Captain's Quarters -

If Petraeus and his military staff were actually writing the report, then yes, this would be a form of character assassination. However, what I've read and seen reported is that the White House is drafting the report, not Petraeus. If so, that would make it by and large the "Bush Report."

Maybe they're just living in the past. Ten years ago there were some political whores in the military's leadership. And if Hillary is elected, there will be again. It's not the case today, but it can happen if you get the wrong President. Ten years ago, Democrats in Congress loved political generals, because they were theirs.

Angus,
From what I understand the legislation calling for this report demands or requires that the report be drafted by the White House. This “trashing” the report because the White House is writing it is not only disgusting because by inference they are calling our Executive Branch liars and untrustworthy, but it is disingenuous because they set the requirement that the White House write the report.

Captain, we may be dismayed by this shrill prebuttal; and we may be sickened, incensed and outraged. But neither you or I or anyone else paying attention is surprised. This is who these people really are. They are so heavily invested in out defeat in Iraq that they will not, can not, allow any indication of success to go unchallenged. We simply have to do poorly in the war for their message to have any credibility at all.

The last time I checked, the General (Petraeus) reports to, and is under the command of the Commander and Chief. Unless Angus wants to re-write the constitution, the report to congress will be delivered by the President.

But, I guess this is being petty?

It is just not worth the agrument anymore. I am just tired of them calling "everyone" who doesn't agree with their agenda liars. They would call their own mother a liar if it served their purpose. I shake my head in disgust.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Gen. David Petraeus’ upcoming Sept. 15 report on Iraq will be authored by the White House:

Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data.

I hate to point out the obvious, but the testimony will be coming from Petraeus, and the Senate will be asking him their questions. That's what the Democrats are being asked about, and they're trying to undermine.

I am sick and tired of listening the the likes or Durbin, Reid, Kennedy and Pelosi. I lived through the sixties and what is going today is worse than TREASON! It's about time we call it what it is. It used to be "unacceptable" to refer to people like these as Communists, but, today, the Communist and Democrat parties have converged, and they are one and the same. If we had a real president like Lincoln, these people would have been shot ar at least run out of the country!!!

The main point is this: it is not a smear against Petraeus if Petraeus doesn't write the report. It's just another smear against Bush.

You are Correct Captain, Petraeus will provide testimony to the Senate regarding the so-called 'Petraeus Report on Iraq'.

The actual 'Petraeus Report on Iraq' itself, about which the General will testify, will be authored by the White House.

Democrats are trapped in a box; a four part problem.

PtI
only 18% of Americans approve of Dems' Congress
only 3% of Americans approve of Dems' Congress' handling of Iraq
support for decision to invade is growing/rebounding
support for cut and run is falling
support for war is growing
56% of Americans now see the war as winnable (and that is on the climb)

Clearly the Dems are not pandering to polls (except perhaps of their farthest left base, but these are numbers they can't ignore)

Pt II
The surge is working militarily
US deaths are down
THOUSANDS (perhaps even 10,000+!!!!) of AQ have been killed/captured (talking AQ not insurgents here)
from PFCs to 4 star generals, the consensus is it's working
-Even Katie Couric's having a reverse Cronkite moment and reporting this to say nothing of Gen P and Dems who've recently gone over

PtIII
While the Dems are working hard to put out the notion that the Iraqi Parliament isn't accomplishing anything (ergo the surge is a failure), it's impossible to deny that the Dems' Congress has accomplished less than the Iraqi Parliament.
-that 18% approval is proof, plus it's hard for lawmakers to ignore that they're not passing any laws; they've GOTTA know that much

PtIV
If the US leaves Iraq too fast-as the DNC base compels, then 9/10 assessments are that it will collapse, terrorists will take over, the country will fall into anarchy. Genocide and region-wide war are extremely likely and widely predicted by analysts of the L and R. So, if the Dems get their way and Iraq is abandoned, then a Dem President and a Dem Congress in 08 will have to deal with a terrorist-controlled Iraq, anarchy there, perhaps genocide or a regional war, and in all of those cases a third (infinitely more difficult) invasion of Iraq would be needed; i.e., if the Democrats get their way, they’ll inherit a political trap.

What I don't understand is how Dems can look at PtI, PtII, PtIII, and ptIV and still seek an unconditional immediate withdrawal? How/why would they pander to the 3% of the American people who approve of their New Direction in Iraq so far?

I just don't get it. Can 3% of the American people really have that much influence?

Maybe the American people are seeing the reality and will force them to redeploy (by "them," I mean defeatist Democrats from DC)?

The fact is the "face" on this report is Gen. Petraeus. He played the major role in preparing it and he will be delivering it to congress. It represents to a large degree the view of the military on the ground in Iraq. In contrast we have a GAO report which represents the analysis of bureaucrats in the capitol far from Iraq. Now who do Americans trust more: the military? or Congress? ... This is an imbecilic move by the Dems.

Cap'n, I agree with both you and with your posters here ... Angus says it best above.

The Left calls it the "Bush Report", and thus imply that Bush wrote it and somehow forced Petraeus to kowtow to a corrupted version of the truth ... with the Evil Bush not only corrupting the written report but also contaminating the upcoming Congressional testimony and media interviews to be given by Petraeus.

The nutbags who populate the Left will continue to think and speak thusly.

The people on the right know far better.

And the persuadable middle, should they bother to watch or read the Petraeus testimony on their own, without the helpful interpretative guidance offered by CNN and the NYT or Chuckie Schumer or Dingy Harry Reid, may very well conclude that Petraeus seems to know what he's talking about ... and does not look particularly shifty-eyed, nor catatonically controlled by the Evil Bush Puppet-Master.

