Google sarcasm....Dick.

Why is Petraeus "these folks"? What has he done to be branded as dishonorable? The Senate overwhelmingly approved him not so long ago.

clearly, his only crime was to disagree publicly with the leftist narrative of Iraq.

I noticed not one single Democratic candidate has or will talk about who and what we are fighting. Radical Islam.

And how! No Democrat ever talks about the big scary brown people. Ever! As a result, they don't seem to be wetting their pants about it, but I tell you what -- it's important that we have a pants wetter who is mortally scared of Islamofascoterrocommies at a base level, like Rudy Giuliani.

Just looked. That law that has EVERYBODY up in arms that requires the WH to write the "Petreaus Report"...well, here ya go:

Sponsor: Rep Obey, David R. [WI-7] (introduced 5/8/2007) Cosponsors (None)

So a Dem (and a doofey one at that)introduced it and it became law.
"On the flip side, it only cements the idea that this is the "Bush report"

Splain please. Seems cut and dried to me.

Perhaps the reason that people feel the need to point out that the Iraq progress report due out later this month will be written by the administration rather than Petraeus and Crocker is because it has been relentlessly portrayed as a report by Petraeus and Crocker by both the press and the administration for the past several months.
Examples from a recent WH press conference below:

MR. SNOW: Well, I think the first thing you ought to do is take a look again at the report that was filed to Congress, the interim reported July 15th -- no sugarcoating there. You take a look -- and they try to use real metrics on it. General Petraeus is a serious guy who sees his mission not as a political mission, but, in fact, as somebody who reports facts.
Now, let us keep in mind that the full burden of this report does not fall on his shoulders. A lot of the key judgments, especially about politics, will fall on Ambassador Crocker. So this is -- although I know a lot of people talk about "the Petraeus report," in fact, you have a report that is a joint report by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. And so we trust him.
.....
Q The reason people talk about the Petraeus report isn't because his name is more alliterative and nice-sounding, it's because the administration, when it talks about Iraq, mentioned Petraeus's name dozens and dozens and dozens of times, and mentions Crocker's name many fewer.
MR. SNOW: Well, actually, if you go back and look at the transcripts from this podium for the last month, you will find that they've been mentioned in tandem when it comes to these reports.
.....
Q Two questions, Tony. To what extent was the Vice President pre-writing the Petraeus report or setting expectations when he said he thinks it's going to show progress?
MR. SNOW: No, I don't think he's pre-writing it. Look, again, the one thing -- if you talk to military guys, the last thing they want to do is get themselves embroiled in politics. What they try to do is to play it straight and to do it straight. And obviously the Vice President has his impressions based on what he's seen, but we're going to have to wait to see what General Petraeus has to report.

(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.

(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.

(C) If the President’s assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report, the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.

(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.

Is there any lack of clarity as to whom Congress tasked to prepare and submit the report? Anyone surprised that the report is being prepared by the White House, with the input of appropriate officials in Iraq and throughout the Executive Branch?

Which brings up a couple OBVIOUS questions here:

#1. Did Congress deliberately require the White House/ President to "submit" this report after having "consulted" with "the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command", knowing that they could then count on their supporters, to either lie, claiming surprise this report would be written by the president, OR counting on their supporters to be ignorant enough to not have read the original wording to begin with?

#2. Are the blogs really "acting" surprised and thereby lying to their readers by implying this is new news and it was not what Congress themselves mandated OR did they did not read the original wording of what Congress required ?

Petraeus increasingly risks looking like a propagandist, especially given that there is a lot of O'Hanlon-esque selective number juggling going-on these days. I hope he does make every effort to "avoid being a shill" for his CINC, however, and I'll of course withhold judgment and analyze his and Crocker's testimony before making any definitive conclusions, but the mere fact even of having some of this testimony occur on 9/11 I find reprehensible.

Related, Petraeus' hyper-assiduous courting of the media (most recently, the 'reverse Cronkite' schmooze-fest with an impressionable Katie Couric) has one concerned we have a man who is beginning to believe some of the 'Gettysburg hype' (read: fantastical scenarios re: Iraq's future, rather than the more tepid 'strategic patience' line, itself something of a hail mary, but one that has dutifully made its way from the field to Tony Cordesman's trip report and now, rather too uncritically, to Roger Cohen and David Brooks' op-ed copy). After all, he's prosecuting the effort himself, perhaps it's going better than expected?

Because he has a well documented history of doing so.

