So once again, he Dems set the table while and tone of the debate while Reublicans set around with their thumbs, you know where.

Im just about finished with this gang of wimps.

The anti-war left is following the same tactical progression they did 40 years ago. Attack the President and "hawks" first. Then attack the military brass. The next step will be to attack the troops as baby killers and rapists.

Oh, wait...

They have to stand behind him in the confirmation process, so they can stab him in the back.

You're right, there's no better way to discredit something these days than by tieing it to the chronic liars at the Bush White House.

They call it the Bush report because Petraeus isn't writing it, the White House is, they announced that last month. You must have missed it.

Petraeus himself has been distorting facts and outright lying in 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 with facts the politicized military and Bush White House PR offensive that the surge is working. US casualties are up, Iraqi casualties are up, sectarian killings are up, Maliki's government is falling apart, there is little to 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. Sure they'll use them against AQ wannabes but you can be sure they'll eventually use them against the Shiites, Kurds and our guys. They've said as much. You don't end a civil war by arming everybody to the teeth.

None of the political benchmarks the surge was supposed to allow breathing room for have been met. We never had enough troops to pacify Iraq. The few more brigades we sent were sent because it was all we had to send. This is no plan for success, it's just another attempt to put off the inevitable. And in the long run by arming everyone it'll make the violence much worse.

Hold on a second here.

No one is saying anything is wrong with Petraeus. You're creating a straw-man argument here.

The issue here is that the "Petraeus report" was to be an honest and factual report from the commanders on the ground on how effective the surge was.

We have been waiting from an assessment that was supposed to have an air of legitimacy because it wasn't in any way influenced by the administration. The same administration that desperately wants the surge to succeed. Since it is their policy that is being judged it would seem that they shouldn't be the ones doing the judging, right?

Now we know that the report is going to be largely written and presented by that same administration without much candid testimony from Petraeus himself.

It was a typical bait-and-switch used to gain time for a failed foreign policy.

Sadly, some folks just can't be intellectually honest. What Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, etc are trying to do is conflate and then misrepresent two separate things, which is one of their standard tactics. They obviously fooled Bubba.

Here's reality.

The White House, by law, must submit a report on the progess towards the 18 benchmarks. That is what the Adminstration has a hand in, and that can accurately be called the "Bush Report," if you so desire. But Petraeus is not an author of it, and was never supposed to be.

The Army is supposed to provide infomration for the White House report, and General Petraeus is expected to provide testimony in front of Congress on the progress they've seen and the challenges that remain, and no doubt, explain what elements of the war have evolved and changed since his last time speaking before Congress.

I thought about deleting markg8's comment for all the unsupported troll-grade garbage it contains, but then figured it serves as an excellent example of the kind of fevered, deceptive, and dishonest rhetoric we're hearing in advance of Petraeus' testimony.

You know, our guys must be doing quite well (as the overwheming majority of embed reporting show) for those on the left to be working so hard to undermine the General's testimony.

It may glibly be called "friendly fire," but then, he's quite literally survived that before.

So let me get this straight:

Gen. David Petraeus, a multiple decorated combat veteran, brilliant military strategist, highly accomplished leader, widely respected soldier, teacher and author is a dirty liar

And Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and "Markg8" are men of integrity

L O F'in L

Pardon me, markg8 and Bubba, but the US military is full of professionals who owe allegiance to the nation and the constitution. They are not members of the military. You have just impugned the honor of General Petraeus and the officers who are putting together that report. You just defamed them. Do you have any proof that they are going to lie in that report? Or are you just letting your hatred of George Bush cloud your judgment and reason?

The answers, I think, are 'no' and 'yes' respectively.

They are not members of the military should read they are not members of the administration.

PIMF

No one is saying anything is wrong with Petraeus.

Reid was on record months ago stating he didn't believe Petraeus would tell the truth about the status of Iraq.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, Petreaus was given a set of guidelines for his report BY CONGRESS as to what and when he should report back on matters in Iraq, and then was sent out with their unamimous approval, and now he's returned to report to them as per their wishes.

And Congress's reaction?

"HOW DARE YOU REPORT BACK TO US ON SEPTEMBER 11!!" (Even though that's the date that Congress set)

and

"HOW DARE YOU COME BACK TO US AS WE ASKED YOU TO WITH ANYTHING BUT A HOPELESS, DESPAIRING REPORT ON THE SITUATION IN IRAQ!!"

