So the Democrats of Congress have decided that General Petraeus' report on Iraq shows that he skews the figures and manipulates conclusions to fulfill a Republican Party agenda. As such, they have labeled his report the "Bush Report" in an attempt to discredit it. However, there's one small problem: they haven't even seen the report yet. He's delivering it tomorrow.

[link]

So, what the Democrats have shown is that it doesn't really matter what Petraeus says tomorrow; they've already made up their minds. It really makes me wonder why they even asked for a report they didn't want in the first place.

They are also increasingly casting Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' upcoming report as a product of the White House rather than an independent analysis by a top military commander.

Even though it truly is an independent analysis by General Petraeus. Bush hasn't even seen the report, and most certainly hasn't contributed to it. So for what reason would the Democrats try to cast it as the "Bush report"?

"By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working," said Illinois Sen. Richard J. Durbin, his chamber's No. 2 Democrat, in a speech Friday in Washington. "Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong."

So, first, Durbin calls Petraeus a liar. Then Durbin says that even if Petraeus isn't a liar, the conclusions that Petraeus draws from the data is wrong. Yeah, the fact that Petraeus is pretty much the most qualified man in the world to be analyzing the situation in Iraq doesn't seem to affect Durbin's prejudice about Petraeus' yet-unheard conclusions. Congress certainly liked Petraeus' qualifications when they unanimously voted to appoint him to his current position.

Oh, and then Durbin has the audacity to claim that he doesn't mean to question Petraeus' integrity:

"I respect him very much. And I believe he is an extremely competent military leader who has been given an almost impossible military assignment."

Bullshit. Durbin calls Petraeus a liar and a cheat, then says that even if Petraeus isn't lying, he's entirely wrong about anything he might say, and then Durbin claims he doesn't question Petraeus' integrity or competence? I don't think Durbin's foot could be shoved any deeper into his mouth.

Now, let's take a look at Petraeus' competence and integrity.

[link]

Competence

David Howell Petraeus Graduated from West Point Military Academy in the top 5% of his class in 1974. In 1983 he received the General George C. Marshall Award as the top graduate at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. In 1987, he earned a doctorate in International Relations from Princeton University. His doctoral thesis was titled "The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era."

Petraeus completed a military fellowship at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service in from 1994 until 1995, when it was cut short by being called to serve in the UN mission, Operation Restore Democracy in Haiti, his first peacekeeping assignment. He then served in Kuwait in 1999, as part of Operation Desert Spring. His experience in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency operations continued to grow during a 10-month tour in Bosnia as he helped command the NATO mission, Operation Joint Forge. In Bosnia, he was the NATO Stabilization Force Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations as well as the Deputy Commander of the U.S. Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force.

In 2003, he led the 101st Airborne Division into Iraq. His division was later reassigned to Mosul, where he began to develop his counterinsurgency theories. These theories demonstrated practical effectiveness as he oversaw the US victories in Tal Afar. One officer who served under Petraeus wrote that after working for the general, he was convinced that "He will re-energize a tired U.S. mission in Iraq and refocus their objectives. He is a superb counterinsurgent, and the American people will start to see results in Iraq instead of stagnation." During 2005, Petraeus oversaw the training of Iraqi military units in counterinsurgency warfare, and then in 2006, he served as the commanding general at the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, where he coauthored the Army's new Counterinsurgency Field Manual.

In February 2007, Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in Congress as the new leader of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. Retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey described Petraeus as simply "brilliant," one of the brightest soldiers of our time. Petraeus took this opportunity to implement the strategies and theories that he had developed at the national level, an effort which has come to be known as the "Surge." Since then, the Surge strategy has seen unprecedented success in Iraq.

For much of his Army career, Petraeus was known best for his staff work, for his Washington savvy and for his service to a long list of important generals. But his reputation grew during the first phase of the Iraq war, when Petraeus also proved himself one of the most successful and adaptable division commanders in the U.S. military.

Integrity

Petraeus has used his position as top general to communicate with both the government and the public to an extent unseen since the era of General MacArthur. He has done his best to be open and honest about what's happening in Iraq.

"Petraeus is a true intellect, perhaps the purest soldier-scholar there is," said Lt. Col. John Nagl, one of the Army's top experts on fighting insurgencies.

Some Army officials believe [General] Casey's distaste for the spotlight contributed to an erosion of the public's understanding of U.S. goals in Iraq. Petraeus is more comfortable communicating with the public, and views it as an important responsibility. As commander, Petraeus has sat for many long interviews with journalists and regularly takes them with him as he travels around Iraq.

And Petraeus has brought experts who have agreed with him and those who have been critical.

The man isn't afraid of criticism, seeing it as a learning experience, rather than a personal attack:

"It's very unusual among Army generals to invite a known critic to give you advice," Biddle said.

"One of the interesting things about Petraeus is he is much more politically sophisticated," said one scholar who has advised Petraeus. "He understands not only that he needs advice, but that advice-givers are part of a community that develops the general conventional wisdom on the war."

Two of the scholars who visited Iraq, Kenneth M. Pollack and Michael E. O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, wrote a newspaper op-ed after their visit expressing a measure of optimism for Petraeus' strategy -- and were criticized for succumbing to military propaganda.

Much of the anti-war community, including the majority of Democrats in Congress, don't want to hear positive news from objective, well-informed sources, and will try to discredit anyone who gives it. [link]

Biddle said he believed that by bringing in outside experts, Petraeus was simply trying to help foster an informed debate, not execute a snow job.

"This is a guy trying to do good government," Biddle said.

So, does this General look like the partisan, blind, manipulative puppet of Bush that the Democrats are trying to paint him as? I most certainly do not think so. Democrats of DeviantArt: certainly you don't agree with the way your party leaders are slandering this honest, well-qualified man, right? Certainly you don't like how the members of Congress have closed their minds to anything Petraeus might say tomorrow, right?

The way it looks to me is they're trying to discredit and slander the truly objective, truly qualified source so they can continue to claim that they're the objective ones. However, their plan is backfiring by revealing their blatant bias and prejudice.

I mean, is it too much to ask for the people and politicians of the US to set aside their party loyalties for just one day to listen to a truly honest assessment on Iraq tomorrow?