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.

Fine, Marc. It can be taken that way, too.

Personally it looks to me like Bush has a pretty clear record of marginalizing or firing experts in all areas, just for disagreeing with his opinion. As opposed to not following orders.

Starting with sidelining Shinseki for daring to suggest - correctly - that the occupation of Iraq would require more troops.

But sure, it's open to interpretation.

Hugh, please point out where I'm wrong. If my argument lacks substance, that should be quite easy for you.

Sorry Jim, but I addressed your statement (He replaced Casey, because Casey had the nerve to be truly non-partisan, and disagree with Bush regarding the escalation.) and it had zero to do with Kim or her thoughts.

Nice try to avoid your link disproved your theory.

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

Uh, okay, so then why is Kim faulting Democrats for not calling it the Petraeus Report?

Why worry about hot air dems like Clucky Shummer and his ilk. This is going to bite them all in the ass. When Katie Couric said it was goin well in Irag, the thunderous sound of liberal gasps were heard in All of NY. I feel their wild eyed panic spreading countrywide already, don't you all (Y'all). :-)

Drudge has 2 news articles right now one shows an inverted shot of Bin Laden, everpresent finger waving. (Hitler did the same thing as well as Osamas #2) Scroll down the left side to see who else. Same crap, almost, coming out of both mouths.

Barney, nobody is more without credibility than you.

Jim
I exposed you as the fool you are months ago. I will not go searching through the archives to rehabilitate your credibility...you simply are not worth the time.

Here are some hints:

Budgets
Actual Budgets
Budget Estimates.

Kathy

Uh, okay, so then why is Kim faulting Democrats for not calling it the Petraeus Report?

Troll somewhere else, Kathy. If you have a good question, then bring it here and defend it. If not, fish in the swamp.

The good General P is a political appointment?!?!

Oy, Jim. You betray your complete lack of exerience or understanding of the miltary and how it works.

ALL of the generals/admirals that are theatre commanders are appointed by the president (or SecDef if that authority is delegated). Patreus is no different than ANY of them.

Go buy a clue.

marc, you have sort of a good point. I treated you like you were a moron and a phony, like Jim there.

My apologies.

You know the best part of this?

What do the Dems do if Patreus makes the recommendation Jay posted of earlier this week (in the "don't play chess with a 2 star" thread). If he (as I suspect he will do) recommends troop reductions, where do the Dems (Dims) have to go with a coherent position?

Answer: Nowhere.

They'll be exposed as the frauds and political hacks they truly are. And I, for one, am just waiting to watch (with my popcorn in hand).

Barney, 42% of Democrats think that Bush did 9/11 or intentionally let it happen. So we know who the nuts are.

Jim Jim Jim Jim Jim....

Do you admit now that the Dems are changing tactics because the surge IS working?

Can you at least be intellectually honest to admit that?

jim,
Kim did say that the dems are "choosing political gain over patriotism".

and it's true.

if the democrats can get Bush, or any other republican to retreat, they can saddle it around a republican neck and say it is a republican fault.

i bet you that if hillary or any of your other prized liberals wouldn't pull out of iraq if they get elected. Hillary has already alluded to the code pink bunch that she will do no such thing.

I bet if a dem gets elected in '08, they will pull a bill clinton and say "i tried harder than anything before, and i have to raise taxes, i mean keep troops in iraq"

exsubnuke,
you asked where the dems go if and when petraeus suggests troop reductions. i bet they try to claim credit for forcing Bush's hand. They will forget he said that we will stand down as Iraqi's stand up, but they will try to claim victory as they can.

to me their victory will be hollow, but it's all a part of their PR, BS political game...

Jim:

Starting with sidelining Shinseki for daring to suggest - correctly - that the occupation of Iraq would require more troops.

Get your mind out of the blender and stop spinning. Shinseki had his retirement papers in long before any statements were made about troops levels.

Kathy:

Uh, okay, so then why is Kim faulting Democrats for not calling it the Petraeus Report?

Why quote me then ask a question that should be directed to the author of the post?

Mentally jumped of the logic train haven't you?

Baghdad barney:

Only the Bush administration would try to get away with that shi*, and only the denizens of wizbang would buy it.

So... have all the dems that have recently returned from Iraq with positive reports of progress, not to mention Katie the Token at CBS, also "denizens of Wizbang?"

Can any of you explain to me how a gunshot to the back of the head is designated as a sectarian based fatality while a gunshot to the front of the head is not? Did you know that fatalities from car bombs are not considered sectarian related deaths?

