Try this little thought experiment.

You ask Hillary Obama Edwards a difficult question. They look you in the eye, tell you they’re going to give you a forthright answer,and then they totally dodge the question.

You’d go away perfectly satisfied, wouldn’t you?

Yeah, that experiment, I would not be surprised about a dodged question from any politician, however, I don’t think Petreaus dodged that question. I think he gave the correct answer, which is: He didn’t know and wouldn’t try to make up some bogus answer.

You ask Hillary Obama Edwards a difficult question. They look you in the eye, tell you they’re going to give you a forthright answer,and then they totally dodge the question.

You’d go away perfectly satisfied, wouldn’t you?

Sorry, I should have said honorable and forthright

Is there something wrong with his answer?

Sen. Robert Menendez: If the commander in chief said to you, Gen. Petraeus, how many more years do American soldiers have to continue in Iraq, what would your answer to him be?

Gen. David Petraeus: I would give a forthright answer, Senator: I cannot predict that.

So honorable that when Bush looked around him, and couldn’t find a general he could listen to, when Bush stood there in his emperor’s new clothes and asked: “Is there no general who will put on kneepads for me?”, Petraeus decided the only honorable thing to do was to put up his hand.

Yes, definitely a tough job. But he’s been doing it exceedingly well so far, hasn’t he?

(unless it is warranted)

as opposed to?

He is a good soldier

that depends, doesn’t it? you might like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but if his expert critics are right, he’s nothing more than a shill. and the independent numbers at least cast credible doubt. and by obscuring his methodology, he adds weight to this doubt.

the democrats don’t have a pair between them. but that’s not equivalent to a general possibly falsifying conditions. you give him the benefit of the doubt, but call them pussies when they do the same? which is it?

they said it was petraeus’ report. then all of a sudden it is the white house report

I understand what you are saying now, that the “Petraeus” report is something entirely different than what Petraeus wrote for his assessment and testimony and that the Administration has been billing it as the “Petraeus” report when in fact it shouldn’t have even had his name on it.

Well, I pretty much done trying to defend anything from Bush’s admin (unless it is warranted) but I trust in Petraeus (even given any criticism over the 2004 op-ed).

He is a good soldier and was unanimously confirmed to do a tough job, so either we trust him to do it or the democrats need to sound off like they have a pair and take the necessary actions to stop this war. The barking without the bite doesn’t do anyone any good….

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.” The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. “There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views” to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus.

if you can’t see a pattern of ghostwritting, you’re not looking. for months, they said it was petraeus’ report. then all of a sudden it is the white house report. then shortly after that revelation, word comes that it’s never going to be released. this isn’t how things work in a democracy, and it’s yet another example of bush hiding behind the troops, even if the troop he’s hiding behind is one of his fellow political hacks.

and before you start crying for petraeus’ honor, re-read his 2004 op-ed. pure politics.

“The report comes out later this week from the white house. The testimony, or assessment, by Petraeus is his own.”

So a report to come out later is the thing being written by the Whitehouse, Gen. Petraeus’ testimony/assessment is in fact his own and questions about who authored his testimony appear to be conflating the two (not saying you conflated the two but it appears that this same article has been used as a basis to do just that).