Spin this all the Left wants to spin, but the people who care enough to watch and listen for themselves will behold a Professional Soldier telling it like it is, and not as some in the fever swamps wish it to be.

mitt4mypres,

You imply that Petraeus will only be a mouthpiece for the White House, and will show no integrity under questioning. You are repeating this interesting talking point:

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.'

Petraeus will provide the data and analysis underlying the wordsmithing used in the report. I expect that he will be in full agreement with what he presents. Under those conditions, it doesn't matter who wordsmithed it, that agreement will be obvious under questioning.

If he doesn't agree with it, that will also become obvious under questioning.

But, "the Bush report" is obviously a politically loaded phrase, in spite of its truth.

TimeToFight Back says:

"I am sick and tired of listening the the likes or Durbin, Reid, Kennedy and Pelosi. I lived through the sixties and what is going today is worse than TREASON!"

Try the word "Sedition".

General Petraeus, hand puppet.

Ah, well. I think I smell flop sweat and it's not coming from the Republican's side of the aisle.

From PFC to General P, the fact is the surge is working
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/09/06/soldier-cbs-regrets-people-not-hearing-about-good-things-soldiers-do-ir

Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin, Dean, these people AND MANY MORE have staked their lives on failure in Iraq. They would easily prefer failure than success otherwise, they'd have provided the promised path to success. I'm sorry, "solving." Remember when Dems took Congress and Speaker Pelosi said, Iraq wasn't a war, it was a problem to be solved. They're solution is:

1)run away
2)pin the blame (for anything and everything) on W and Republicans
3)dodge any sense of political accountability
4)When "Iraq blows up 10min after the US leaves" Dems will advocate popcorn and CNN (or MSNBC) rather than intervention to stop the ensuing genocide, regional war, and/or anarchy.

If they had a plan for success, they'd have presented it sometime in the last year. They don't. They WANT failure for America's failure (they see it as Republican failure) is their success, but what they refuse to realize is that it's not just Republicans who promoted the war, authorized it, supported it, fight it, and who are at risk to the consequences of irresponsible withdrawal. It's Americans.

Chris Matthews: "What's a good reason for staying in Iraq? Let me hear one."
Howard Dean: "Because if you pull your troops out immediately, you do get chaos."
MSNBC Hardball, Election night Nov 2006
http://newsbusters.org/node/8944

They know what's going on, what needs to be done, and what will happen if they do the wrong thing. They just lack the courage to tell that truth to the remaining 3% of Americans who believe the Democrats are handling the Iraq War correctly.

uncle, I am stating FACTS. The facts themselves have implications, which is a point I readily concede.

I also clearly report "...though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data."

The President decides, as is legislated by Congress, how to interpret the report's data, but as the Captain correctly noted the actual Senate testimony will be coming from Petraeus.

uncle, are you suggesting that General Petraeus might deviate from his commander-in-chief's interpretation of the report's data when the General testifies before the Senate?

Too bad it didn't come out last month... could have been the Rove Report. But be of good cheer, good people. "Bush Report" is some sort of attack? Such a lame and malign strategem is transparent to all. The Dems see a low approval rating on the mere word, "Bush". Indeed, Voldemort is openly declared a synonym. But they make serious errors here. Public opinion is highly subject to change; this is one reason leading by polling is, rightly, always derided (if cynically). But is there no possibility, Dem poll riders, that rather the historically high public esteem of the military will rub off on the most prominent member of the military? The C-in-C? Oh friends, there is a mighty laugh a-coming! And mighty wails. Thundering echoes of mighty wails.

Was it Ann Coulter who first announced to a gullible public that "treason" and "criticism" are synonyms, or has that meme been around even longer than the Blonde Bombshell?

Because, speaking as a person who enjoys words and their accurate usage, I'm finding the whole "criticism of us is TREASON" thing... well... pretty tiresome.

A critical component of Petraeus' job is to keep troop morale up. You honestly think he would give a report, which would lower troop morale in any way?

I would remind people that his previous articles and testimony, during the time in which he was in charge of the rebuilding of the Iraqi Army and police, were full of positive assessments that did not match the realities on the ground. Why expect anything different now?

Posted by Angus | September 6, 2007 12:09 PM

The main point is this: it is not a smear against Petraeus if Petraeus doesn't write the report. It's just another smear against Bush.

If Petraeus goes before Congress to answer their questions and supports the "Bush" report, then any smear on the report would be a smear on Petraeus. You're basically saying that Petraeus would be nothing but a lapdog for the White House.

I would remind people that his previous articles and testimony, during the time in which he was in charge of the rebuilding of the Iraqi Army and police, were full of positive assessments that did not match the realities on the ground. Why expect anything different now?

If he was known to be a "liar" that would not tell the truth of "realities on the ground", why were Democrat Senators so stupid that they voted to confirm his promotion in Iraq?

The actual 'Petraeus Report on Iraq' itself, about which the General will testify, will be authored by the White House.

This is in accordance with legislation which the Democratic Congress wrote. There is nothing preventing them from requesting that Petraeus write the report himself.

Except that it is politicaly expedient for them to be able to talk about the "Bush report".

If it's a smear against the Commander in Chief it's a smear against those under his command. If it's a smear against Petraeus it's a smear against his superior officer(s), too.

Simple enough even for a Clinton stepandfetchit to understand.

Sedition is right. FDR, Truman and JFK must be spinning in their graves about what has infected their now soulless Democrat party.

A critical component of Petraeus' job is to keep troop morale up. You honestly think he would give a report, which would lower troop morale in any way?

You are saying he will lie to Congress?

So if you don't believe the WH, and you don't believe the military, whose word will you accept regarding the facts on the ground in Iraq? The BBC?

Public Law 110-28 specifes that "the President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress."

