CNN

Watching General Petraeus being questioned by congress made me laugh. It validates my reasoning for despising most politicians. I don't trust them!
General Petraeus is in a place where the chicken littles in congress would never choose to be. I trust General Petraeus. And, I believe his analysis of the war in Iraq.
General Petraeus, like President Bush is a strong, dedicated man who believes in America. I praise them for their work despite the arrogance of congessional leaders. General Petraeus is a man of honor who should consider the source when grilled by morons who they know best for America.
Onward!

Jamie Crawford was wrong. The progress report came directly from Gen Petraeus and he delivered it to his chain of command, which delivered it to the White House.
So much for CNN's credibility!!

GEN Petraeus has over 33 years of service to our nation. He's put his life and the lives of his Soldiers on the line to protect this country and our way of life. It's a sad day in America when we question the integrity of the few who give so much in return for so little simply because their "assessment" doesn't align with some political ideology. It's not that MoveOn.org is wrong about the war. It's the principles by which they express that argument. GEN Petraeus validates his dedication to our nation every time he and his troopers go out to confront the enemies of this nation. He nor his troops asked to be in Iraq. It's our policy makers who should be held to account. In my opinion it's not a matter of whether GEN Petraeus has betrayed this country, but more likely that MoveOn.org has betrayed theprecious few who are willing to defend it.

Just as an aside, when he was originally in theater the first time, before his promotion, I heard his name once while I was watching TV and doing other stuff and I could have sworn I heard "General Betrayus" and I remember remarking to my brother what a poor name for a general and if he did betray us we couldn't say we wern't warned. But Im sure it was either my hearing or a person's poor pronuciation or both.

"AS AN OLD AIR FORCE VETERAN I CAN TELL YOU ONE THING. PETARUS IS A 4 STAR GENERAL, SO WAS COLIN POWELL. BUSH AS COMMANDER IN CHEIF OF THE UNITED STATES FORCES IS A 5 STAR GENERAL. SO HE OUT RANKS THEM ALL. AND THEY WILL DO AS HE ORDERS THEM TO DO. JUST LIKE POWELL DID.IF IT IS LIGHT AND BUSH TELLS HIM IT IS DARK, HE WILL SAY IT IS DARK ALSO."

Actually, there is a rank of 5-Star General that hasn't been used in dacades, and a 6-Star only used for Gen. Pershing in WWI and posthumously for Washington. The President is also higher then both these ranks, making him at-least 7 stars by your analogy.

Anyway, I'm not so sure that Petreaus will follow Bush in lock step, after all Bush has pinned Iraq to Petreaus' legacy and Bush has really nothing to offer Petraeus at this point so I think Petraeus will do whats in his own interests at this point.

Jack Jett,

You wrote, "General Betrayus will be out of a gig when this war is up. "

It's Petraeus – unless you're apart of the liberal zealots at Moveon.Org. And Generals are reassigned to different assignments when their current orders are completed. Your suggestion he would "be out of a gig" shows you're uninformed.

But don't let that stop you from posting!

The only thing die-hard liberals want to hear is bad news. IF there were any GOOD news from Iraq you would calling it a lie.

Remember the attacks Hillary took for saying the surge was working?

"Petraeus... will deliver a progress report, WRITTEN BY THE WHITE HOUSE"

Well, that answers the credibility question.

If our Liberal Congress attacked terrorist with the zeal they attack our war heroes. Iraq would be a paradise of freedom by now.

Is there any wonder why this Congress is rated as the worst in American history?

My husband is in the U.S Army and i seen Mr. Hunter on talking about the marines but nothing about the Army they spend 15 months and less then 12 months at home with training maybe 3# at home it is funny that the paper put pure-tray-us because that is what alot of military people call him he is not for our love ones and it just make's me mad that they get on t.v and ask the troops about the war and know they can not talk bad about it so that just burn my -. this 15months is to much and then they are home way less then a year with all the training i am a (Rep) but it is sad that i am going to have to vote (Dem)because the (Rep) don't have what it takes to look out for our love ones it is time to bring our love ones home and if they really cared about the troops and there familey then bring them home a month early not three months later (rep) are hurting themselfs we want our husbands home and if it is voting the rep out that that is what will happen and trust me the troops can not say anything on the news but they can when it is time to vote. Thank you A Fed UP Army Wife

The very fact that the White House has even touched this presentation means that it's tainted and subject to extreme doubt.