I'll bet my last dollar that if Petreaus came back with a report that said "Get out, and get out now" he and what he says would be treated with a lot more respect by the pro-Iraq war right than the looney left is treating him now.

Shame on them.

Bush’s WH is writing the report they claim will be Petraeus’s. I doubt Petraeus will stray far from their line. He hasn’t so far.

http://tinyurl.com/2nr2r5

“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.”

You can claim it was always meant to be written by
the WH CY but that's not what Bush has been saying for months. On top of that why even cite a Mooney Times article lambasting Dems for calling it the Bush report and then complain about it yourself? You're not making any sense.

We've been watching for months as Petraeus and his men in Baghdad reclassify deaths differently than they used to and cherry pick data to make their case.

Apparently Petraeus was picked for his loyalty to Bush, not his competence. Hate to tarnish that shining star but here’s a report you ought to read.

http://tinyurl.com/24wv36

“Army Criminal Investigation Command, Department of Justice, FBI and other federal agencies are investigating widening network of criminal cases involving purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other materiel to Iraqi and American forces; officials say it amounts to largest ring of fraud and kickbacks uncovered in conflict; inquiry has led to several indictments of Americans, with more expected; one investigation involves Lt Col Levonda Joey Selph, senior American officer who worked closely with Gen David H Petraeus”

The Iraqi Army according to Gen. Jones today in Senate testimony cannot stand on it’s own, it’ll be one year to 18 months before they can operate without US help against the insurgents and two years before they’ll have their logistics set up. If somebody doesn’t steal the whole logistics train and sell it to the insurgents first that is.

I checked around online and I couldn't find any reference to a seperate WH report mandated/asked for by Congress, only the report that was originally touted as coming directly from Gen. Petraeus, but that has been reported, objectively, as being drafted and written by the White House, and delivered by the General. If you can point me to a story about the two different reports, I'd much appreciate it.

General Petraeus has impugned his own honor. How?

The summer long PR offensive to sell the surge on Hugh Hewitt's show and other rightwing media outlets. Reporting directly to Republicans but not Democrats in congress. Ginning up statistics to show progress and refusing to show his methodology when questioned on the changes. Allowing derisive bios of Democratic congressmen and women to be posted around his command in Baghdad.

Allowing yourself and your command to be politicized is not only dishonorable it's incredibly stupid and probably illegal. He fits right in with the Bush Administration.

You may remember this:

"Why should we suspect Petreaus might spin his report?

Because he has a well documented history of doing so.

On September 26, 2004 -- approximately six weeks before a presidential election in which the deteriorating situation in Iraq was an increasingly important issue -- Petraeus, then in charge of training Iraqi security forces, published an op-ed in The Washington Post. He wrote glowingly of the progress the Iraqi security forces were making under his tutelage. According to the article, training was on track and increasing in capacity, more than 200,000 Iraqis were performing a wide variety of security missions, 45 Iraqi National Guard battalions and six regular Iraqi army battalions were conducting operations on a daily basis, and six additional regular army battalions and six Iraqi Intervention Force battalions would become operational by the end of November 2004. The Bush administration's policy at that time was "we will stand down when they stand up." Petraeus' article, accordingly, had the effect of telling the electorate that there was light at the end of the tunnel.

The op-ed was patently false and misleading, but that was not the worst part. If Petraeus wrote and published the article on his own initiative, he was injecting himself improperly into a political campaign. If he was encouraged (or even authorized) to do so by his civilian superiors, they were abusing military professionalism for partisan political purposes."

markg8

Then why did your fellow military haters in congress unanomously vote for him?

No, markg8 - you impugned his honor by saying that a report that he has yet to give will be dishonest.

But, since you're here, and you and Bubba can predict what will be in a document/testimony that is yet to be delivered...

Could you guys give me the numbers for tommorrow's MegaMillions lottery? Even a few hundred thousand dollars would go a long way.

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

Exactly, SouthernRoots. And markg8 and Bubba stated that whatever information General Petraeus provides to Congress (whether in written form or sworn testimony) on this subject will be a lie.

If that isn't defamation, then I do not understand defamation. Or mere insult.

http://tinyurl.com/2nr2r5

Curious those "administration officials" don't care to speak on the record. One rather suspects those administration officials are named Reid and Durbin.

I checked around online and I couldn't find any reference to a seperate WH report mandated/asked for by Congress, only the report that was originally touted as coming directly from Gen. Petraeus, but that has been reported, objectively, as being drafted and written by the White House, and delivered by the General. If you can point me to a story about the two different reports, I'd much appreciate it.

