Dems Discredit Iraq Report Before It Appears ...(MSM vs White House Con Job)

Newsmax ^ | Susan Jones

[IrishMike]

Democrats are questioning the truthfulness of an upcoming report from Gen. David Petraeus on the progress of President Bush's troop-surge strategy in Iraq.

"For a long time the Administration has hidden behind the name of General David Petraeus, saying the September report will be his. We all knew this would be the President's report," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a news release on Thursday.

Pelosi was reacting to press reports that the Bush administration plans to write the Petraeus report itself -- and may restrict Petraeus's testimony before Congress to a closed session.

A column in Thursday's Washington Post called the Petraeus report, due out Sept. 15, "a White House con job in the making."

And the Los Angeles Times noted on Wednesday, "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."

Democrats, always skeptical of the administration's war claims, urged the White House to butt out.

"We must remember that the purpose of the surge was to create a secure environment in which political change could occur. Whether or not some limited military success has occurred, it is clear that the Iraqi leaders have failed to make political progress," Pelosi said.

"The question for September is: 'Why should our troops risk their lives in a civil war when the Iraqi government refuses to take the political steps necessary to end the sectarian violence?' We must have a candid assessment of the ongoing situation in Iraq and it is increasingly unclear whether the September report will provide that."

[IrishMike]

DemoRATS following cue from Drive By

[Badeye]

I think you have that backwards, but the end result is the same.

[Emile]

San Fran Nan: “WAAAAAH. It’s not gonna say what we want it to say, so we’re gonna pick up our toys and go home. WAAAAAH!”

[Huskrrrr]

I think Pelosi must be accepting contributions from Al Queda.

[IrishMike]

You may be right, NY Slimes alerted the RATs last week things were improving in Iraq, then we have the CNN poll saying improvement in Iraq doesn’t matter, so now the drive by are jumping on the wagon with the reported improvements are a White House ‘CON JOB’.

[Badeye]

I think Pelosi must be accepting contributions from Al Queda.

I think she and others like her suffer from a form of mental illness, that causes them to shrink away from the reality al Qaeda will kill a liberal first on ‘general principal’.

[avacado]

"The question for September is: 'Why should our troops risk their lives in a civil war when the Iraqi government refuses to take the political steps necessary to end the sectarian violence?'"

God I dislike these people. There is no civil war so quit lying! The Iraqi government just formed a block between the Shiites and Kurds that now allows the government to move forward. The Iraqi forces (aka Iraqi citizens) are taking the fight to the insurgency.

It's nice to see Democratic political leaders so damn clueless about that which they make decisions on.

[Badeye]

Yep.

The Democrats - and that included the NYT and the WaPo - have bet on DEFEAT.

[Chuck54]

Pelosi was reacting to press reports that the Bush administration plans to write the Petraeus report itself --

Duh! They need to check the requirement passed by Congress that stated the White House would write the report.

Oh ye (Progressives/Liberals/Democrats)with small minds.

[LIConFem]

Hey, why wait? I mean, if you’re gonna lie anyway, there’s no sense in waiting for all the facts.

[andy58-in-nh]

Let me get this straight: the Democrats are questioning the truthfulness of a report that has not yet been made because they are afraid it will be good news and they need it to be bad news. Therefore, they are trashing the credibility of this non-existent report so that they can insulate themselves from the consequences of having invested themselves in failure, while at the same time they can deny that we are succeeding. Do I have that right? And these people wonder why Americans don’t trust them with our national security.

[IrishMike]

You got it.

From Rush Limbaugh....
(the man who runs the Country)

Internal Democrat Battle on Handling Petraeus

RUSH: The Democrats haven’t given up on Iraq yet. One of the things that they’re getting ready to say is that the whole Petraeus report is going to be a lie, that it can’t be counted on. “An Early Clash Over Iraq Report.” This is in the Washington Post. “Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus ... to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration’s progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.” Rahm Emanuel said these guys “need to testify.” Testify? I thought they were issuing a report!

So there’s still a little internal battle going on in the Democratic Party over how to deal with this, but whoever is behind this effort here to reposition the Democrats on Iraq is having some success. They’re going to have to try to do something because they’ve gone over the cliff on this. I mean, we know what Petraeus is going to report — it’s already out there. He’s going to say he doesn’t need as many troops. He’s going to say we can start pulling some troops out of where we’ve been, and Democrats are going to say, “Well, that’s crazy. If the surge is working, why not leave them there?” They’re going to do anything they can to say that this was a prewritten report not based on actions. So some Democrats up on Capitol Hill, the ones running for election, they’re going to have to pander to the kook base on this, but there’s an overall effort — I think it’s being led by the Drive-Bys, actually — to reposition the Democrats on this all through the end of the year, because there’s no electoral future in defeat. There’s no electoral future in the United States Military being humiliated and proclaiming it and standing for it and being happy about it.

[andy58-in-nh]

The Democrats are really screwing the proverbial pooch on this one. They have backed themselves into a corner: if the war goes well, Bush (and the Republicans) get the credit and they look like craven losers; if the war goes poorly, they are guilty of undercutting the American forces by propagandizing for the enemy. Either way, they are eventually going to pay - and it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.

[IrishMike]

The media/dRATS vs the Country

Unanimous verdict is a partial victory for Bush strategy in war on terrorism
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-817padillanatl,0,5384696.story

... “partial victory” ???

[andy58-in-nh]

The article is actually more balanced than the headline would suggest, but it's still a huge stretch to suggest that Padilla's conviction is anything but a complete victory for the Administration. It just pains the news media so to admit to it. Even today's New York Times' story begins: "In a significant victory for the Bush administration...". Boy, that had to hurt. ;-)

[johnny7]

...cue from Drive By

Big time.... U.S. officers see no reconciliation in Iraq

[Western Civ 4ever]

And the Los Angeles Times noted on Wednesday, "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."

If this is true, what a stuck-on STUPID thing for the administration to do!

I've gotta think that settling for a report that, while may not have been worded in a way for maximum political effect, coming directly and solely from the hand of Petraeus would have had a greater favorable impact than letting the left mortally wound the report's credibility with accusations of, "Bush wrote it!"

[rodeo-mamma]

“I think Pelosi must be accepting contributions from Al Queda.”

I don’t know if she is actually accepting contributions, although, looking back at how the Clinton’s accepted contributions from China and terrorists that they pardoned to help fund Hillary’s run for the Senate, I don’t know, maybe you brought up a good point that’s worth considering, I know I will be.

[tomnbeverly]

Don’t forget how Teddy K sold out Reagan to the KGB..

Put nothing past the idiots on the left that will sell out this country for political gain.

http://www.tldm.org/News9/KennedyCooperatedWithKGB.htm

[rodeo-mamma]

“Why should our troops risk their lives in a civil war when the Iraqi government refuses to take the political steps necessary”

What do the Democrats want to accomplish? Are they wishing for Mutiny? Or are they hoping that people will go AWOL?

And also, what are these accusations against the Iraqi Government? What’s that all about? After all, isn’t the current government composed of people who understand the evils of terrorists and aren’t these the same people who want their people to live free without oppression from crazy people? What is the problem with the Democratic leadership that they are going on the attack against those in the Middle East who understand and GET the concept of the United States? Oh, I have a real problem with people who have a problem with people who are on our side, I have BIG PROBLEM!!