I want to have faith in our military leaders, but I can't when the Administration sticks its dirty claws into everything.

On Sept. 26, 2004, Gen. Petraeus wrote that things were looking up for the Iraqi Army.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49283-2004Sep25.html?referrer=emailarticle

WHY BELIEVE HIM NOW?

Pre-emptive denigration of the report and the man they unanimously voted to lead the Troops and give it?

I don't think it is General Petraeus with the "credibility problem."

What possible motivation would General Petraeus have for not being completely upfront and honest?

give the man his right to speak before prejudging him

Wasn't the time to question this guys credibility BEFORE he was confirmed 81-0?? Yea votes included Dodd, Binden, Clinton, Obama, Harry Reid and even Ms. Feinstein. They must have liked something about the guy.

When we start to draw down the troops next year, who will take credit? Dems, Republicans? Does it matter anyway?

It doesn't take an idiot to know what this guy is going to say...some improvements, some things holding steady and some things have gotten worse. His explanation will just be a little less concise.

Just becuase he says something that suggests there are signs of improvement does not mean it is "cooking the books of the White House."

I'm not here to pimp Mike Huckabee but in the debate last week I think he made a very good point. It doesn't matter if Bush, Clinton or Edwards or anybody else that voted to send us to war was wrong. We are there and we need to win!

Winning should not be a negative thing – not for Dems or Republicans. It should be the only thing for all of us.

I hope at least one congressman or congresswoman will ask General Petraeus point blank if anyone from the White House tried to influence what is in the report and/or how the information is presented.

I trust the General as an officer and a gentlement to give me a truthful answer. It is the people working in the White House I do not trust.

I'm not a fun of this president and regret my decision to support the war. However, there's something wrong with attacking Gen. Patraeus this way. Referring to him with 'betray us' is, first of all, immature–something to be expected from the left–but more significantly, suggests that he's placing politics over his service. In other words, MoveOn.org is questioning his patriotism. Isn't that a tactic decried by the left over the last seven years?! Many folks in the military may be happy with this war, but I have doubts that they will support the left’s smearing of a highly decorated and credentialed professional.

Little reminder ...Petreus was voted to his position unanimously by the Dems.

If the General wants to be believed or taken seriously, he MUST prove that he is independent of the White House. Unfortunately for him, he has towed the Bush line all the way so far. He'll say a few things aren't moving forward as fast they'd like but he will cite NO FAILURES, when most everythign is a proven failure.

Patraeus has a history of lying about the "progress" in Iraq. Read all about it:

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/09/09/patraeus-reports-again/

I think if this war WAS about oil, we would have carpet-bombed the place many years ago.

Come on folks, exactly when has anything been factual or accurate that has ever come out of this white house?

I think McCain was talking about John Kerry (confused again). When you open the Book of Bush, pop-up figures like Colin Powell appear. This is just another sorry effort to mask the evil being inflicted on innocent people for oil.

General Petraeus should be given the opportunity to give his report without politcal interference from those who want an immediate withdrawl.

Just the fact that Petraeus and Crocker are going to do an exclusuve hour-long special with Britt Hume on Faux Snooze Monday after the report is given should tell you something. This lovefest ought to be something.

And how long after Petraeus ceases to be useful to the Bush White House does he become a Faux correspondent?

When the report he is giving isn't even written by him, but rather by the White House, with its long history of distorting facts to suit their agenda, that concerns me.

I have absolute faith in Gen. Petraeus, but as someone else said, he wouldn't be the first person that this Bush administration fed a line of crap in order to mislead others.

Today, George W. Bush has zero credibility with his own country, so he's trying to borrow some from a great mean like David Petraeus.

General Petraeus published an article in October, 2004 claiming great progress in the war in Iraq. That report was wildly inaccurate. Just because he is wearing a uniform does not mean we should not question his credibility. He is evaluating his own strategy and his own war plans. Why should we assume he is being objective?

Anyone remember as “they stand up, we will stand down”?

At one time we were supposed to have several brigades ready to stand up, several brigades that was near ready to stand up and eventually we found this was not anywhere near the truth.

The general who was in charge of training and who said this was General Petraeus.

Anyone think this report will be any more truthful?

