Then why for the last two months has the president been acting like he needs to see the report to know what was going to be in it. Way all the, "... I need to hear what the general has to say." BS.

No doubt there was some stagecraft to gain breathing room. Events on the ground are actually moving, though, and there was some legitimacy to the wait and see approach. I agree, however, that the conclusion -- We need more time, it's working! -- was likely inevitable.

Then why for the last two months has the president been acting like he needs to see the report to know what was going to be in it. Way all the, "... I need to hear what the general has to say." BS.

Gee whiz James Is there nothing about this whole dog and pony show that you think wasn't prepared, bought, and paid for?

what are the odds that the General's report would be exactly and precisely what the president has been saying all along.

You realize that Bush actually has access to Petraeus, and vice versa, on a regular basis, right?

I guess that means that the president is the most prescient man in the universe, I mean what are the odds that the General's report would be exactly and precisely what the president has been saying all along.

I'm impressed.

The Ghosts of Anbar, Part I

The Ghosts of Anbar, Part II

The Ghosts of Anbar, Part III

The Ghosts of Anbar, Part IV

If there is a "modest" rise in poll numbers and this coming before Gen. Petraes testifies before Congress, one should wonder what caused the rise.

Perhaps the huge pr blitz in the run up to the testimony. Any move after the testimony will likely be modest. If the move is in the positive direction (from the admin pov) then prepare for this to be touted by the msm and admin as a trend that is likely to continue.

I hope that it came from the general public educating themselves on the situation in Iraq.

That would tend to push the poll numbers in the other direction.

1> It is possible to win this war by whatever definition you want to use. At the same time, I don't think we will "win" it in the sense that Iraq will become a stable democracy simply because it will take too long. Even with a concerted, unified effort it won't happen in my lifetime (and I expect to live another 40 years or so).

2> If there is a "modest" rise in poll numbers and this coming before Gen. Petraes testifies before Congress, one should wonder what caused the rise. I hope that it came from the general public educating themselves on the situation in Iraq. It would reinforce my faith in the American public to do what is right when it is most needed. And it could be an early death knell for the MSM.

Aside from a few wild-eyed neoconservatives, nobody thinks we’re about to win in Iraq

Unfortunately, James, a significant number of those wild-eyed types are currently in 1600 Penn. Ave.

Lookit: assuming Bush does come on tonight and endorse the Petraeus plan of bringing back some number of troops (maybe 30k, maybe 5 BCTs; he's already fudging his numbers), that'll simply bring us back to the troop level we were at before the surge started, occupying an Iraq that is in no better shape (and, by many measures, is demonstrably worse off) that when we started surging.

Also, Pelosi and others are rightly smacking anyone who refers to this as any kind of force reduction - it's plainly not. Next summer is exactly when the now-standard 15-month tours of duty for all those surging forces end - we have to bring them home no later than then, or boost the tour lengths yet again. And SecDef Gates has already made his "no new taxes" pledge on that front.

Basically, by any standard you care to chart, the surge has been a miserable, tragic failure. Unless you chart it on the effect of pushing any solution off onto the next administration, at which it has been quite successful...