What do you think of Andrea Mitchell's revelations this morning?

[AnnInLa]

This morning on the Chris Matthews Show, NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell revealed that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, met “very recently” with the Senate Republican caucus to discuss their strategy on Iraq legislation.

“Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, I will have real progress to you by August,” Mitchell said. The Republicans claim they told him that after August, they will end their support for the war. “They have told him at a caucus meeting as very, very recently, that if there isn’t progress by August — and real progress means not a day of violence and a day of sanity — that they will pull the plug.”



Stunningly, Mitchell said that “moderate Republican” senators had told her that they didn’t believe the escalation would work but voted for it anyway. “They really are not in favor of the surge. They don’t believe it’s going to work. But they basically said the president has until August, until Labor Day. After that, if it doesn’t work, they’re running.”



MITCHELL: I think the Republicans are going to crack. What I’ve been told from inside the moderate center of the Republican caucus is that the vote in favor of the president this week — it was against the president but the Republicans holding for the president — was misleading. That they really are not in favor of the surge. They don’t believe it’s going to work. But they basically said the president has until August, until Labor Day. After that, if it doesn’t work, they’re running.

+++

MITCHELL: They’ll stick until September and then they’ll leave. I believe very firmly that they’re against what he is doing but they feel that General Petraeus has persuaded them that for all intents and purposes, they can’t vote a withdrawal before September.

video and transcript at link

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/petraeus-caucus/

[MADem]

1. It's WRONG. He politicized the military and he should be FIRED. NT

[Toots]

11. You would be amazed at how many people here are for the politicalization of the military.

I have ranted against Rush Limbaugh many times here and always people say that it is not wrong for him to be politicizing the military as long as Liberals can have someone on doing the same. I think there is no place at all for politicalization in the military. They are supposed to be America;s soldiers and not Republican or Democratis soldiers. I have been rebuked many times for my opinion on this so what can I say..

[MADem]

17. Well, any people who say that are idiots. And they're idiots who have never served in the military,

Or if they have, they've never had a lick of responsibility that required them to interface with the Hill.

That politicization crap is just "unhelpful." And that's putting it kindly.

I've never seen that opinion here, though. Most Democrats are smarter than that.

[annabanana]

66. people, HERE?

Really? Or people where you live? I don't recall anyone here saying that it was ok to politicize the military. Or the Justice Department. Or the Police Department. Or The Office of Budget Management. or any other Government entity.

It's not "OK" if anybody does it. The mere concept is profoundly Un-American

[Toots]

77. Here at DU

If you want proof just start a post about Rush Limbaugh on Armed Forces Radio and they will come out of the woodwork to defend his right to spew propaganda to out military. Freedom of Speech and all. The only thing they wish to change is to add a Liberal voice to the mix. I personally want the politics gone from the military GONE..

[jwirr]

84. There is a difference between who can be on the air waves and

politizing the military. The first is an issue of freedom of speech and most of DU was angry because they were not allowing a liberal to be on the military radio. I do not want them to hire blackwater, or halliburtin to take over any military responsibilities. They are nothing more than hired vigilantees.

[yardwork]

86. I've never seen that happen here at DU. Posters defending Rush Limbaugh?

[saltpoint]

2. Hard to say who said what in confidence, but I do get the feeling that

even the thickest Republican knows Bush's war is a disaster.

[rusty charly]

3. he has 1 'Friedman'

[Marr]

24. Exactly- funny, eh? He'll only get another when this one expires.

I can't believe anyone would still believe this "6 more months" bullshit.

[Jacobin]

31. you'd think they'd try for '5' or '7' or something just a bit different

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

4. What business does an active duty general have meeting with a Republican group?

[Terri S]

16. exactly my question!! nt

[rusty charly]

38. especially since they're the minority

the whole "the repugs are in power, that's why" is proving quite the lie.

[Supersedeas]

88. b/c he has the interest of the (R's) at heart

[ljm2002]

89. Now THAT is the $64K question!

What the hell!

It's bidness as usual for this crew, as long as they are allowed to get away with it.

[Mz Pip]

5. With that promise of progress

it shouldn't be a problem for the Repugs to support a timetable for withdrawl. They keep telling us how optimistic they are,so why not back up all that confidence with a plan to get the f*ck out of Iraq?