Forgive me if I ignore you.

If anyone suggests General Patraeus would deliver a report to the Congress he did not believe were true, no matter who edited the final draft, is impugning the General's honor.

Naturally, the gutless cowards who do never will do it to his face, but rather hiding behind their online anonymity to smear a man of greater achievement than they could imagine in their whole wasted lives.

The little pukes . . .

The dems simply cannot be honest. This is how they care about veterans (as they constantly spin, ie lie).

http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110010574
Dianne Feinstein's $4 billion earmark for Beverly Hills comes at the expense of America's veterans.

Damn "camels," they keep poking their nose under the democrats tent showing them to be the disingenuous fools they are.

OK, so not one of you will actually answer a simple question I asked, in #34. Which I ask, just so we're all clear on the foundation of my further arguments.

That's fine with me that no one is answering it - I just see no point in discussing things further until someone does.

And Marc, as we both know, Shinseki had a year's worth of service in his position before he retired.

But, in a decision so contrary to common practice as to be unprecedented, the name of Shinkseki's replacement was leaked 18 months early, thus undercutting any remaining authority he had and turning him into a lame duck.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,925140,00.html

A nice article on Shinseki - pretty inspiring, really.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546313,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

In Washington, criticism of U.S. strategy and tactics flows copiously from retired generals, but serving military have been more circumspect in their comments. Ambitious officers remember the fate of Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who was frozen out by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld after testifying in 2003 that an occupation force of "several hundred thousand" would be required in Iraq -- which contradicted Rumsfeld's conviction that a much smaller force would be sufficient. Shinseki was right, but Rumsfeld is still in charge. No senior U.S. officer has been fired or disciplined for mistakes or incompetent execution in Iraq, including Lieut. General Ricardo Sanchez, the Army general in command in Iraq at the time of Abu Ghraib, who is being allowed to retire quietly.

Officers who have seen the war in Iraq up close are often bitter about the get-along, go-along culture in Washington."I agree with General Dannatt," says one senior U.S. officer, but adds that to do so publicly would finish his career: "I would be sidelined like Shinseki."

Dave W., I will perhaps surprise you by agreeing with you. Unfortunately, you may be right, and the Democrats won't do that much about the occupation of Iraq.

I hope that they will do what's necessary to get us out of Iraq, and actually back on track to pursuing, hurting and eliminating Al Qaeda instead. But their record's not so hot.

The least I can hope for, is that they will run the war better, actually listen to our commanders, and put a stop to the waste and corruption that's involved in the private sector leeches that are living off of this war, to the detriment of our soldiers and our country's future.

Jim's brain,

Jim's brain in a BLENDER:

But, in a decision so contrary to common practice as to be unprecedented, the name of Shinkseki's replacement was leaked 18 months early, thus undercutting any remaining authority he had and turning him into a lame duck.

Yeah, that's it, his authority was so "undercut" that the men and woman under his command actively disregarded his orders.

I hear tell some in his command were actually seen carrying nooses around in open defiance of his authority and waiting for the chance to string him up.

Jim, you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

BTW, ya wanna buy a new brain blender (spins at 10,000rpms or your cash back), I've got an ethanol powered one that is VERY ecco-friendly if that concerns you.

I will agree with Kim that the democrats, in an election year are taking their party's position over what is good for the country, troops and foreign policy. That is a no brainer. The dems could have easily waited for the report and then go to the press with their misgivings but they CHOSE to go to the press now to get ahead of the report. WHY? That is obvious for people who live in reality. ww

For fvck's sake, learn how to spell the guy's name, at least.

SS

If he (as I suspect he will do) recommends troop reductions, where do the Dems (Dims) have to go with a coherent position?
ExSubNuke

They can just say that deployment limitations give us no other choice and that by March or April of 2008, we would have to draw down our forces. That has been known (by people who are paying attention) for about 8 months (since the surge was announced).

So, you may think I'm "impugning the honor" of military officials, but their recommendations are essentially CYA. They want to be able to spin the drawdown to look like a military success. Which of course they should, but it's not like they had many other options.

-------------

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

Really?

July 12 Press conference:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070712-5.html

"This September, as Congress has required, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will return to Washington to provide a more comprehensive assessment."

"And so I would ask members of Congress to give the general a chance to come back and to give us a full assessment of whether this is succeeding or not."

