This commentary was posted on another site. It's
so perfect that nothing can be added to it.

"Petraeus was confirmed without dissent, 81-0.

The legislation authorizing the administration report and General Petraeus' testimony is HR 2206.

Both specifically state who is to provide what reports. There is no "Petraeus Report," per se, because the legislation does not authorize one. The President is to prepare and deliver the report, after consulting with the Commander of MNF-Iraq and Ambassador Crocker.

A separate section of the legislation requires that both the Commander and Ambassador be made available for congressional testimony, in both closed and open sessions.

Not only are the Democrats being slimy, they're being intellectually dishonest."

Kim - the White House *is* actually drafting the report, not Petraeus.

Don't you think that increases the likelihood that the White House is influencing the report?

Jim, that's by law they're doing that. Just like all the attorney generals that serve at the pleasure of the President. It's not illegal to fire *any* of them.

My problem isn't with the White House drafting it. My problem is with the White House suggesting that this report is some sort of independent assessment by Petraeus.

It's clearly not.

Which means also that Petraeus' credibility is undermined at the outset - by the Bush administration. They have put him in the position of not really offering an independent assessment.

It clearly IS "The Bush Report". That's just plain speaking. If it's not, then why is the White House writing it?

Jim,
Did you miss the part where when congress requested the report, they specifically asked for it to come from the White House? So to ask for it to come from the White House and then get upset that it is coming from the White House is a cheap little political trick they are trying to play in order to make the White House look bad when all Bush is trying to do is play by the rules that have been established. Even when the White House tries to work with these partisan hacks, they try to turn it around on him. I would assume that if Congress had asked for it to come directly from Petraeus, i'm sure the White House would have no issue backing out of the way and letting Petraeus issue his report.

By the nature of his job, Petraeus has one interest. He is not a political appointment and if he was, the democrats would not have unanimously approved him.

The Democrats clearly know that they have no chance of looking good if they don't saddle a defeat around Bush's neck. What they fail to realize (and it is apparent that some do realize and don't care) is that by trying to secure defeat around Bush's neck they are also making sure that it happens and that we lose more military lives. Democrats are not willing to accept the possibility of a victory in Iraq because it would sink them politically. This is the most shameless, most vile and disgusting thing i think a group of people that pretend to run a country could ever do. If they believed this war was lost why don't they cut off the funds? If any more lives lost are too many to sacrifice for our national security, then why aren't they screaming for a full-scale withdrawl, and then make it happen?

Instead, they unanimously vote to make Petraeus the commander, they vote to fully fund this war, and most of the Democrats in the senate voted to give the president the authorization to use force. To do all of these things and then try to come around and say that we are losing is such a deceptive and vile thing to do. These Democrats need to be removed from office, but unfortunately in some states it will never happen (think Ted Kennedy).

Jim,
The White House never asserted that. The Democratic leaders were the ones to come out of nowhere and act outraged that the white house would have any hand in it.

I think you're getting that impression from your wonderful leaders in Congress. Why do you continue to listen to these manipulative tools? I think Limbaugh had it right when he was talking about 'Battered Liberal Syndrome'. They never give you what you want, they constantly manipulate and lie to you yet you keep going back for more.

Jim, it's ok. We understand your situation and it's ok to admit that you are a Battered Liberal. Once you admit that, the healing can begin...

Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Gen. Petraeus' report was potentially compromised by the White House's involvement in drafting it.

Since the Congress passed the legislation which specifies that ...the President is to submit to Congress two reports assessing the status of each of the 18 benchmarks contained in the Act and declaring whether, in the President's judgment, satisfactory progress is being achieved with respect to those 18 benchmarks., the Democrats and especially Rep. Chris Van Hollen, are engaging in Political Rhetoric.

Please also note that the Act specifically charges the President to use his judgment as to the whether satisfactory progress is being achieved with respect to those 18 benchmarks.

Any democrap that doesn't run screaming to the nearest mic to condemn their latest reps treason (which one ? I don't know, what day of the week is it ?) is just as big a traitor as he / she is. And virtually the entire GOP is a bunch of cowards for not calling him / her for their latest knifing of the troops, and defeat them in their noble mission to provide freedom for millions of foriegners while making US more secure.

I know that's a lot of hate marc and all of you other sensitive souls out there, but you can suck my ass. We are at war and there isn't one public official of note who will stand up and call these bastards for what they are: Lying, traitorous, cowardly, perverted, anti-American scum that should be tried for sedition and shot the day following their conviction. But instead what do they suck on ? Upchucky Schitmers wagging "finger", that's what.