Mz Pip
:dem:

[tularetom]

6. Mitchell is a lightweight twit and Petraeus appears to be a fool

But I think she's correct. He is promising something he can't deliver. Unless he gets 10 times the troops he now has there is no chance of the situation in Iraq improving by Labor Day. This war has gone down the shitter and the only hope we have of retaining any credibility in the world is to get the hell out right now, or for the entire bush administration to resign and turn the whole mess over to the adults.

[MissWaverly]

14. we have already spent 111 million for Blackwater troops

they are paid mercenaries and there is 1 of them for every US soldier in Iraq, do you realize that their tab will be by Labor Day and there is no oversight of their actions, none at all.

[Poiuyt]

7. I heard that they wouldn't have voted for the original Iraq War Resolution if it

had been a confidential vote. But America wanted to go to war so bad in 2003 that no Senator wanted to be on record as being against it.

[Saturday]

8. Gee, do you think maybe they know there's an election coming

in 2008 and want to get on the 'right' side of the majority of Americans?

[EST]

9. Why can't these bastards EVER tell the truth?!

We-the people-need to know.
Oh, never mind. They are constitutionally unable to just tell it like it is. Cons are natural liars and would not have it any other way.

[UTUSN]

10. Labor Day? Can't they round it out to Sept 11? n/t

[sam sarrha]

12. Cheney was called to a meeting with King Faud who told him to get out of Iraq it was messing

everything up..

i think the Saudi's plan to invade The part of Iraq that the Sheites start killing the Sunni's in and grab as much of the oil as they can.. when we leave

[Blackhatjack]

13. I think this is correct. Add to that the deafening silence from the RW Noise Machine....

When attack repubs go silent, it is because they are making a course correction. I think the decision to abandon this president has already been made, and you find any standing with him the closer we come to the 2008 election.

That is why Novak put out the word to Repubs, it is ok to abandon Bush and pull together for the good of the Repub Party.

[starroute]

46. I don't think they're going to be able to triangulate this one

Bush's base -- the fanatical 29% -- is still behind him and behind the war and is only going to feel betrayed if the moderate Republicans disavow both.

Meanwhile, the real centrists in the country are the telling pollsters they no longer identify as Republicans -- some now identify as Democrats, but more as independents.

So whoever the GOP decides to run for the presidency in 2008 is going to have to appeal simultaneously to the disenchanted centrists and the betrayed fanatics -- not an easy job under the best of circumstances, and it will be all the harder if the extreme right comes up with a candidate of its own, like Brownback or Tancredo or Hunter.

The only way I could see them pulling it off is if they had a genuine national hero -- the equivalent of an Eisenhower. But the closest they come to that is Giuliani, and he's damaged goods three different ways.

Given that there's no way the presidential math adds up for them, the most likely scenario is that they're primarily interested at this point in saving their own skins. But there's another possibility to be concerned about -- which is that they, and their allies in the media, may do their best to see the weakest possible Democrat, the equivalent of a Jimmy Carter, installed in the presidency and then further discredited, in order to set the stage for a Reaganesque comeback in 2012.

We've learned from the post-Watergate scenario that merely discrediting the GOP doesn't work. What's needed is a fundamental reconfiguration of political allegiances. The breakdown of the old New Deal coalition opened the way for the Nixon/silent majority/Reagan coalition that has dominated national politics for the last 40 years. Now we need to take advantage of the Bush catastrophe to create a genuinely innovative progressive coalition -- one that cuts across old party lines and allegiances.

I've believed for a long time that there are three basic human motivations -- power, freedom, and love. Classic authoritarians are primarily motivated by power -- either having it themselves or worshipping it in others. Classic liberals are motivated by love, caring, nurturance. But libertarian conservatives are motivated by freedom, and they're the ones who are presently most turned off by the authoritarians.

The GOP thrived for 50 years on a Cold War perception that power and freedom were natural partners -- that you needed a strong defense to repel foreign tyrants. But the "war on terror" is a transparent contrivance to prop up that perception in a world where it clearly no longer applies.

At the same time, it's becoming increasingly possible to argue that love and freedom can work together harmoniously -- that liberalism doesn't have to mean a smothering nanny-state, and that the right-wing attempt to throw all the risks in life back on the individual actually undermines creativity and entrepreneurial experimentation by forcing everyone to play it safe.

Creative problem-solving, a can-do spirit, and the traditional American willingness to esteem both freedom and community equally are not only the values that we need to bring us out of our multiple current messes -- they are also potentially the basis of an electoral coalition as strong at the one Roosevelt forged during the New Deal.

