PETRAEUS GETS SOME BAD REVIEWS AFTER PRESENTING THE BUSH REGIME'S LATEST STAY THE COURSE LINE

Bush's political general spent over half the past month flacking for the regime's odious and unpopular war escalation policies. He met with clowns like David Diapers Vitter (R-LA) and Chris Shays (R-CT), provided party-line propaganda ammo for far right lunatics such as James Inhofe (R-OK), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Bud Cramer (D-AL), Thelma Drake (R-VA), Jason Altmire (D-PA), and Doug Lamborn (R-CO), and chit chatted with countless journalists from... well, Australia.

Now he's on Capitol Hill trying to provide cover for the most hated president in history along with his discredited and disastrous policies. After his slick speech, meant more for razzle and dazzle using  questionable statistics than to actually shed any real light on how to remedy a tragic situation-- which, to be fair, should be the job on the incompetent nincompoop he works for-- Newsweek dismissed him as a smooth salesman whose wares are outmoded. The American public wasn't taken in and "Petraeus’s draw-down recommendations have outraged critics of the war who accuse him of merely doing Bush's bidding and adjusting his recommendations to the politics of the Hill." And, still, the hapless Bush counts on Petraeus not as a general so much as a Republican politician who knows how to take orders.

Let’s not mince words: David Petraeus may be the only thing standing between George W. Bush and total failure in Iraq. And it’s apparent that most of the Washington power elite-- as well as the rest of the country—understands that.

...But it's questionable whether even the smoothest-talking salesman could appease public opinion-- or Petraeus’s Pentagon detractors-- at this point. Newsweek has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will “differ substantially” from Petraeus’s recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will “recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there.”

Last night David Letterman summed up Petraeus' credibility with a comment about Britney Spears' career-ending VMA performance: "General Petraeus thought it went quite well."
This morning's Washington Post took the sugar coating off Petraeus'-- and Bush's-- message that they want to see a U.S. military presense in Iraq for many years, something the vast majority of the American public does not support.

Members of Congress who are listening to their constituents were not sucked in. "The administration has sent you here today to convince [Congress]... that victory is at hand," Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (Calif.) said in an opening statement. "With all due respect," he told Petraeus, "I don't buy it."

Last yesterday I spoke with Ron Shepston, the retired Air Force officer and Vietnam vet who is taking on rubber stamp Republican Gary Miller (CA-42) in a very Republican suburban Orange County/Inland Empire district, a district where Kerry only pulled 37% against Bush. But Ron insists that even in a district like the 42nd, people are sick and tired of Bush's lies and his bungling domestic policies and failed foreign policy. His approach to ending the war doesn't beat around any Bushes. He says our presense in Iraq is making a bad situation worse and he wants to see withdrawal begin immediately. Ron will be the Blue America guest this Saturday-- 11am, PT, on Firedoglake-- and I urge you to come over and ask him about his positions and why he thinks they will win even in such a partisan GOP area.

After speaking with Ron I started getting e-mails from numerous candidates who were not impressed with th Bush Regime's Petraeus dog and pony show. Kirsten Gillibrand, a Blue Dog who was endorsed by our PAC last year, and who now sits on the House Armed Services Committee, sounded very much in touch with how most Americans feel about this war.

The President’s stated goal of increasing troop levels in Iraq was to buy the Iraqi government some breathing room to make political gains. This did not happen. A recent GAO report on progress in Iraq shows the Iraqi government has failed to meet 15 of 18 benchmarks for success and a separate report from retired Marine General James Jones declared that Iraq is still far from being able to take over security responsibilities in Iraq.  The report also indicates that the Iraqi Interior Ministry which runs the security force is "dysfunctional" and recommends that the national police force be disbanded...
 
I also was taken by the sobering testimony of Ambassador Crocker when he stated, "There will be no single moment at which we can claim victory. Any turning point will likely only be recognized in retrospect…"
 
I respectfully disagree with General Petraeus’ recommendation to continue the surge through next summer. I believe a phased redeployment should start as soon as possible. Using a date certain phased redeployment provides America with its best leverage to force political progress in Iraq. We must hold Iraqi leaders accountable for their future. Even General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged that our success in Anbar was due largely to the local war lords rejecting the strong arm tactics of Al Qaeda, taking security in their own hands, and kicking out Al Qaeda themselves.