When the enemy is celebrating as an American city burns, come tell me how "hate filled" i am. Hate is action, and the actions that the DNC encourages everyday with THEIR actions and words, have caused and WILL cause more blood to spill than anything the troops that they hate so much have ever done. The other difference is, our troops kill evil doers and the DNC calls THEM baby killers while arranging for, in a very calculated way, the mass slaughter of millions more innocents each and every day.

Thank you democraps.

Kim,
Surprised that you didn't include Chuck Schumer 's despicable statements wrt the surge

SCHUMER: The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge -- not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al-Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight Al-Qaeda ourselves." It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here.

The loony lefties cannot stand anything that is positive and they certainly cannot stand our troops. Many years of experience has proved this. ww

Kim, the White House *said* that it was going to write the report. How could you have missed that? It was all over the news a couple of weeks ago.

Kathy,

Look up the legislation.

Introduced on 5/8/07
Signed into law on 5/25/07

That it was in the "news" a few weeks ago that the White House is preparing it, isn't really news.

After all the hoopla....the majority of Americans will not believe Bush etc...

Almost every step since 2002 Americans really wanted to believe.....

But the real record is visible ....
a few things about the loony left and
al-Qeada

A..Q
Believes women are secondary citizens...
moonbats believe women are equal including the right to have power over their reproductive system

AQ...believes religious beliefs should govern..
Liberal believe in separation of church and State...

AQ believes "God" is on their side...Liberals reject the premise that "God" choses sides..and yes we don't believe that "God" Blesses America over others...

There certainly are factions in our country that have philosophical ties to AQ...
but it is not the liberal Dems....

and yes we don't believe that "God" Blesses America over others...

Well........Duh!!!

That is the topic of the thread afterall.

Nogo war, intellectually you have a point, but then explain the [i]behavior[/i] of "liberals" ( with exceptions like Joe Lieberman ) who don't understand your point.

Petraeus is not a political appointment? Come on, man. Really.

Not only was he appointed by Bush - his very position was created by Bush. His boss is Bush. He's a replacement for Casey.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16825601/

He replaced Casey, because Casey had the nerve to be truly non-partisan, and disagree with Bush regarding the escalation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/washington/02war.html?ex=1325394000&en=0c28b1d847ce6c16&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

And escalation which, as I'm sure you ALL really know, is according the truly non-partisan GAO failing on all but 3 of 18 benchmarks...but that's besides the point here.

Dave W. perhaps you are in another argument? The points you list actually support mine.

My argument is with this article. It is basically calling Democrats traitors and liars, for stating plain and simple facts.

This IS the Bush report. The White House DID write it. And it shows how much misleading the White House is doing, that it had Kim thinking taht Petraeus would actually be reporting on Iraq in an independent manner.

Kim, you probably got this from Bush's constant refrain that "We should listen to the commanders in the field". If only that were true. But this is shown to be false by the speed with which he fired Casey for having the intellectual honesty to disagree with Bush.

And that's just the simple facts of the situation.

They also favored an analysis due today
by Gen. James L. Jones, former U.S. commander in Europe, that is expected to say security gains have been "uneven" and Iraqi security forces are ill-prepared to stand alone, according to a CNN report.

How the hell does James L. Jones knows what is going on in Iraq? Has he been there in the last six months, if ever? From what I can gather, he has never been over there to really see what is going on, Also from what I can gather, he was a drinking buddy of Weasely Clark. That should set off alarm bells there. We all know what kind of weasel Clark is. So what this this guy says should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Pardon me - with above comment, the position I was thinking of that Bush wanted to create was "war czar". Petraeus actually doesn't have anything to do with that, besides attempting to promote it for his boss.

Here's some choice quotes of retired generals on that -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

Gee, I wonder why that retired career Marine general hates America?

jim, ya know what's really groovy ? Finding out how many tranquilizers you can swallow before saying "CHICKEN!".

Jim:

My problem is with the White House suggesting that this report is some sort of independent assessment by Petraeus.

Got quotes that offer a glimpse into your conclusion? From the WH, not media matters or some other group of lunatics.

It clearly IS "The Bush Report". That's just plain speaking. If it's not, then why is the White House writing it?

As already pointed out, and you apparently reject, that's what Congress mandated when they wrote and approved the Supplemental Appropriations Law (Public Law 110-28, "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007.

And it's clearly obvious many, if not all, the idiot democrats listed above have forgotten (to be kind) what they have approved.