The law separately requires that: "[T]he United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress."
"Petraeus" Report

PL 110-28

A lot of Bush-haters are going to a lot of trouble to spin away and give the impression that Gen P's testimony will be false (regardless of oath, honor, integrity, and personal history), AND that any reports the surge is meeting success must be false

(as CBS discovered, even PFC's are in on the-great-surge-success-lie)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/09/06/soldier-cbs-regrets-people-not-hearing-about-good-things-soldiers-do-ir

It's very simple.

The smear campaign is happening because the idea of a Thompson-Petraeus ticket terrifies the Dems beyond what limited capacity for rational thought they possess.

Even if Petraeus turned it down, even if it's just wishful thinking, note the Dems are horrified at the prospect of anyone with any real national security credentials running against Hillary.

The issues in 2008 are going to be the Six I's:

Iraq and Iran
Illegal Immigration
Interest rates and Inflation

And the GOP beats the Dems on all six of those now, and will get an even wider lead by November as Iraq improves, the housing market settles down and the economy picks up again, and the Dems continue to be on the wrong side of the Iran and illegal immigration issues.

Southernroots

"...why were Democrat Senators so stupid that they voted to confirm his promotion in Iraq?"

For the same reason that they were "stupid" enough to vote overwhelmingly for the war in the first place, which vote has now conveniently gone down the old memory hole. Too bad for them the modern world has video tape and blogs.

In the end, does it matter?

That sniveling little bastard Reid has neither the votes nor the stones to cut the funding. All he and his loathesomely seditious crew can do is carp from the sidelines in a transparent attempt to appease their radical nutjob base, but they can't affect policy.

Or can they?

NoDonkey wrote many months ago that, "So long as the liberals have influence, the terrorists have hope" (or words to that effect). He was right. The dems are the terrorists best hope for victory and, next to the MSM, their #1 ally. The terrorists know that, if they can kill enough people, if they can cause enough chaos, if they can commit enough outrages, the dems will use this as an excuse to pull out our troops and cut funding to the "ineffective" Iraqi government. Result? The terrorists win. Iraq turns into another Taliban-era Afghanistan, or another Somalia, or a satellite of Iran. Perhaps Turkey will invade the Kurdish regions, starting another war involving a NATO ally.

The dems won't stop the war, but they're doing a bang-up job of making sure we lose. In a real sense, they are affecting war policy: the TERRORISTS' war policy. We have "The Surge"; the terrorists have "Hang on 'til '08!"

As for the "Bush Report"... Wow! Do you REALLY mean to say that the President of the United States will actually deliver a report about a war the United States is fighting??? Say it ain't so!

/sarcasm

As for the dems' attempts to smear GEN Petraeus as a liar, that's a dangerous path for them to tread. Their base may loathe the military, but most Americans have a pretty high regard for those in uniform. When they compare a sniveling little toad like Reid, a greaseball like Trashcan Chuckie, a treasonous dullard like Jon Kary, or that bloated drunk The Swimmer to an officer who's spent his entire adult life in the Army... Well, it's not a favorable comparison to them, is it?

The attempt to try to discredit General Petraeus by the Democrats is appauling. I know the man and I know the officers that mentored him as he came up the ranks. He is the finest and most experienced counter insurgency leader in todays Army. He is also a man of integrety. If most career politicans were as honorable as our dedicated military leaders we would be far better off as a nation.

Democrats don't believe Gen P
Democrats don't believe the majority of soldiers
Democrats don't believe the polls
Democrats don't believe the President
Democrats will believe the leaders of the Democratic Party who have already lied to them about Iraq, the reasons for going in, the reason to stay, the claim they had a plan for success, and now those same Democratic Party leaders surely will be the only ones in the room telling the truth, right?

Gotta say though, I agree. It's moot.
Dean and his subordinates don't have the balls to cut the funding and then risk inheriting a mess in 08. At the same time, they completely lack the conviction to sell or trade any or all of the part agenda to get the votes needed to cut the funds.

Nope. More anti-war rhetoric, with less and less support and more and more transparency. These people are deliberately misleading others to save their careers and hold on to the vain hope that they'll be able to use Iraq as a political crutch in a 4th national election.

Lightwave,

Please run a Thompson-Petraeus ticket. Please. I'm begging your party to do this. The idea that such a thing would scare the Dems is laughable.

The really funny thing is, when you poll the American public about the 'six I's,' they respond - and have done so for months - that they trust the Dems to handle those issues to a greater degree then the Republicans. All of them. Check for yourself: http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Southernroots,

"...why were Democrat Senators so stupid that they voted to confirm his promotion in Iraq?"

What other options did they have at the time? Someone has to run the thing, and Petraeus is no worse then anyone else Bush would nominate to do it.

Look, it isn't that I believe he will get up there and flat-out lie, but will he manipulate data and numbers and remain unflinchingly positive about our chances of success? Yes. It is his job to do exactly that. I can't for the life of me understand why any of you believe it would be his job to do anything different then to support the very strategy that he was an integral part of creating.

It's like reading op-eds about the success of the surge authored by Fred Kagan; these people have a very deep and vested interest in making their plans look successfull, whether they are or not. This doesn't mean that what they have to say is worthless, but they most certainly are not to be considered objective observers in any way.

And, in fact, we've seen the objective observers in the GAO and CRS come out with reports lately that simply don't match the rhetoric of the Bush line.... why are they any less credible then Petraeus?

Replies to one-eye-with a loud horn ("Cycloptichorn"):

You wrote:

"A critical component of Petraeus' job is to keep troop morale up. You honestly think he would give a report, which would lower troop morale in any way?"