The upstate New York district adjacent to Gillibrand's was also won by a Blue America-endorsed candidate last year, John Hall, who is not a Blue Dog and who we have endorsed again for 2008. While Kirsten's dismissal of the Bush Regime's plan to keep the war going might have surprised some, no one can be surprised by Congressman Hall's reaction to Petraeus' approach.

The hearing provided little in the way of new evidence and I believe we still need a firm timetable to wind down our involvement in Iraq.

We already knew American troops are very good at their jobs, so it should come as no surprise that as the have moved into neighborhoods, they have improved security. The escalation was designed to provide "breathing room" to Iraqi politicians to negotiate.

However, General Petraeus gave no new evidence that Iraqi forces are prepared to hold the gains American troops have made. And Ambassador Crocker seemed pessimistic that Iraqi politicians could take advantage of whatever small improvements have occurred.

When announcing his escalation, President Bush said we would see results in 6 months. Now, at the 6 month point, his two top officials in Iraq are unable to show any tangible signs of improvement and have asked for 6 more months. The American people don't want 6 more months of the same quagmire and I don't believe Congress should provide it.

General Petraeus's proposal of a troop reduction is merely a token withdrawal that covers only a very small portion of the 160,000 troops in Iraq. This withdrawal is being forced upon him because we don't have enough troops to replace the ones being rotated out of Iraq. He has offered to reduce troops not because the escalation is working, but because there are no fresh troops to replace them.

Another Democrat endorsed in 2006 and again this year-- who came close last year and is expected to win next year-- is Eric Massa a man with a long and distinguished career of military leadership. His opponent, a wishy-washy rubber stamp Republican named Randy Kuhl has never found a Bush-Cheney proposal on Iraq he couldn't support with his vote. This morning Eric, pointing out that while Petraeus was giving his testimony 9 more Americans were killed in Iraq, demanded Kuhl change course.

"It is clear after closely watching the testimony yesterday that the surge, which my opponent has wholeheartedly supported, even while being 'skeptical,' has failed... General Petraeus stated that our military must now hold the current troop surge level until next summer, but I remember reading an article in the Olean Times Herald in August of 2006 where my opponent suggested that we would start bringing the troops home by last Christmas. The conversation about Iraq has indeed taken a turn for the worse. Rather than having the conversation of 'did the surge work or not,' we are now discussing the impossible-- namely sustaining the enormous spike in our deployment that's been rapidly breaking our military for an additional year. We don't have the troops to do this and we simply cannot afford to spend anymore American lives on this three way civil war. The longer we stay, the worse it gets and I refuse to sit on the sidelines while American military personnel continue to pay the ultimate price for George Bush and Randy Kuhl's failed strategy in Iraq-– this while the Iraqi government goes on two month vacations."

"Last year when Randy Kuhl spent some 16 hours in Iraq, he told us that it's really quite pleasant in Baghdad with all the fabulous shopping and lobster for dinner. Kuhl also told us that we would start seeing troops home by the end of 2006, he then changed his web site to extend that for an additional year and now the Administration has extended that yet another year-– our seventh in Iraq.  Now I suspect that he'll change his language once again and back Petraeus' new plan of sustaining the surge and over extending our military indefinitely. Today, I call on Congressman Randy Kuhl to renounce his dark alliance as George Bush's Whip and stand up for our troops. I am not asking as his political opponent, I am asking as a Retired Naval Commander and an American. We cannot endure another Vietnam, and that is exactly where the Republicans are leading us. The time to change course is now, and if our leaders won't do what's right, then we will replace them next November.

Rep. Tom Allen is a Blue America-endorsed candidate running for the Senate against rudderless rubber stamp Republican Susan Collins, lately a protege of Joe Lieberman. Tom's clear and consistent record of supporting the fighting men and women while opposing Bush's misuse of them through his misguided policies, makes his statement after listening to Petraeus somewhat predictable. After all, Tom has been out on the campaign trail talking with everyday Mainers for the last several weeks and he knows how strongly they feel about ending this terrible war, even if his opponent is still clueless.

During my trip to Iraq last month, General Petraeus told me he believes our troops will be in Iraq in some form for nine or ten years. That is completely unacceptable. Today, General Petraeus recommended troop withdrawal to pre-surge levels and leaving 130,000 troops there. That, too, is completely unacceptable.

General Petraeus and President Bush are simply offering plans to continue the war. What we need is a plan to end it-- and that starts with setting a deadline for withdrawal. This is the only way to get the involved parties to resolve their differences.

