Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Gen. Petraeus' report was potentially compromised by the White House's involvement in drafting it.

"If the same people who were so wrong about this war from the start are writing substantial portions of this report, that raises credibility questions," he said.

Republicans bristled at the pre-emptive strike against the report.

"Are these leaders asking the American people to believe that the testimony of a commanding four-star general in the U.S. Army should be discarded before it's even delivered?" said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

"If so, these statements completely ignore what's truly at stake in this war and suggest that neither the commander in chief nor our chief commander on the ground have any regard for the lives of the men and women fighting for this country," he said. "It's appallng, and I think the American people — rightfully — will continue to stick by the decisions of our commanders and troops on the ground when it comes to what is best for their safety and security."

Mr. Bush's surprise visit Monday to Iraq's Anbar province showcased success in the one-time al Qaeda stronghold where Sunni tribal leaders teamed with U.S. troops to drive out the terrorists and rapidly improve security.

Despite continued bloodshed in Iraq, the president's visit was one of several recent signs of U.S. military success in Iraq that blunted antiwar momentum leading up to the September progress report.

The congressionally mandated report from the administration, which will be delivered in two parts by Gen. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker, is expected to show some U.S. military advances, but limited progress from the fledgling Iraqi government toward ending sectarian fighting.

Democrats said they put more faith in a report Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office that showed Iraq failed to meet 11 of 18 political and security benchmarks set by Congress.

They also favored an analysis due today
by Gen. James L. Jones, former U.S. commander in Europe, that is expected to say security gains have been "uneven" and Iraqi security forces are ill-prepared to stand alone, according to a CNN report.

"We will see what the Bush report will be at the end of next week," Mrs. Pelosi said. "The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made. They might want to find one or two places where there has been progress but the plural of anecdote is not data."

She said Democrats were determined to uncover "the ground truth in Iraq."

the iraqi government has failed to achive most of their benchmarks but i think the general is right as well. no reason not to give the surge a little more time. i think the most productive and positive news from the whole article is that the tribal leaders are making their voices heard by standing up against the al queda in iraq. the citizens themselves are the most important piece of making this work.

After a period of relative calm, recent days have seen an uptick in violence.

The Iraqi government, meanwhile, called a critical independent U.S. assessment of its security posture unacceptable interference in its affairs.

The study, released Wednesday and led by retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, found that Iraq's security forces will be unable to take control of the country in the next 18 months. It said the Iraqi National Police is so rife with corruption it should be scrapped entirely.

The assessment was expected to factor heavily into Congress' debate on the war, with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and top commander Gen. David Petraeus due to begin hearings on Monday.

Yassin Majid, an adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said "it is not the duty of the independent committee to ask for changes at the Interior Ministry, especially when it comes to security apparatus."

"This is an Iraqi affair, and we will not accept interference by anyone in such work, whether the Congress or others," Majid told The Associated Press by telephone. "The report is inaccurate and not official and we consider it interference in our internal affairs."

"The al-Maliki government will do this with all state agencies. We will not take dictation from reports," he said.



"WE only answer to Bush!!!" The gall.....

since they said that the independent assessment of it's security posture was unacceptable interference does that mean that they don't need our support and our troops can come home?

U.S. forces in Iraq should be reduced significantly, according to a new study on Iraq's security forces that inflamed debate in Congress on how quickly that can happen without hurling the country into chaos.

The report, authored by a 20-member panel comprised mostly of retired senior military and police officers, said the massive deployment of U.S. forces and sprawl of U.S.-run facilities in and around Baghdad has given Iraqis the impression that Americans are an occupying, permanent force.


Go read what this 20 member panel of retired SENIOR military officers said, and find out who they are!!!


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3566485

Spider, I read the same article and I thought it was a little humorous and just a little sad too. It points to extremely closed minds in the Democrat party.

I get the feeling they are like salesman, when you ask if their product will perform they tell you it has a really fine red paint. It makes the point that the paint is red, but it does not address whether it will actually work. If my only criteria was to have red paint, why would I be asking if the product works?

So anyway, did you have an opinion on the article.

My PoliSci prof would never let me get away with so much info and so little opinion (interpretation).

See Petraeus has to worry about his job.

These great Americans dont!! They are beyond Bush's touch!

Fanta, can you paint that dog red for me? Cause I already know the dog won't hunt.

You miss the facts though!

The GAO and this 20 member panel, 2 separate reports, are both Independent reports!

Why blame the Democrats when its obviously Bush who are trying to pull the wool over Americans eyes!!!

who is!!!????

i agree with what the reports are saying about turning more power over to the iraqis' but the bottom line is that their security forces are not up to par yet so i don't think we should begin the withdrawal right away. eventually i'd hope that the only U.S. forces left over there would be to chase down terrorist networks.

"Fanta, can you paint that dog red for me? Cause I already know the dog won't hunt!"


The report, authored by a 20-member panel comprised mostly of retired senior military and police officers, said the massive deployment of U.S. forces and sprawl of U.S.-run facilities in and around Baghdad has given Iraqis the impression that Americans are an occupying, permanent force.


Looky, Looky answered both without typing but nine words!!!

So you can't paint the dog red? Dang I was hoping for a straight answer for once.

Hello, they are an occupying force!!!

There will be an American Air base there till forever and support troops behind it. Can anyone spell geopolitics? For heaven's sake, just go ahead and tell me how much you want to give away and get it over with.

i'm all for withdrawing them now but it won't do any good i don't think. i understand the point of them thinking that it is an occupying force and i agree with turning over more power to their security forces but i don't think that it can be done right now because of the fragility of their security forces. your article even supports the idea that their security forces are not ready to stand on their own for at least another year.
the whole situation is like being caught between a rock and a hard place because even though i think we need to give them more control over their own affairs it would be dangerous to do it at this exact time.

when i said give them more control over their own affairs i was speaking of the security forces.

OK,
In other words, as long as they continue to think we will be a permanent occupying all protective force, they will never be ready, there will never be anything but a continued escalation of civil war and violence!

20 military experts with out fear of being fired by Bush for not backing his policies VS David Petraeus whose future does!

Or thinking the dog wont hunt?????

I'll take the 20 experts, of which at least 2 were commanders of USAEUR!!!

One Ambassador Crocker, whose career depends on sucking Bush's ass VS an independent GAO!!!!

How about we paint that dog yellow, so we wont accidentally shoot him, and a promise not to take Cheney hunting with us!

i agree with the part about them seeing us as an occupying force but i don't think too many of them see us an all protective force. i don't think that the main issues with the security forces is with them wanting us to do it but with the corruption.

well when brietain pulls out

it will be a harder sell

to convince any to stay

You mean the civil war??? king.

we protect one side and tell the world the other is terrorist!