Apparently, Mr. one-eye-with-a-loud-horn, you have never led men in battle before, or you would not speak so cavalierly of the intense responsibility one takes on when sending men and women to their fate ... their lives, much more than their morale, are in his hands. We ought to presume that if General Petraeus thought that his troops were wasting their lifeblood on a pointless quest, then he would be the very first to tell the CIC that it was time to pull the plug. Your obvious disrespect of the General's duty to both his CIC and to his troops speaks volumes, for your obvious cavalier and disrespectful attitude apparently drives all of your remarks on this website.

Your other remark:

"I would remind people that his previous articles and testimony, during the time in which he was in charge of the rebuilding of the Iraqi Army and police, were full of positive assessments that did not match the realities on the ground. Why expect anything different now?"

Petraeus's previous stint in Iraq's outer provinces back in 2003-2004 actually met with considerable success, as duly noted by both the Joint Chiefs in the Pentagon and the Iraqi Sheiks in his zone of operations. When Petraeus finished his tour in Iraq, his successors, following the orders of Rumsfeld and his commanders, let Petraus's gains in the field go to waste by retreating to their FOBs, and abandoned his counterinsurgency tactics which had worked so well until then (you seem to have forgotten that the foreign Al Qaeda insurgency only became a severe threat to Iraq's recovery much later, in 2005 and 2006, when both civilian and military casualties skyrocketed). That critical misjudgement by the SecDef and his senior commanders, by the way, is the reason Petraeus's former bosses were sacked by President Bush last year, and of course now this year Petraus for the first time is running the show in Iraq.

Blaiming Petraeus for his former boss's obvious failures is like blaming General Grant, a mid-grade officer slogging it out on battlefield after battlefield in the west, for the piss-poor leadership of McClellan and the host of other sorry commanders whom Lincoln eventually sacked. Eventually Lincoln finally had enough of failure, and substituted a general who knew how to win battles and defeat the enemy, by putting Grant in charge of his Union Army. Grant's leadership - including his understanding of what it takes to win wars of attrition, and his unbending focus on defeating Lee's Army, and not simply taking and holding ground - was the key missing element for the Union in the Civil War ... and it is increasingly apparent now that General Petraeus - and his keen understanding of what it takes to defeat a foreign-led insurgency - was the key missing element for US forces in Iraq.

"Which is more likely -- that a career commander would deliberately lie about events in Iraq that already have garnered plenty of independent evidence for success, or that Dick Durbin and Harry Reid would smear the military for their own political gain?"

What the hell are you talking about? What "plenty" of reports of "success" are you talking about? Lindsey Graham ripping of Iraqi carpet merchants?

Water down the kool-aid already before America totally marginalizes the Bush Apologists.

Holy crap 3 out of 18 benchmarks met and you guys act like we landed on the moon.

It's a freaking disaster as REAL independeent studies have shown. NIE, GAO, .... Tell me, exaclty what are the "plenty" of political "successes" reached over there? You do realize we can't do dick until the Iraqi govt gets it's shit togther, right?

Good lord you Bush Aplogists will do and say anything....anything at all to protect your hero.

It looks like certain members of Congress are trying to fool most Americans about the nature of the report in order to maintain their credibility. Just the "adopted" title, The Bush Report, is misleading as it is not a report on Bush (or Petraeus, or any one else in America), it is a report on the War in Iraq. Why can't the members of Congress call it what it is, the Iraq War Report? After all, the President is required by law to make a report on the progress of the war in Iraq, just as Congress demanded when they authorized the war in 2003. It's obvious that certain members of Congress are trying to portray the report as some type of fiction put out by the Bush administration when, in fact, it will be based on what's really happening in Iraq today.

The democrats have staked a lot of political currency on portraying our efforts in Iraq as a total failure, but the recent events in Iraq are now showing just how cheap that currency really is. No wonder they're trying to portray the forthcoming report as something it's not (the Bush report as opposed to the Iraq War Report), they're afraid that a lot of people will actually read the report and understand that the "surge" is working very well and that pulling out now is the worse thing we can do. This report will help destroy their credibility. After years of screaming that Iraq is a failure, any evidence to the contrary will be demeaned as merely Bush propaganda and anyone who delivers positive news about Iraq will be attacked and slandered as just another Bush "lapdog." The Defeatocrats' (an appropriate term, BTW) political careers depend on it.

First of all, one of the biggest mistakes the Democratically-controlled Senate of the 110th Congress made was confirming David Petraeus for his position as commander of Iraq. I said then, and I say now, Petraeus doesn't deserve to be commander because he supports the surge strategy of George W. Bush, a man who has proven himself undeserving of being President of the United States.

There was a CNN poll that said Americans don't trust the Iraq report no matter who writes it or who gives it.

I mean, it's not like Bush wouldn't get rid of general because they can see the Iraq War as folly. Oh wait, that has already happened (i.e. Batiste, Eaton, etc.)

All I can say is that you guys are going to be pretty pissed off this month, as your illusions about public support for the war are shattered.

It's like you think that people are going to hear the report (call it whatever you want - and turn their opinions about the screwup that is the Iraq war around... I have no idea where this thought is coming from, other than a hope mixed with a long shot.

They call it the Bush report because Petraeus isn't writing it. It's being written in the White House. Petraeus himself has a history this year of distorting facts and making appearances in rightwing media outlets trying to sell the surge. His past work training the Iraqi military has been a disaster. The proof is in the pudding, the Iraqi
military is incompetent, corrupt, and riven with sectarianism. One of his top aides in that effort, Lt Col Levonda Joey Selph is being investigated for billions of dollars worth of missing weapons.