In short, there never was a "Petraeus Report," only an urban legend perpetrated by disingenuous hacks such as the LA Times and asshatted politicians.

Jim:

Gee, I wonder why that retired career Marine general hates America?

Nice spin, he doesn't. He just didn't agree with what was planned with regards to the surge.

jim.....

If Petraeus was a political appointee the leaders of your party would have done "cheetah flips" to prove he wasn't fit to serve in some way or another. But he is on active duty and he would be just as honest as if a Democrat was CiC.

Gen Petraeus will make himself available to everyone that has their doubts. Until they speak to him directly they should hold their tongues because all they have left is to call him a liar directly.

Don't bother arguing with Kathy...she can't remember what she said ten minutes ago.

Jim:

He replaced Casey, because Casey had the nerve to be truly non-partisan, and disagree with Bush regarding the escalation.

Could be.... it could also have something to do with the second para of your own link that you claim supports your statement:

The original plan, championed by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Baghdad, and backed by Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, called for turning over responsibility for security to the Iraqis, shrinking the number of American bases and beginning the gradual withdrawal of American troops. But the plan collided with Iraq's ferocious unraveling, which took most of Mr. Bush's war council by surprise.

And it goes without saying Bush reacted to months of the opposition screaming til their lungs were near collapse, "stay the course isn't a plan!"

That's the not first time Jim's links backfired on him, and it won't be the last.

Marc, "stay the course" means don't scream like a little girl and desert the millions of Iraqis, not refuse to listen to anybody and make necessary corections. The ADULTS have noted that many changes to operational needs have been made, as requested by Generals like Petraeus.

You'll come off as a bit smarter, if you try a bit harder not to be a smart ass.

Asshole jim, thinks the way he does because that is exactly what his democrat party engages in as the norm. Jim acuses President Bush of democrat behavior because he is stupid and thinks everybody does it.

"It is basically calling Democrats traitors and liars, for stating plain and simple facts."

Wrong liar, you are what you are which is a bunch of liars and traitors. Why can't you state that plain and simple fact?

"disagree with Bush.....

And that's just the simple facts of the situation"

No ass, that is your stupid opinon. Words have meaning , go back to school stupid democrat or just STFU. Do the world a favor.

Jim's argument is, as experience shows us, melodramatic but lacks substance. BTW, when I say something like that about Jim I repeat myself.

What a wonder that the Democrats have found some Generals to give them lip service? And Jim chooses to believe them.....

Here's a message for the libs: A few Generals criticizing the CIC won't get it done. This President (and Vice President...take that!) has more balls than Truman. So a couple of disagreeable General officers won't change a thing. Truman fired MacArthur and survived...Bush will also.

Kim - you have got to check this out...

The Petraeus Report is an Impeachable Offense
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/116

I'm still laughing...

General Petraeus is made available for testimony. His testimony can be used to either confirm or deny any part of the report Congress insisted the White House produce.

Now, why would the credibility of General Petraeus, the witness-to-be, be attacked? Why the claim that he would lie without any proof of a lie?

Rhetorical questions are fun.

If General Petraeus is a political appointee, then so was George Marshal and Ernest King.

Try not decrying the civilian system of control over the military with cries for civilian control over the military. And try not impugning their honor until they give their testimony and can be questioned on that.

That's cheap and low.

Wait a minute - you mean generals and admirals can disagree on strategy? Really? /sarc off/

Try Googling the "Formosa or Phillippines Question" in 1944. Or any other strategic question in WWII. Those are well documented.

D J Drummond:

You'll come off as a bit smarter, if you try a bit harder not to be a smart ass.

And if you try a bit harder to reread the comment you refer to, not to mention about 3 years of comments here, you will quickly learn your assessment is so far out to lunch it's not even on the menu.

Or if you really need for me to be a smart ass, and with vast experience gained as a career sailor, I'd be more than willing to accommodate you.

Your choice.

Okay, Marc et al, we're in some sort of missing-communication loop here.

This article by Kim, says the Democrats are "choosing political gain over patriotism" by labelling the upcoming report "the Bush Report".

Here's a quote from the article, right on this page here.

The Democrats are..choosing political gain over patriotism for their own country....The entire Democratic leadership is calling the report "the Bush report" and insisting that the Bush administration wrote the report and that General Patraeus, a four-star general, is nothing but a puppet.

Are we all clear, that this is what Kim is saying, at the top of this very page?

Let me know, before I continue.