Also, in reading through the text, I found this:
"Two months ago, in the supplemental appropriations bill funding our troops, Congress established 18 benchmarks to gauge the progress of the Iraqi government. They required we submit a full report to Congress by September the 15th."

So, in fairness, Bush does make reference that "we" (ie the administration) will submit the report detailing progress on the benchmarks. However, I think the contention is that the White House will be writing Petraeus' personal, prepared statement as part of the assessment, which is not required by Congress as far as I know. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about this.

Another example, August 1 Press Briefing with Tony Snow:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070801-3.html

"Q Tony, the administration has been continually saying to wait until September, and to wait until the testimony of General Petraeus and saying that his testimony will be the clearest sense of how well the surge militarily is working and what should happen going forward. General Petraeus has also made, in the past, assessments about the quality of the Iraqi security forces, in Mosul specifically, and in the country generally, that proved to be overly optimistic by a considerable margin. Given that come September he's basically going to be asked to grade a plan that he, himself, crafted and has implemented, what confidence should the American people have that his assessment of his own work will be objective and honest?

MR. SNOW: You're impugning General Petraeus's ability to measure what's going on?

Q I'm asking how he can give an objective assessment of his own work.

MR. SNOW: Well, I think the first thing you ought to do is take a look again at the report that was filed to Congress, the interim reported July 15th -- no sugarcoating there. You take a look -- and they try to use real metrics on it. General Petraeus is a serious guy who sees his mission not as a political mission, but, in fact, as somebody who reports facts.

Now, let us keep in mind that the full burden of this report does not fall on his shoulders. A lot of the key judgments, especially about politics, will fall on Ambassador Crocker. So this is -- although I know a lot of people talk about "the Petraeus report," in fact, you have a report that is a joint report by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. And so we trust him.

Q The reason people talk about the Petraeus report isn't because his name is more alliterative and nice-sounding, it's because the administration, when it talks about Iraq, mentioned Petraeus's name dozens and dozens and dozens of times, and mentions Crocker's name many fewer.

MR. SNOW: Well, actually, if you go back and look at the transcripts from this podium for the last month, you will find that they've been mentioned in tandem when it comes to these reports. General Petraeus, I think, as Jim was just saying, as your newspaper reports, there have been successes, and there have been successes in the way forward as a result of the surge. And these are things that are certainly consistent with counterinsurgency theory that he has been doing. And furthermore, I'll let you do your characterizations of what he said on Mosul, but in fact, there were considerable successes there, and that's one of the reasons why he was given the job.

Q Two questions, Tony. To what extent was the Vice President pre-writing the Petraeus report or setting expectations when he said he thinks it's going to show progress?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think he's pre-writing it. Look, again, the one thing -- if you talk to military guys, the last thing they want to do is get themselves embroiled in politics. What they try to do is to play it straight and to do it straight. And obviously the Vice President has his impressions based on what he's seen, but we're going to have to wait to see what General Petraeus has to report."

So I don't have the exact quotes of the President mentioning "the Petraeus Report", but clearly the theme had developed and the White House Press Corps had picked up on it, and this was over a month ago. Then it later came out (via the LA Times article, August 15, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?page=1&track=mostviewed-storylevel) that this so-called "Petraeus Report" was being prepared by the White House.

------------

One last thing from the July 12 Press conference I noticed:
"For example, I would remind you that Anbar province was considered lost. Maybe some of you reported that last fall. And yet, today, because of what we call bottom-up reconciliation, Anbar province has changed dramatically."
President Bush

Does he even know what reconciliation means? It does not mean the Sunnis and us joining sides to fight al Qaeda. In fact, this effort in Anbar probably hinders reconciliation because now we're creating more powerful Sunni militias which are a threat to the Shi'ite gov't.

Let's check the Scoreboard:

Constitutionally elected government in Iraq?

Yes

Dead terrorists, even in territories considered too strong to challenge just a year ago?

Yes

Oil revenues being shared with the Iraqi people, as promised?

Yes

US troops casualties down?

Yes

And that's the story. Those who oppose General Petraeus and the Surge can, as they saying goes, 'tell it to the Marines'.

thank you Barney you dumbass... you just destroyed the Democrat spin....

If there is no written report it is oral testimony, how did Bush write it?

Thanks Barney for proving the Dems are lying. We owe you one.

You foamin-at-the-mouth republitard wingnuts are a blast! I laughed so hard reading your comments I nearly shit myself! Not a one of you knows the first thing about patriotism. Republitards are so stupid. It's country first, politics second you ass monkeys!