There are any number of reports, (GAO, Jones, NIE, etc.) that refute the politicized military and Bush White House PR offensive that the surge is working with facts. US casualties are up, Iraqi casualties are up, Maliki's government is falling apart, there is no security, potable water, electricity, or working sewers in most parts of the country. There is a cholera outbreak north of Baghdad. We're arming Sunni insurgents in Anbar.
None of the political benchmarks the surge was supposed to allow breathing room for have been met.

And yet, you'll call for more of the same.

Ray wrote:

"The Defeatocrats' (an appropriate term, BTW) political careers depend on it."

Why do I get the image of a toy car repetitively banging itself into a wall when I hear someone use the term "Defeatocrat"? Apparently, it's considered a defeat if you suggest that the toy car stop banging into the wall. They're making progress on the wall, and they know it!

A couple more replies for Mr. one-eye-with-a-loud-horn:

You wrote:

"And, in fact, we've seen the objective observers in the GAO and CRS come out with reports lately that simply don't match the rhetoric of the Bush line.... why are they any less credible then Petraeus?"

Gee, isn't the rebuttal to this fatuous rhetoric rather obvious?

Is the GAO an objective observer?

Hardly, inasmuch it works for the Congress which is currently controlled by leftist defeatist Dems. Why is that outfit any more objective than any other organization that has a political boss?

"Why is the GAO any less credible than Petraeus?"

Well, duh ... how about the fact that Petraeus is a lifetime Army professional of four stars rank recently unanimously confirmed by the "bipartisan" US Senate, who is charged by the United States of America with producing a victory in Iraq - that is, victory on the ground, and not political rhetoric, mind you, because he's not running for anything. Or, if he cannot produce victory it is his job to tell us so.

You're comparing The General Under the Mega-Microscope to a no-name bureaucrat, hired by partisan hacks, with no bipartisan confirmation, whom nobody ever heard of, or ever heard of any of his minions who helped him produce the report?

You have to ask who's more credible?

Oh, and let's not forget that the author of this GAO report has already admitted this week that the GAO is far less competent than the DOD in assessing the progress of military operations in the field. As if we didn't already know that!

So, let's see, you're saying that a bunch of nameless bureaucrats whom nobody will ever recognize or remember, who admit they really don't know what they're talking about in military affairs, and who work for two of the worst partisan hacks ever to "grace" the wells of the Senate and the House, should be believed over General Petraeus?

Dream on, and save your agit-prop for Kos Kids and others who congenitally despise the military and all that it stands for.

At captainsquartersblog.com, these comment pages are best left to the adults who can think critically and who aren't subject to lefty-induced paranoid self-hate.

"All I can say is that you guys are going to be pretty pissed off this month, as your illusions about public support for the war are shattered."

The same can be said of you. You just may be surprised at the positive response to the report and it's effect on public opinion. Since the report hasn't been released, anyone can make predictions as to how the report will effect public opinion. I think that public support will continue to climb and all the gloom and doom predictions will be for naught. Only time will tell who is right.

Not that it matters much anyways. Bush is in office until January 2009 and nothing is going to change that. Do you really believe he's going to change his mind about Iraq and suddenly announce a full troop withdrawal?

Angus:

It's just the left wing lashing out about Florida 2000.

Nothing more.

Captain Ed says that the Dem strategy is to smear Petraeus...

And right on cue, a little flock of parrots shows up here and smears Petraeus with the talking points du jour. "Brawwk! Liar! Brawwk! Bush Report! Brawwk! Surge isn't working!"

As someone said above, it's all moot because the Dems lack the courage to actually end the war they say is a disaster based on a lie.

So the Dems will continue to support the war for political reasons, even though they believe it to be wrong.

That makes Democrats actively evil.

Well, this is just par for the course. The Democrat Party has been smearing, insulting and lying about the US Military ever since the Viet Nam war.

Why in the world do you think they would suddenly change their M.O.?

Cyclops said:

"The really funny thing is, when you poll the American public about the 'six I's,' they respond - and have done so for months - that they trust the Dems to handle those issues to a greater degree then the Republicans. All of them. Check for yourself: http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
"

Wow, the aquirrels are coming out of the trees today.

First of all, despite their claim to be "non-partisan", Polling Report.com definitely leans left, as their creator once admitted to me in an e-mail. They have, in the past, quietly removed historical polling data detrimental to Democrats, such as certain polls about Bill Clinton. More recently, Polling Report totally IGNORED the new Zogby Poll that showed Congress with a 3% "approval" in their handling of the Iraq War. This despite the fact that the site freely quotes other polls that show a different result, and also quotes Zogby polls elsewhere on their website.

In addition, 2 out of the first 3 polls on the link you provide are associated with "CBS News", which has repeatedly been busted in the past for oversampling Democrats in their "polling", usually by 12 to 14 percent. Their polls are designed to achive a pre-determined result, so are worthless except to those CBS is trying to impress.

LiberalJoshua said:

"Why do I get the image of a toy car repetitively banging itself into a wall when I hear someone use the term "Defeatocrat"? "

LOL! Those of us on Planet Earth get the same image every time you use the quaint term "chickenhawk".

Funny to read about smearing the reputations of military heroes from this group.

Funny to read what this group knows to be the opinions of the soldiers on the ground.

Funny to read the questioning of "facts" this administration has claimed is an act of treason and sedition. Think we have enough rope to hang all the people guilty of such treason and sedition?

You guys think we'll have to extend the tours again, or do you think the President will ask for the money to increase the size of the military? When will he ask?

Del, I believe that your last post is known as 'attacking the messenger.' The last resort of the Republican who sees the Dems leading on all the issues; the polls MUST be lying.

Actually, this character assassination started in April, as I noted in an Op-Ed in the Lansing State Journal:

"On April 20th Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, speaking of the Battle of Iraq, told us “this war is lost.” When pressed by CNN reporter Dana Bash about this defeatism, Reid redeployed the words of Multi-National Force/Iraq Commanding General David Petraeus.

