I can’t help but think about this as to why MoveOn did what they did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ

Petreaus is a highly intelligent and thoroughly professional soldier who reported on the military situation. And unlike some of Bush’s previous yes-men, he remained admirably silent on those things out side his own purview.

So Petreaus didn’t stand up on the table and demand the dismantlement of the Pentagon. He still gave a report which rather bluntly said how his success was fragile, and contingent on a political success that no amount of White House spin can find.

Here’s the thing to those others on the left: the road out of Iraq runs through people like Petreaus. Military professionals whose read of the situation will be better than any virtuous lefty. Many retired generals have already gotten on this bandwagon.

Because let’s face it: we reap what we so. Enough people on the left have gone to enough lengths demonstrate how they feel contempt for anyone who would volunteer to wear a uniform. Not much credibility there, and why should the country believe use when we talk about military matters? We’re-so-enlightened-we-know-its-all-a-crock is hardly a position to inspire respect.

I think Petreaus’ report offered several important tools to people who want to get out of Iraq. So the ball is now in the left’s court: is it about reaching out to the country, and bringing our troops home, or is about rallying are old base, and showing them how pure we are.

The old base, I’ll note, that was completely powerless to keep us out of this war, and has been powerless in fives years of attempts to end it.

Your logic is flawed at best. Nobody here has mentioned the soldiers doing their duty in Iraq. The person in question here is the commanding General in Iraq who was appointed by and receives his orders from the President. Bush decided to use Patraeus to deliver a political message which means he must stand up to the same scrutiny as any politician.

The salient point that you and other anti-war, left-wing groups miss is that the President is elected, whereas a general is not. In political disourse, there is, or at least should be, some deference to the fact that an unelected official should not be attacked in the same manner in which a political figure is. Calling a general a traitor is utterly reprehensible. The fact that you and other left-wing, anti-war groups have lost sight of the need for decorum and civility when dealing with our military officials and servicemen and women not only betrays your ostensible *support* of the troops but it reveals how depraved your thinking on the matter of the war has become.

So if Petraeus gets up there and lies for three hours, should we pretend he isn’t lying out of deference to his position? Where was that view 10 years ago? We had an impeachment trial because the last president lied about cheating on his wife. Now we are talking about the fate of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and our national security. Is it too much to ask for the truth?

The reason Petraeus is being called a liar is not because of “rhetoric,” but because what he said was so obviously false, and completely unsubstantiated. As was pointed out in other comments, you have mischaracterized Hillary’s position. As to Katie Couric, every day she signs on at night is a new low in broadcast journalism. It seems though, that you have managed to misrepresent her too.

Petraeus did the Washington two-step during his report by giving a lot of non answers and statistics without context. Nobody can really say if the strategy is working because this war has no real and achievable goals. The answers for Iraq are not military and Bush is hiding behind a General to make people think they are. Patraeus isn’t the problem, he is taking orders.

Couric said that things had improved in Anbahr not Iraq as a whole. She also said she only got to see what the military wanted her to see. More IRAQIS say things are worse since the surge, but what do they know?

“I guess you don’t pay attention to even Hillary Clinton who said the surge is working.”

No she didn’t. She was talking about the new tactics of working with tribal leaders in Anbahr, not the surge.

“So Petraeus is a liar? ”

What do you call someone who knowingly says things that aren’t true?

General Patraeus is an outstanding soldier, intelligent and resourceful. The general is, I am sure, doing yeoman’s work, not only dealing with military problems in Iraq, but also dealing with the Bush administration.

However, I am sure he is well aware that he is being used by President Bush to cover for the obvious lack of strategic thinking and planning by the White House. Had he reported that the surge was not contributing to the stability of the Iraqi government, the main reason for the surge, Bush would have rejected his report and told him to return at a later date with happier news. Americans are well aware that Bush is not kind to messengers who bring him bad news.

Gen.Patraeus’s report of limited military success gave Bush some bragging rights. It has made bush agree to a small reduction in troops - a reduction he probably would have had to make anyway given that the army is stretched to the limits. It would be best not to interpret the limited draw down of troops to mean the war is coming to an end. It is not. The war will drag on well into 2009.

Nor would it be prudent to interpret the Patraeus report to mean that Bush’s strategy for Iraq is working. It is not. Bush has had no coherent strategy for Iraq or the Middle East. Nor should we interpret the report as confirmation of Bush’s reasons for invading Iraq. There never was a compelling reason to invade iraq in the first place. Perhaps this is why more and more Americans are realizing that the real Bush strategy is to continue the “course” as it is now while spending mega-billions in borrowed money to fight a war of his choosing for an indefinite period of time.

Does this make sense? Of course it doesn’t!

So Petraeus is a liar? That’s pretty pathetic. I guess you didn’t watch his testimony for three hours like I did. I guess you don’t watch reporters like Katie Couric who are saying that things have improved significantly in Iraq. I guess you don’t pay attention to even Hillary Clinton who said the surge is working.

Dan, it’s one thing to be against the war, it’s another thing to call the top General fighting in Iraq a liar or a traitor (like MoveOn did). If you think that kind of rhetoric is going to be good for your party next year, all I can say is bring it on. I’m seeing McGovern in the air.