Did not General Petraeus admit that the war can not be won militarly but only politically, and we do not have the troops to keep this surge going past spring of 2008. If that is true and since there has been no meaningful real political progress why are we sacrificing American soldiers for a doomed plan? When we will have to start redrawing our soldiers from Iraq and the violence returns what then? Just remember without republican votes to stop filibusters and overriding presidential vetos Bush can have his way. The Pentagon from their game planning of an Iraqi invasion knew you needed 500,000 soldiers yet the one General that spoke up was let go. All the other generals shut their mouths to save their jobs. Independent assessments differ with General Patraeus and Bush. I will believe them before Bush. General Patraeus seems to forgotten he works for the American People not President Bush.

AS AN OLD AIR FORCE VETERAN I CAN TELL YOU ONE THING. PETARUS IS A 4 STAR GENERAL, SO WAS COLIN POWELL. BUSH AS COMMANDER IN CHEIF OF THE UNITED STATES FORCES IS A 5 STAR GENERAL. SO HE OUT RANKS THEM ALL. AND THEY WILL DO AS HE ORDERS THEM TO DO. JUST LIKE POWELL DID.IF IT IS LIGHT AND BUSH TELLS HIM IT IS DARK, HE WILL SAY IT IS DARK ALSO.

A quick review of the last 6 years reveals that Bush lets go all military experts and generals who do not parrot his views, such as the career general who advised against a "lean" invasion force but instead 500,000 troops if Bush's goal was "nation building"...after his report of that to Congress before the war he was forced into retirement. Bush cares little for pesky reality, only his own petty ego and limited vision behind his napoleonic ambitions. Had he served honorably in Vietnam, he might actually have some empathy for our armed services and that troublesome little matter called "truth and facts". This war began with his lies and personal issues and it continues that way....Patraeus tell a truth starkly different than that which Bush deludes himself into believing is "real"? Yeah, right!

I agree with Di Fi. If the White House is writing the report and Petraeus is just presenting it, how can that be his independent judgement?

General Betrayus will be out of a gig when this war is up. The longer the war, the higher his popularity and book and speaking fees will be. You can rest assured that is what this report will be based on.

Just read what Bush has to say about leaving office. Nothing in his thoughts about working to help those whose lives he destryoyed. Just speeches and books.....from a man who can not speak..or write.

Jack Jett
Chaotic Modulation

Maybe the Democrats who voted for Petraeus unanimously can tell us why we should believe them when they say he's partisan. Why didn't they vote against him?

Mr. Seekster, from Texas... "politically motivated"... not sure, but we can be sure as Rep Tom Davis (R) said the report will be tweeked by the white house. The best review of the current Iraq status is the GAO Report issued. 3 out of 18 "benchmarks" met and 4 more partially met after billions spent. News flash for Republicans... Osama Bin Laden is in Afghanistan or Pakistan, not Iraq. Redeploy and strike hard in Afghan. This is easily the dumest and worst mistake a president has ever made. Political progress is the key... and there hasn't been any, we are a "free rent" army for the Iraqi government.

Remember Colin Powell!

That's enough for me to question Petraeus's credibility!

[...] This isn't news, really. A CNN poll a few weeks ago got the same result for the same question. By comparison, 39% think he'll tell the truth, although there's no way to tell how many of them are already in favor of continuing the mission and how many are skeptics willing to be persuaded. Only 36% say the military is making "significant progress" so there's at least a few votes up for grab. MoveOn is going to try to rally the non-troops tomorrow with an ad in the Times referring to Petraeus as "General Betray Us." Really. [...]

It's becoming clear that General Petraeus represents the military wing of the Republican Party.

It is clear that some in the anti-war movement will not ever accept even the possibility of good news or progress. They need the news to be bad in order to achieve their agenda.

ThirstyJon
freedomthirst.com

Hey Seekster from Texas – I thought perhaps it was clear that the only generals who could give unbiased reports were ones appointed to positions by Democratic administrations! That's perfectly logical, right?

To suggest that a good man and General like Patraeus would be politically motivated is absurd! He doest have to get elected so he gets nothing from slanting the report. Its funny that moveon.org of all things is calling Patraeus biased.

We should all become bedazzled by flags & religious symbols being displayed before us by our leaders & not question the wisdom of any of their decisions. The word of hand picked general should especially go unquestioned;doing so only insults his character,emboldens the enemy & demoralizes the troops. What would the Greek philosophers or Founding Fathers think of us if they could see us now.

Hmm. Where have we seen a military officer (or ex) deliver a White House version of facts? Can you say Colin Powell? Kind of removes all credibility, regardless of the truth of the report.