I'm suggesting that at the time Gregory was as ignorant of the context as I am now -- he said he hadn't read the report, so in essence he was operating on an assumption (which may have been true) and going out on a limb. The only reason I can see for doing that was at the very least trying to tear down the President (a common activity here, too), though Chance's hypothesis, that he was just trying to be in the spotlight, is possible.
From this, I gather that you are trying to advance the argument that a quote is out of context if the context isn't known (which isn't true), that the context of one part of a document cannot be understood without having read the entire document (which isn't true), and that Gregory did not know the context of the quotes he was using (which seems extremely unlikely, but I concede is vaguely possible). You have declined to indicate what context the relevant quotes could have possibly had that would have altered the plain meaning of the quotes themselves. You seem far too intelligent to have failed to grasp the relevance of this last point, so I am guessing that you have done this because you have no answer. As for your refusal to recognise that 2 hours is not a lot of time to completely read and consider the whole report and its 79 recommendations, leading you to the conclusion that the only possible explanations for not having read all of it was laziness and a desire to launch a partisan attack or a desire for the spotlight, I am again left feeling that you are unable to respond to the substantive point and so choose to ignore it. Given a report that you did not have time to read in full, but that you needed to quickly determine its basic content, what would you read? Most likely the summary at the front, and the conclusions and recommendations at the end - at least, that's where I would start.
For the record, the context for the quotes are as follows. The report begins with an Executive Summary, which (as is typical for such a summary) is intended to highlight the main findings of the report. Here is its first paragraph, in its entirety:
The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved.
Not a lot of ambiguity about that statement, is there? It certainly seems to explicitly state that the situation is grave and deteriorating. Note also the 'prospects can be improved' - that certainly sounds like a suggestion that there might be a better way - a change in course, perhaps? Of course, you couldn't infer that without other evidence - wherever might that be found? Perhaps in the next paragraph (emphases added):
In this report, we make a number of recommendations for actions to be taken in Iraq, the United States, and the region. Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. We believe that these two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another. If they are effectively implemented, and if the Iraqi government moves forward with national reconciliation, Iraqis will have an opportunity for a better future, terrorism will be dealt a blow, stability will be enhanced in an important part of the world, and America’s credibility, interests, and values will be protected.
Well, that certainly points to a need to change direction - a new primary mission is one of the report's two most important recommendations. It is also supported by the comments of the co-chairs in the letter which introduces the report:
There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests.
In this consensus report, the ten members of the Iraq Study Group present a new approach because we believe there is a better way forward.
So, how is Gregory's quote doing? Remember, what he said was:
'Stay the course' is no longer viable. The current approach is not working. The situation is grave and deteriorating.
I think we can give him a pass on 'grave and deteriorating'. On the current approach not working, I think that sentiment has been clearly established in the recommendation for a new approach that is a better way forward and a new primary mission for US troops, but we don't have those words. So far, we also don't have anything on staying the course. However, if we look to part C of the assessment part of the report, we have the following section, quoted in its entirety (emphasis added):
2. Staying the course
Current U.S. policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing national reconciliation. Making no changes in policy would simply delay the day of reckoning at a high cost. Nearly 100 Americans are dying every month. The United States is spending $2 billion a week. Our ability to respond to other international crises is constrained. A majority of the American people are soured on the war. This level of expense is not sustainable over an extended period, especially when progress is not being made. The longer the United States remains in Iraq without progress, the more resentment will grow among Iraqis who believe they are subjects of a repressive American occupation. As one U.S. official said to us, “Our leaving would make it worse. . . . The current approach without modification will not make it better.”
So, we have two of Gregory's three comments - 'current approach not working' and 'grave and deteriorating' - clearly in the report, and clearly saying exactly what they appear to be saying. We also have a definite a sense of staying the course being no longer viable, as not only is the current approachj not working (under a heading of 'Staying the Course'), but we are told that continuing the current approach 'will not make it [the situation] better'. This sounds like a judgement that the approach is not viable, although those precise words are not used.
As near-verbatim comments that are in the report, and reflecting its content, I'd say Gregory gets a pass.