Posted by: J. at September 6, 2007 05:39 PM

Certainly, J. Glad to oblige.

First, a link (helpfully shortened by TinyURL) to the full text of the law, Public Law 110-28, at the Government Printing Office website.

Now, the relevant portions, with emphasis added:

(2) Reports required.

(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.

(B) 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.

(C) If the President's assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report, the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.

(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.

(E) The reporting requirement detailed in section 1227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 is waived from the date of the enactment of this Act through the period ending September 15, 2007.

(3) Testimony before congress.-- Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the 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.

Now, if one wished to be extraordinarily pedantic, one could contend that there will be one report (the President's) and one testimony (General Petraeus', as Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq). However, it could just as easily be argued that there are two reports, one written (the President's), and one oral (General Petraeus').

However, any attempt to deny that the above are two completely separate items is clearly in error, given the text of the law.

C-C-G, one would have to be unusually pedantic to claim that a proffered witness' oral testimony on the document submitted is not a report. General Petraeus can be questioned line for line on the report and asked what supports the assertions of each conclusion of the written report he is testifying to. If that testimony (and the transcript) is not a report to Congress then there is no such thing as witness testimony or cross examination.

BTW, prefiled direct testimony sponsored by an available witness is very common in adminstrative hearings, especially hearings on technical subjects.

That is a sworn report to Congress. If the members of Congress do not avail themselves and question General Petraeus closely, then maybe we need to replace them.

True, Mikey, very true.

One wonders if J will be so pedantic as to deny that General Petraeus' testimony is a separate report from the President's report.

Speaking of reports and congress availing themselves, the past two reports have shown the progress in Anbar. Clearly congress did not avail themselves of their own mandated report. From Nov 2006 to the May 2007 attacks in Anbar dropped 39%. Moreover. Anbar moved from the most violent to the third most violent province. There in the record and still everyone, especially congress was surprised.

Report Schmort! Who gives a flying crap about that report, like it matters if it goes North or South, as if it will change our position in the war? Why can't they bring back Star Trek so you bloggers have something better to do!

John Bryan, why can't they bring back Three's Company so blog trolls have something better to do?

Thanks both, C-C-G and SouthernRoots. I appreciate the info and the links. I think that everyone involved in this, including the administration, has been extremely imprecise in how this has been discussed. All summer, the administration has prepared the public for the "Petreaus" Report and then, recently, stated that the report would be written by the White House. Since that was the intention all along, it should have been made clearer. Especially since, as I recall, the administration was reluctant to let General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker testify in the open.

That aside, and with all due respect, I don't think General Petraeus' honor is the issue here. I don't think questioning his intentions, especially in light of a record of distortions and unfounded statements on his part, constitutes not supporting the troops in the field. I think that saying so is a smear on the patriotism of duly elected officials and serves only to stifle debate and discussion on the most vital issue facing this country right now.

Both the report and the testimony have been shown already to be flawed and compromised by domestic politic issues. To approach them with skepticism is a sensible position. What you all seem to fail to grasp is that one can support the troops, hope for the best in their mission, love your country and still not trust those in charge. These are not mutually exclusive positions.

"Reporting directly to Republicans but not Democrats in congress""

LIE

Petraeus met with and reported to several Dem members, and offered to meet with others, including Jack Murtha (D-Abscam) who refused and then lied about it on television

"They are ginning up statistics to show progress"

LIE

Watch the news lately? Only a moron would fail to see that the amount of violence, bombings, US casualties due to enemy action have dramatically declined in the last several months of the surge

You think the numbers are fabricated? PROVE IT LIAR

CY, its time for this lying piece of garbage to go. Argue in good faith all you want. Lies and propaganda should be banned.

"Both the report and the testimony have been shown already to be flawed and compromised by domestic politic issues."

A report that hasn't even been partially leaked to the NYT or WaPo, and testimony that has yet to be uttered have "been shown already to be flawed?" And my Calculus students' quizzes, that they are going to take on Monday, are already mostly wrong....

Notropis, one wonders what lefties like J will say if General Petraeus says that we can start a gradual drawdown of the troops. After all, they've already branded him a liar, so they can't very well take that statement as gospel without lots of verbal acrobatics.

I should also point out that, given J's obvious ignorance about the text of the law in question, any reasonable person would probably take his opinions with a large grain of salt.