Do any of you idiots understand the difference between a written report and oral testimony?
The WH will submit a written report. Petraeus and Crocker will testify before Congress. The Democrats are correctly referring to the written report as the "Bush Report." If you don't like that categorization, tough shit. Go cry to your mommy. You're right, TruePatriot, these wingers are flippin' hilarious.

Oh, and Pudge? Fuck you.

So this is where the 5 people left in the country that support George Bush hang out!

OK, Marc - feel free to think that, as re Shinseki, your opinion without any cited facts trumps the quoted opinion of officials.

That's not how it is to me, but think what you like.

MOre importantly, I note that you won't even answer a simple question regarding the original article on this site, which I'm responding to.

Which again is your right, and fine besides. I'm just noting that it keeps us from having an actual discussion on this. So, there you have it.

"If anyone suggests General Patraeus would deliver a report to the Congress he did not believe were true, no matter who edited the final draft, is impugning the General's honor."

That's exactly what they're doing AFTER they voted unanimously to put him in command. Harry Reid couldn't wait to say he wouldn't believe what Petraeus had to say before all the troops were even in place. And others won't even give him the time of day.

All these whining ninnies have to do is talk to him to verify whatever is in the report. So yes, political expediancy is their game. Especially since it was by their own design that the report comes from the White House.

"This IS the Bush report. The White House DID write it. And it shows how much misleading the White House is doing,..."

Oh really? Have you read the report? Have you spoken to General Petraeus? Have you been to Iraq? Please, we're all waiting to hear.

Jim, they're labeling it "The Bush Report" using that as the basis of their implication that Petraeus is a "Bush lackey" that will lie or that the White House will ignore him and make it all up out of whole cloth.

All they have to do is consult Petraeus personally. They're trying to avoid that one step because then they'll have to call him a liar. They don't want to do that, because even the media, which has long carried their water, is acknowledging progress in Iraq. That kind of cognitive dissonance would just be too much for anyone to bear. (except for a few of the commenters here)

Wow, lefties sure can bring down the property values. Hey, all of you commie pinko scum out there, see if you can put your name to this:

"The USA is THE greatest force for liberty and freedom that has ever existed, and The American Fighting Man is the implimenter thereof. Now, having just freed about 50 million more people to vote and decide their own destinies, those wonderful men and women in uniform have just reenforced that fact with their blood, their limbs, their sanity and their lives. This fact is undeniable."

Go ahead, affirm that. I know you can't. Because you all hate your country. I've run into dozens of you selfhating freaks, and NONE of you can copy that simple set of facts that I just typed. That is all. I just like it to be known.

The current version of the American left is in the throws of a passionate hate affair with their own country, and for that, I have no sympathy. I only want to see the destruction of the popularity of your idiotology via the scrubbing bubbles of the truth and all of its annoying sunlightyness. I pray that you will some day become self aware enough to see beyond your own hate. I then pray that you won't blow your brains out....but I could live with it, if you don't stop your hateful tirades against my beautiful land of liberty.

"My country tis of thee," (okay, you take it from there libs. Unless it'll make you heave.)

Sunlightyness, eh? Kinda touchy-feely verbiage for such a tough guy. Oh, Pudgie, I'd be tempted to truly engage you if I thought you had more than two brain cells to rub together.

But just for fun...
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." - Thomas Jefferson

See if you can wrap your head around that, bitch. And try thinking for yourself sometime. You tool.

So you're saying that TJ wasn't a "house n**ga" seducin' racist pig, but rather, he was cut from the same pillow biting cloth that self immolating twitmonkeys like you originate from ? Sorry perv, but my current allotment of 2 brain cells won't support such fantasy. I like my founding fathers verile and hetro, and if that means they were scampin' after the occasional forbidden brown sugar, I'll take that over lining up to bend you over a log, like your heroes in the DNC do to ALL of us everyday.

Say, aren't you supposed to report to your parole agent and prove that you haven't been "hanging around" children or something ?

Actually, I didn't say anything about the author of our constitution, dumbass. Why do you hate our founding fathers so much, dipshit? I assume if you like virile men that much, you must admire Clinton for getting a knob job in the oval office. Also, while I recognize your homoerotic undertones, I don't swing that way. Maybe you should give Larry Craig a call. He's gonna have some time on his hands. And if you want to say nigger, just say nigger, you cocksucking bigot.

You are right about one thing, though. I do need to stop interacting with children. Adios, douchbag.