Did We Say Report on Iraq? We Meant F@#& You.

Dems already discount war report

By S.A. Miller
September 6, 2007

Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, talked with reporters yesterday in Washington. "We know what is going to be in it," he said of the Iraq war report next week. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

---

Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.
I like the scorn and contempt here:
"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

Rep. 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.

"If the same people who were so wrong about this war from the start are writing substantial portions of this report, that raises credibility questions," he said.
Does it now, sparky?  Then why didn't you say something when you agreed to hear what Petraeus had to say?
Republicans bristled at the pre-emptive strike against the report.

"Are these leaders asking the American people to believe that the testimony of a commanding four-star general in the U.S. Army should be discarded before it's even delivered?" said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

"If so, these statements completely ignore what's truly at stake in this war and suggest that neither the commander in chief nor our chief commander on the ground have any regard for the lives of the men and women fighting for this country," he said. "It's appallng, and I think the American people — rightfully — will continue to stick by the decisions of our commanders and troops on the ground when it comes to what is best for their safety and security."

Mr. Bush's surprise visit Monday to Iraq's Anbar province showcased success in the one-time al Qaeda stronghold where Sunni tribal leaders teamed with U.S. troops to drive out the terrorists and rapidly improve security.
Even Katie Couric was saying this!  What is the problem?
Despite continued bloodshed in Iraq, the president's visit was one of several recent signs of U.S. military success in Iraq that blunted antiwar momentum leading up to the September progress report.

The congressionally mandated report from the administration, which will be delivered in two parts by Gen. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker, is expected to show some U.S. military advances, but limited progress from the fledgling Iraqi government toward ending sectarian fighting.
A fair assessment, but not the death knell the Democrats were hoping for.  Assholes!
Democrats said they put more faith in a report Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office that showed Iraq failed to meet 11 of 18 political and security benchmarks set by Congress.
Cherry-picking assholes.
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.
What do they want?  It's been 4 years, and those years have been full of conflict here and in Iraq.  Not much has been done since 2006, either.
"We will see what the Bush report will be at the end of next week," Mrs. Pelosi said. "The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made. They might want to find one or two places where there has been progress but the plural of anecdote is not data."
The plural of anecdote is indeed not data, Madame.  But the measure of progress is not to be compared to a standard of immediacy which seems to pervade our thinking in all things.
She said Democrats were determined to uncover "the ground truth in Iraq."

Ask a marine!

Do you hear that sound?  It’s the other shoe dropping.
A report from the Washington Times confirmed what everyone already knew was going to happen.  The Democrats have decided that the report from General David Petraeus doesn’t actually mean anything to the debate on Iraq.  From what I am able to gather from the article, top Democrat leaders scoff at the report for the contributions made by the ever-evil Bush Administration -- that same Bush Administration which is responsible for the entire world’s ills!  Those same masters of Machiavellian machination, purveyors of perfidy, truculent trolls and dim-witted divisive dicks.  Oh!  Shall I list their many vile deeds?  I daresay the reader has not the time to devote to such an undertaking, nor the author a desire to make it his noble life's work!
Discounting the fact that these reports contain reams of paper chock full of details that someone like Petraeus would be better served to have provided to them, it’s still asinine for the Democrats to do this.
May I be frank?  May I be utterly clear about my feelings?  For the Democrats to come out before the deadline to which they agreed and say that nothing in the report will change their views is the height of arrogance, stupidity and hypocrisy.  For months the talk has been, “Wait and see about Petraeus…then we’ll proceed.”  But the cynical among us never had much hope that would be the case.  No, as in most everything the decision has been made and those who are inclined one way or the other shall not move.
Whatever your views on Iraq, for anyone to view this as anything better than “politics as usual” would be jarringly naïve.  If I am not mistaken, Mme. Pelosi and her ilk came to power with many long-winded speeches about Republican duplicity and how there would be a new dawn of openness in government from that point.  It would appear that openness is understood to mean broadcasting the fact that you have made up your mind before hearing the report made by the one man who just might be able to give us a straight answer.