Reid: “General Petraeus has said that only 20 percent of the war can be won militarily. He's the man on the ground there now. He said 80 percent of the war has to be won diplomatically, economically and politically. I agree with General Petraeus.

…I stick with General Petraeus. I have no doubt that the war cannot be won militarily, and that's what I said last Thursday and I stick with that.

…Well, I -- as I said, maybe it's a choice of words. I mean General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily.”

Asked four times to distinguish “this war is lost” from “the war cannot be won militarily,” Reid insisted that Petraeus agreed with the choice of the words “this war is lost.” Though Reid took care not to repeat the phrase “this war is lost,” his premeditated misuse of Petraeus’ words in defense of having said it is what passes for “supporting the troops” among Democrat leaders these days.

In order that his contempt for both Petraeus and the English language not be misconstrued, Reid went further. When asked, “Will you believe [Petraeus] when he says [that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working]?” Reid responded, “No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts.” According to Reid, if Petraeus ever says there is any military progress in Iraq then Petraeus is a liar. This is not so much sticking with General Petraeus as it is sticking it to him …in advance. Figuring out how Reid can believe any of Petraeus’ comments about Iraq is left to the student.

Whatever selective nuance Senator Reid may wish to apply; “Cannot be won militarily” is not the same as “is lost.” “Cannot be won militarily” is especially not the same as “requires withdrawal of the military,” the latter of which is Reid’s policy.

Senator Reid can, however, distinguish losing from winning when it comes to Senate seats. The Majority Leader and Senator Charles Schumer have been observed in premature self-congratulation about the seats they'll pick up in the Senate. Their self-interest is reinforced by a partisan glee so strong as to be immune to common sense. That is, it may well be true that Democrat electoral strategy turns on the idea that the war is lost, but why revel publicly in this cynical calculation?" ...

It's about more than just the continued tantrum about losing the 2000 election. It's about their hero Clinton's impeachment and eventual disbarment. All political opponents must now be portrayed as being as dishonest and sleazy as the Clintoons.

That, and the Left's lunatic fringe waking up every morning and seeing a soulless, angry loser in the mirror. There must be someone else to blame. They're sure of it.

Not even a CNN fake poll and Oprah can cure their mental illness.

In addition to reported facts on the ground, the unhinged hysteria of the left is proof that the surge is working. They are so invested in defeat they will do anything to portray the surge as a failure.

The cynic in me thinks that congress had the Whitehouse write the report just so they could discredit is as "the Bush report" and insist that its a pack of lies. The damage that Democrats are doing to this country with their lies and outright sedition is enormous and is encouraging the enemy to continue the fight and discouraging the Malaki government from ending sectarian violence. After all, if were going to pull out ASAP why would Malaki want peace with the Sunni's. He can just wait till were gone then slaughter them.

Oh, I think the smearing started before the dust settled over New York, and one doesn't have to unwind more than a foot or two of the comments here to see how people get smeared.

Wonder why the President has never asked for more troops since years before we went into Iraq. Think he'll extend the tours again, or finally ask?

About polls: most polls are crap. Zogby's are the crappiest. Zogby does two types of polls:
1. Phone polls that are almost always wrong.
2. Online polls that are always wrong.
(It was his online polling that led Zogby to predict that Kerry would win in 2004).

The 3% number was from an online poll, and most polling pros won't give online polls any weight.

I'd estimate approval for the Dem congress is much higher, probably even double digits. Interestingly enough, though, approval for the Dems in Congress is higher than for the Republicans in Congress.

Public exhibit A.
If the "surge" is not working, why did Schumer twist himself up to say any success had nothing to do with the US military?

Public exhibit B.
If the "surge" is not working, why did the Fwench so eager to join an unwinnable war on the pretense of Bush lies?

Public exhibit C.
If the "surge" is not working, why went to the trouble of smearing/destroying character?

Public exhibit D.
If the "surge" is not working, why you don't see any report on Iraq in the msm nowadays?

Public exhibit E.
....

According to the liberal Brookings Insitute, which monitors progress in Iraq;

A more thorough accounting will follow in the coming days, but in short, civilian fatality levels in Iraq now seem to have declined substantially more than previous Pentagon reports or data had indicated. In particular, the monthly
civilian fatality rate from sectarian violence appears about one-third lower than in the pre-surge months. That is still far too high, and remains comparable to violence levels of the 2004-2005 period, but it nonetheless reflects progress.

On balance, Iraq at the end of July is showing significant signs of battlefield momentum in favor of U.S./coalition military forces, but there is nonetheless little good to report on the political front and only modest progress on the
economic side of things.

Room for improvement, but progress is happening.

Cyclops said:

"Del, I believe that your last post is known as 'attacking the messenger.' The last resort of the Republican who sees the Dems leading on all the issues; the polls MUST be lying."

Not even a nice try. You cited polls to try and make a point. I then correctly noted that two of the first three polls on your cite were done by CBS. I then cited examples of CBS "polls" being fixed in the past by oversampling Democrats. And I also cited that the poll website you linked to has been known to lean to left. Specifically, I noted that they refused to show that recent "3%" Zogby Poll. If exposing polling that may be biased is "shooting the messenger", so be it.

Speaking of shooting the messenger, isn't that exactly what you clowns are doing with the General?

FYI, I've been a registered Independent since 1998. For my entire voting lifetime before that, I was a registered Democrat (since Nixon days). But my party left me.

Calling Brookings a 'Liberal' institution is a joke. Don't buy into the hype that O'Hanlon et al were ever anti-war; they've been for the war in Iraq since day -75.

