Powell states above: "The key to this is not what the White House does with Petraeus but how the Democrats respond and how the corporate press/media reports the story."

Unless the Democrats have an answer NOW to each of Rozen's (Petraeus's) points, game, set, match, Bush.

Someone needs to remind the Democrats in Congress that the Cossacks work for the Tsar...

The "Petraeus Report" should be a new show on Comedy Central, who could probably write it better than the White House.

Wow, I just complained about the use of "optics" on TAPPED not two minutes ago, and now I find it annoys other people too. As I commented on TAPPED, there are already at least two words with the same meaning: appearance and image.

What the hell does "control the optics" mean? Could you please write in English, instead of trying to be one of the cool kids (who invariably aren't)?

Let's not forget that Bush is well-known for enjoying being a bully and making people knuckle under to him.

I suspect its just a case of, having won the NSA wiretapping fight, Bush pushing the envelope even further.

not to belabor the obvious, but it's not their report. they're performers.

kevin, i love you like a brother, but 'optics' is just ugly. granted, 'apppearance' or 'appearance's sake' is longer, but i think more generally understood.

i don't like 'meme' either, though it seems to have spread like, um, a virus.

still, a man's prose style is his own, and if it makes you happy, honey...

your pal,
blake

Never misunderestimate Bush. It's his way or the highway, even with the Democrats in control of Congress! Whatever Bushie wants, Bushie gets; and Iran and North American Union, little Bushie wants you.

Just another old fart piling on about "optics." I won't stop loving you, but please...

"Controlling the Optics" means twisting the zoom thingie on my camera.

Zak: "Kevin, stop referring to general appearances as "optics"!'

Why, do feel that this verbal interface is negatively impacting our understandification?

I object to "optics" because there is another perfectly good word already in the vocabulary that means the same thing: "appearances." It's like saying "seating solution" to say "chair."

"Meme," by contrast, means something that nothing else does. Hence.

"appearance" or "perception", take your pick. You and Ezra Klein can eat "optics" right now, because it is goddamned annoying. It is not useful. Some munchwagon made it up to sound "better"- it sounds like something Jonah Goldberg might say. Knock it off.

...think it's a head fake, basically just a way to (make things look as good as possible).

"Meme" must go. It became annoying after the trillionth appearance on blogs. I'm just sayin'.

It took me a while to figure out what everybody meant by this unconventional use of the term "optics". Can't say as I care for it except when combined with "rectics" in one or another of many interesting constructions.

The only true meme that has sprung up since Dawkins coined the term is "meme".

But I'm just a DFH.

Let me see if I have this right... We're being told that the Bush Regime is proposing to do something that sounds insane, impossible and self-destructive. And people seriously believe that this might be a ploy-- that they don't intend to do exactly what they say?

What government have you been watching? Certainly not the one refusing to let anyone with knowledge of criminal activity testify. If memory serves me right, Laura Rozen also told us that Dick Cheney wasn't REALLY going to withhold the names of the Big Oil executives he met with before he wrote the energy policy.

There's certainly a possibility that Petraeus will end up giving public testimony. The wingnuts up for re-election might very well say "I told my constituents that we had to wait and listen to what he said. Either he testifies publicly, so my constituents can hear that it's going well, or I'll vote to bring the troops home".

But do I believe that they're currently planning not to have him testify? Ab-so-effin'-lutely.

By the way, there is a small possibility that things could go completely nuclear. The Bush Regime never responds well to pressure, and their response to a threat is usually "Screw you guys, now we're definitely doing it my way."

It's even possible that they might try to keep Petraeus out of Congress by claiming Executive Privilege. W is Commander in Chief of the military and Patraeus is clearly one of his senior advisors, ergo it applies to him too.

The lesson of the Bush Regime is that you can NEVER set your expectations too low.

Sorry, Woody, Your facts are wrong. I never said that Dick Cheney was not really going to withhold the name of oil executives. I never wrote on that subject of Cheney and energy at all. You make that up out of thin air?

Bitching about semantics has got to be the lowest form of trollery. Do you people also complain to your doctors when they refer to your ass as your gluteus?

"Optics" is useful jargon used in the world of PR and (by obvious extension) politics because it's unambiguous. The word "appearance", eg, has multiple meanings; when you refer to "the candidate's appearance", are you talking about the candidate's physical appearance, their next campaign appearance, or how the candidate as a political product appears to the public?

I object to "optics" because there is another perfectly good word already in the vocabulary that means the same thing: "appearances."

Optics are generally used to clarify or otherwise improve viewing.
Such as eyeglasses, a rifle scope, microspcope or telescope.
I think, frankly, that it's a very poor usage of the word in such cases and tends to suggest that the appearance is accurate, when in fact it is often misleading.
Please stop using it.

Disputo: Bitching about semantics has got to be the lowest form of trollery.
Ouch! Am I really lower than Al and ex-liberal? That hurts, pal.

But to make the point one more time and then I will shut up forever. I don't think it's a good idea for jargon, especially jargon from the PR world, to creep into serious journalism. Language is important, it's not "just" semantics.

It's not the same as medical or technical jargon. "Gluteus" is used because "ass" or "butt" might be offensive to some people. "CPU" is used because it's more compact than "that thing in my computer that does all the addin' multiplyin' and stuff." But like Kenga says, there's already a perfectly good word for "appearances" and in the context of "Rudy's campaign is all about appearances," reasonably unambiguous.

I'll shut up about it now. Are we on the same page here? ;-)