Newly elected Colorado Congressman Ed Perlmutter, who handily defeated a pro-war extremist last year, called Petraeus' request to keep 130,000 soldiers in Iraq "simply unacceptable. After more than four years since the beginning of the war, we are no closer to ending our involvement and our military is stretched to the breaking point. It is time for a change in direction in Iraq."

If none of these reactions surprises you, how about rubber stamp Republicans, terrified about losing their seats next year, finally abandoning Bush and Cheney and calling for an end to the war? In 2004 the Democrats didn't even bother running someone against James Reynolds in NY-25. Last year ardent war opponent Dan Maffei came within 1% of beating him and this year Maffei is running again-- and looking like a big winner. Walsh has one of the most pro-war, aggressively rubber stamp voting records of anyone in Congress. Since October 10, 2002, there have been 54 Iraq-related votes. With one minor, non-binding exception Walsh could have gone to play golf, given Dick Cheney his proxy and told him to vote any way he'd like. It has been enablers like James Walsh who have allowed Bush to get away with his agenda of dishonesty and destruction for the last 7 years. And yet today the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle is reporting that even Walsh can no longer abide Bush's war agenda. Walsh "is switching gears and is now calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Not only that but Walsh, who visited Iraq during the weekend, says he will no longer support funding the war."

Walsh's record on Iraq has been extremely deceitful and it remains to be seen what he will actually do when it comes down to a vote. Few who have seen him in operation over the last half dozen years are willing to take him at face value since his rhetoric has never matched his actions in the past.

Rather than leave you with a statement from a slippery character like James Walsh, let me quote one of the most inspired reactions to Petraeus I've read so far, also from an upstate New York congressman. After Petraeus had spoken Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) was crystal clear: "The surge has failed."

The sad truth is that Iraq is a very volatile country; there are tragic levels of violence now and there will be tragic levels of violence whenever the United States leaves. However, the United States' presence in Iraq is not doing anything to quell the violence that already exists. For that reason, it's time to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

President Bush misled this country into invading Iraq and he has proven to be extraordinarily incompetent at managing the subsequent occupation. When President Bush said Iraq was connected to al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks he was deliberately wrong. When President Bush declared "mission accomplished" just six weeks after the invasion of Iraq he was foolishly wrong. When President Bush asked for time to let his so-called surge work he was wrong. Now that he is asking for more time to let his so-called surge work we are wise enough to know that he will be wrong again so we must step in and end the U.S. occupation of Iraq now. It is time for our troops to come home and to be redeployed to Afghanistan and other parts of the world where al Qaeda continues to lurk as a major threat to our national security. Not another American should die in Iraq.

Send a message.


UPDATE: EVEN A RIGHT WING HACK LIKE GEORGE WILL ADMITS BUSH'S IRAQ POLICIES HAVE FAILED; MAYBE HE'S PAYING ATTENTION TO RUSS FEINGOLD

Wow, even George Will! George Will has been one of the gaggle of Insider media hacks who have cheered Bush on from day one. But today... not so much. His 9/11 solumn starts with an explanation of how "the surge has failed, as measured by the president's and Petraeus' standards of success."

And who woulda thunk George Will would agree with Russ Feingold? Amidst a roomful of potted plants distinguished senators, Feingold let loose.

Mr. Chairman, it is simply tragic that, six years to the day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our attention is focused on what has been the greatest mistake in the fight against al Qaeda-– namely, the Iraq war. I strongly supported the decision to go to war in Afghanistan, which served as a sanctuary for al Qaeda. The war in Iraq has been a terrible diversion from Afghanistan, and what should be a global fight against a global enemy.

The war in Iraq has taken away resources-- particularly personnel and money-- that could be better spent fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates not just in Afghanistan but also in North Africa and Southeast Asia. It has reversed the outpouring of support and good will that emerged after 9/11, it has deepened instability throughout the Middle East, and it has resulted in the emergence of an Al Qaeda affiliate in Iraq that didn't exist before the war.

As this summer’s declassified NIE confirmed, Al Qaeda remains the most serious threat to the United States, and key elements of that threat have been regenerated or even enhanced. While our attention and resources have been focused on Iraq, Al Qaeda has protected its safe haven in Pakistan and increased cooperation with regional terrorist groups.

The question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11, and it’s a lesson we must remember today and every day.