Here's a stat for you:

"39 percent:

Number of Americans who believe the White House report on Iraq will honestly reflect Gen. David Petraeus’s “true assessment of the situation in Iraq,” according to a new Rasmussen poll."

Rasmussen, hardly a Dem polling firm.

You pro-war types don't seem to realize that it is the duty of the President to convince the nation that the war is necessary; he, and his proxies in the Republican party, have failed to do this. And they've lied so much, so many false statements of progress while the body counts rise, that they no longer are trusted to tell the truth.

Angus said:

"I'd estimate approval for the Dem congress is much higher, probably even double digits. Interestingly enough, though, approval for the Dems in Congress is higher than for the Republicans in Congress."

There hasn't been any new polling on approval for Congress in almost 2 months. The most recent polling was in July, and the ABC/WaPo poll had 46% approval for Congressional Democrats. The approval for their counterparts was 34%.

But most telling, the disapproval for the Dems was over 50%, which means more Americans disapprove how they're performing than approve. The same is true of the other side, of course.

Cyclops said:

"Calling Brookings a 'Liberal' institution is a joke."

Yeah, you're right, they're all conservatives. Their leader is a former Clinton Administration official, and they made Ricjard Nixon's enemy list. Can you give us some examples of other "conservative" work they've done?

As for the new Rasmussen poll, you were intellectually dishonest when you skipped the first paragraph of their press release:

" A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 45% of American voters expect a positive report while 24% expect the opposite. Thirty-one percent (31%) are not sure."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/just_39_believe_iraq_report_will_honestly_present_petraeus_views_35_say_it_will_not

Why did you leave that part out? Cherry picking?

Del,

Who cares if they expect a 'positive report' or not? It's being written by the Bush WH. The report will be a positive report. I don't need a poll to tell you that they aren't going to bring a negative report to Congress.

The fact that people in large part expect the report to be positive, but also expect it not to reflect upon the true situation in Iraq, should tell you something: they aren't buying the hype.

Read the questions more carefully. They don't expect the report to change their stance on Iraq in a positive fashion... they expect it to be written positively no matter what the truth is.

Why didn't you mention that 3% came from an unscientific, online poll? Little intellectual dishonesty on your part?

Cycloptichorn,

The report will come out. General Petraeus will present to the Congress and field questions. And the Surge will be continued for a minimum of six more months. No troop withdrawls will be announced and future troop withdrawls will be revealed after the next six month checkpoint is reached.

There you have it. Your outcome of the upcoming report and briefing.

And I hope you are as excited about it as I am. It is the only logical result - one earned by the troops and crafted by Petraeus.

I'm sure you will be the first one to agree that there will be considerable Democratic support in the House and probably about six Dem Senators who will support the extension.

Good, good news.

Boy the desperation of the left wing is amazing in its utter stupidity and misunderstanding.

It rolled the dice in an effort to sell the bogus idea, for a SECOND time, despite the evidence that stupidity of the proposition proved by the Killing Fields, the Boat People, the Re-Education/Concentration Camps, that defeat for America in a War was a good thing. They bet on war weariness an dappear to have lost.

It appears their dice roll is coming up Snakeyes...

The reality is that Iraq as the fourth battlefront on the GWOT, is also developing into a major success. The left, never having studied War in their hatred for the US and military, never accurately measured the correlation of forces. Even a weak nation state can defend itself from, a poorly led and impoverished insurrection.

The Taliban fell and Afghanistan stopped being a save haven for the non nation state Al Queda along with the benefits of a de facto nation state. Big Victory, out of the gate. nation States have access to Aid and loans, can purchase arms, and other material that a non Nation state finds impossible.

Algeria took 150,000 deaths but killed off Al Queda jihadis in Algeria. Not a single shot was fired by America, but American involvement elsewhere, drew any future attention away from returning, allowing the Algerians to consolidate their victory over the Islamofacsists.

Libya's Muamar Qaddafi surrendered without a shot gave up his WMDs, and Al Queda lost another haven.

Iraq has taken two years to rebuild its political infrastructure, its Army, and another year to rebuild the National Police. American war weariness is evident. bu Iraq is getting stronger enough to defend itself very rapidly.

we can see the political and military consolidation over the course of this past year. Even the past few years under Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, is beginning to look like the gathering of strength that America had to undergo from Bataan through Guadalcanal before the Victory march through Italy, Normandy and Island hopping campaigns started. The Al Queda terrorists have been thoroughly weakened, by the constant losses of men, recruiting, material, personnel and leadership cadre. No combatant can suffer such blows and Al Queda image of invincibility is crumbling as the last vestiges are exposed. Residual Iraqi Baathist die hard resources have been consumed; they are looking for a facile way to capitulate.

Syria Baathism is tottering, propped up with Iranian money, but there simply is n't enough to go around.

Iran is being engaged on the economic front and it is hurting. Its self- selected bleeding in support of stupid insurgencies like HezbAllah and Hamas who constantly and profligately consume all their aid, and cry for more, is bleeding Iran's theocratic Mullahs very badly. Persai'smanhattan projecxt is expensive too. Inflation is rampant; Gasoline is rationed. Oil production is falling due to over pumping and no maintenance is occurring.

The cracks are showing. Persian citizens are in open guerrilla war in two diverse provinces,and nationwide opposition. Worse is yet to come for the Persian Jihad Theocracy; but probably not until 2009, provided of course, if the Iranians regime even lasts that long.

Bush will probably leave office as unpopular, but respected for his steel and backbone. He will have been seen as having won a major portion of the GWOT. His successor has an excellent chance of having a 45-50 State landslide. I predict the winners totem will not be a Jackass though.