On September 26, 2004 -- approximately six weeks before a presidential election in which the deteriorating situation in Iraq was an increasingly important issue -- Petraeus, then in charge of training Iraqi security forces, published an op-ed in The Washington Post. He wrote glowingly of the progress the Iraqi security forces were making under his tutelage. According to the article, training was on track and increasing in capacity, more than 200,000 Iraqis were performing a wide variety of security missions, 45 Iraqi National Guard battalions and six regular Iraqi army battalions were conducting operations on a daily basis, and six additional regular army battalions and six Iraqi Intervention Force battalions would become operational by the end of November 2004. The Bush administration's policy at that time was "we will stand down when they stand up." Petraeus' article, accordingly, had the effect of telling the electorate that there was light at the end of the tunnel.

The op-ed was patently false and misleading, but that was not the worst part. If Petraeus wrote and published the article on his own initiative, he was injecting himself improperly into a political campaign. If he was encouraged (or even authorized) to do so by his civilian superiors, they were abusing military professionalism for partisan political purposes.

What has he done to be branded as dishonorable?

The summer long PR offensive to sell the surge on Hugh Hewitt's show and other rightwing media outlets. Reporting directly to Republicans but not Democrats in congress. Ginning up statistics to show progress and refusing to show his methodology when questioned on the changes. Allowing derisive bios of Democratic congressmen and women to be posted around his command in Baghdad.

Allowing yourself and your command to be politicized is not only dishonorable it's incredibly stupid and probably illegal.

That was the model, after all, for the way we got into Iraq (think Office of Special Plans), that is the model for how they have done everything the past few years, and I see no reason to think it will change.

Most Likely Scenario- Petraeus report points to small signs of progress. Democrats agree that is a bit of progress, then point to the overwhelming signs of bad things the report fails to mention. Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, and like-minded folks state that "Even though Democrats agree there is progress, they want to cut and run anyway." Meanwhile, hacks and liars like Kristol, Ledeen, and others publicly lie about the negative evidence, and are unchallenged.

Anyone want to bet?

The problem with this is that you only accept as "honest" an assessment that matches your own preconception. I think we're losing the war and unlikely to win but I'm willing to hear the case that staying is preferable to leaving in the short term.

Fair enough, although my preconception is based on the numerous reports stating that things are in fact going badly. For me to be assured that all these reports are inaccurate, Petraeus would have to supply independently verifiable data points suggesting otherwise, something the military has been loathe to do so far. In essence, the pushback to the published reports so far are anonymous military sources "disputing" the data, but supplying none of their own.

Why is Petraeus "these folks"? What has he done to be branded as dishonorable? The Senate overwhelmingly approved him not so long ago.

Beyond that, my assessment of this tack being dangerous for the Democrats is about how it will play out politically. They're winning the larger argument on the war. But they have to be careful as not to be seen as anti-victory or anti-military.

I will wait and see what he says, but I do find it difficult to conceive that what he states will differ radically from the official WH written "Petraeus Report." In addition, I would hardly point to Senate approval as some sort of vote of confidence in Petraeus- shouldn't need to remind you that Gonzalez also received Senate approval. I am actually hard-pressed to think of a situation in which a President has not received approval for his general. If I remember correctly, the general consensus was that the President deserves, in a time of war, to have the man he thinks is best to run the war. That is not so much an endorsement of Petraeus as it is a statement of principle.

As to why I tend to, at this time, distrust Petraeus, there are several reasons. The staged trips to the Green Zone, the unwillingness to provide verifiable data, and, I will admit, he is in my eyes (perhaps unfairly) smeared by his relationship to Bush. Some may seize upon this as a sign of "Bush Derangement Syndrome," at this point, at this late stage in the administration, I characterize it as "common sense." Has there been anyone who has had the full faith and confidence of this President who, upon further inspection after their departure, not turned out to be a complete shill?

Again, maybe Petraeus will surprise us all and we will see some much needed honesty in his testimony- honesty that will provide a certain clarity to the debate so that we can move forward and make the best choice out of what are surely a number of bad choices. That would be refreshing. I am, however, not hopeful. In his Draper interview, Bush made it pretty clear what he is doing, and it is pretty clear (to me at least) what this September 11th extravaganza is designed to accomplish- kicking the can down the road.

As to the Democrats overplaying their hand, the only way they could be portrayed as "anti-military" for doing what 75% of the country wants is if we let Bill Kristol and the lying shitheels at the Weekly Standard set the debate. Given the track record of the past few years, your fears are probably warranted. The Democrats will probably get blamed for something, smeared for hating America, etc. That is really the only card left in the hand of the 28% crowd, and they have proven time and again they are not below smearing people for purely political gain.

They're winning the larger argument on the war. But they have to be careful as not to be seen as anti-victory or anti-military.

I actually missed the bigger question, how many lives will it cost for Democrats to not be seen as anti-victory?

Is it morally better for them to try and end the war now and probably fail, given how many lives will be lost in a never-ending war, or to wait 6 months and probably succeed, given how many lives are likely to be lost in that 6 month period?

I guess it's the same as that old question, how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?