Great think piece on the shallowness and fickleness of the Left's sympathies: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/when_the_left_cares_and_when_i.html

Cyclops asked:

"Why didn't you mention that 3% came from an unscientific, online poll? Little intellectual dishonesty on your part?"

Because I didn't know about it until I read Zogby's press release this afternoon. As a former Zogby interactive poll sample unit myself who resigned from his sample group some time ago, I didn't realize he had started to publicize his online polls as much as his phone surveys, so naturally I assumed it was a "normnal" poll. My mistake!

By the way, check out Zogby's new "client". The new poll he cooked up for them is a riot.

Fine, go with the "scientific" poll that even Harry "runaway" Reid believes...the one that has approval of the Democrats' Congress at 18%...lower than W's, far lower than it was when they were elected, and yes...lower than anytime in recorded history.

18%....ya gotta be proud (kinda kills the ABB could do better theme)

"You pro-war types don't seem to realize that it is the duty of the President to convince the nation that the war is necessary; he, and his proxies in the Republican party, have failed to do this. And they've lied so much, so many false statements of progress while the body counts rise, that they no longer are trusted to tell the truth."

You liberal types are just upset because you aren't included in the new Bin Laden video when it is your duty to support your local terrorist

You want to see "body counts" Cyclops? Keep supporting the enemy with your own agenda of lies and fabrications. The duty of our President is to protect the people of the nation. So far, he has given his all for that purpose.

Sometimes, I think marketeers never learn. Watching this, is like trying to sell the EDSEL. A car, (quoting George Will's NY Post column, today. That had a verticle grill that reminded people of toilet seats.)

The car did not sell!

But at the time? 1956. Advertisers had discovered psychology. ANd, their new mantra was, "big companies could advertise and make you think you needed something." In other words, they'd control the market place options; because they learned to get people to buy crap, without thinking.

Of course, they failed.

But not for lack of trying.

Since the Bush Derangement Syndrome has kept on going, in spite of Bonkey failures; what do you make of these attempts to derail something, that, as yet, has not fallen off the tracks?

The Ma & Pa Kettle Show is working? Where?

Of course, Harry Reid blames the low popularity numbers for congress on Bush. Well, why not? Par for the course.

By the way, when we talk of the Civil War; what we focus on is Abraham Lincoln's steadfastness. What's not pointed out, though, is that congress CAUSED the problems. And, they were causing problems for about 20 years; when the South "walked." Took a lot of blood being spilled for a reasonable outcome.

Sometimes? Losers just keep on making those choices.

I think I'd have something to fear if we didn't have this Internet.

There's a lot of progress being made in Irak.

At some point? Yeah. The Bonkeys will claim credit.

Just like "wide-stance Larry" will claim he was "misunderstood."

Again, BRAVO TO THE INTERNET!

It gives us access to go beyond the current vaudeville.

I'm very proud of Patreaus. It's like discovering we have another Patton, all over again. How lucky is that?

Real leaders know that second-raters will always try to stab them in the back.

COURAGE. (That word doesn't belong to Dan Rather.)

Viking01. I love your stuff!

It's such a pleasure, going down the list of comments, and finding your name.

And, when you pointed out how the problems began in 2000 ~ when Algore was the sore loser who withdrew his concession; and never did get used to the idea of losing the race.

Lots of water has flowed under the bridge. But that's still the bottom line. The Bonkeys can't get over the erosions to their power base.

Sometimes, I wonder how the affirmative action people got as far as they did.

The presidential candidate that shows he's got bigger ones than Hitlery and stands up and calls Schumer, Reid, Pelooosi, and the rest of the anti-American communists for what they are... traitors... will surge in the polls and have my vote. The media will not get behind the surge, hell, they won't even report on illegal campaign donations by a fugitive foreign national doing the same thing Jack Abramoff went to jail for. By the way did Harry Read give his Abramoff donations back yet? Are there any patriots left if so they better show it or John McCain will steal the nomination and I don't think he can beat the Beast. Guiliana , Romney, Thompson are yours' bigger than Hitlerys'? Doesn't appear so right now. We're waiting to hear from you.

By the way, that new Zogby "Poll" I mention has to do with 9/11, and even includes a question about WTC-7.

And guess what? Zogby did the poll for a 9/11 "Truther" group. I'm shocked.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354

There's a new CNN poll just out and their self-proclaimed analyst Bill "Clinton's Luv-muffin" Schneider just hit the roof.

18% polled think Petraeus is a Greek restaurant in Greenwich Village.

How Reid and Pelosi must envy those numbers!

viking01 !!!!! You crack me up!

How refreshing to see a "Scrappleface" in the room.

Hilarious goal post moving, preventative strike launching by the loony left.

The left is desperately, frantically trying to rewrite history while it's unfolding....

All because Bu$co won the Florida primary and the election in 2000.

They cannot, must not have history see him in the slightest positive light; a light that could possibly vindicate the election results of 2000.

I know it doesn't matter to anyone else, but my nephew is a soldier and served with General Petraeus for months. I trust what my nephew says about the man, which is all good. He is speaking from experience, the Democrats don't know the man they are smearing.

Take heart, Tyree.

There's no doubt that General Petraeus is a fine, honorable soldier and capable leader. That's precisely why the Democrats hate him. He's accomplished things in his life that they never could or ever will.

Don't forget Lt. Col. Ollie North where the true man triumphed over the Democrat committee mudslinging. That was well before the internet cleaned the clock of the Dan Rathers and Peter Arnetts and Jayson Blairs and Scott Beauchamps etc. etc.

Thanks Carol and Rovin. Whenever I see CNN or NY Times "polls" being quoted for argument it reminds me of Stalin's consistently high polling numbers in Pravda. Per the Soviet press (and the NY Times too) Uncle Joe was a popular and fun-loving guy.