[glitch]

59. Excellent post, deserves it's own thread. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

62. Smothering nanny-state?

:think:

[starroute]

71. I used the phrase in the context of arguing with libertarians

They look at things like seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws and see the threat of a society that is so bent on removing any risks whatsoever from life that it will make it impossible to experiment or take changes. I personally think their fears are largely misplaced -- but I do understand why they have them and would even agree that there is some validity to them.

What I'm suggesting is to get out of an unwinnable argument by switching to an area where liberals and libertarians can find common ground -- that is, the desirability of fostering creativity and new enterprises -- and work outward from there. If both sides could agree that attempting to remove all risk from life squashes creativity, but that making risks unacceptably high also squashes creativity, you'd have the basis for proceeding further.

(Guns and gun control, by the way, are a particularly sticky case of this argument over risk. But even there, if you can take the focus away from guns themselves and onto questions of how to maximize both personal security and personal freedom, you'd at least have the beginnings of a rational discussion.)

[Raksha]

69. That's a very good observation:

>>it's becoming increasingly possible to argue that love and freedom can work together harmoniously -- that liberalism doesn't have to mean a smothering nanny-state, and that the right-wing attempt to throw all the risks in life back on the individual actually undermines creativity and entrepreneurial experimentation by forcing everyone to play it safe.<<

I hadn't thought of it in exactly that way, but you're right of course. For example: with health care benefits being a perk associated only with SOME jobs but not all of them, how many people are stuck in jobs they hate and don't do especially well at because they can't afford to strike out in a different direction, not even because of the salary/paycheck but because of the health insurance?

Very good post--I agree that it deserves its own thread.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

15. Again, what business does an active duty general have meeting with a REPUBLICAN group?

Does this not represent a violation of the Hatch act?

[peacetalksforall]

18. First - when someone like A. Mitchell and GE tell us something

like this we have to question everything?

1. Is she doing this as a favor to the Repub Caucus?

She would be going against GE-WH.
She/GE would be pitting Patraeus against the WH.

Doesn't make any sense at all.

2. Is the WH using this story to soften the veto that's coming?

In no way could I conceive of PNAC giving up their plan.

Everyone has said that the WH wants this war played out until 2009.
That is probably just rhetoric as they want perpetual war, perpetual profits, and perpetual control over mere citizens.

But a person has to ask?

Has PNAC given up their plan to rule the ME - this 'little leak' by Mitchel is all orchestrated. There is no way in heaven or hell that Mitchell/GE is going to tell us anything that benefits mere citizens - we little people who continue to watch them propagandize day after day. Listening to the top five is like listening to the WH and PNAC, but with 100% manipulation.

So which/what is it?

[roody]

37. Thanks for the reminder.

[BeFree]

44. Are they telling bush to not veto the new bill?

Heck, the bill keeps the money flowing and buys time. Even tho the vote was on party lines it went exceedingly fast throught the senate.

So maybe this is their way of telling bush not to veto?

[Raksha]

70. I doubt very much that PNAC has given up their plan

to rule the Middle East, hardcore imperialistic ideologues that they are. What seems to be happening is that their support within the Republican party is eroding and they are becoming more and more isolated.

[Horse with no Name]

19. That bastard needs to be in front of a Congressional hearing explaining

why he felt the need to discuss the progress of the War with the minority party. It is politicization and it is something that he swore under oath he would not do.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

41. Is this not a clear cut violation of the Hatch act?

[Horse with no Name]

55. It seems like it would be close

BUT it sure smells like they are developing a strategy to use AGAINST the Dems.
For instance, they basically handed him their support until August.
At which time they will withdraw it if it isn't working. The thing that is left UNSAID is that Petraeus will come out in support of a withdrawal at that point.
It was a quid-pro-quo...their support for him now in exchange for his support in August.

[notadmblnd]

20. Why is Labor Day the deadline?

is it because that is when re-election campaigns will take off in full effect?

[GreenPartyVoter]

50. Because that is the time to roll out a new product?

[Why Syzygy]

21. Call me psychic ..

I had a vision the first night of 'shock'n'awe' of our soldiers leaving Iraq only under heavy cover and with bullets flying over their heads. Knew then it would be more dangerous leaving than entering. Hussein was a prophet too. He said we could never win an urban war in Iraq. He predicted exactly what has happened.

The "surge" better damn well be to get their asses out and now.

[peacetalksforall]

51. The real story here is with the U.S. Military Generals. Did they

really believe in this war? Did they agree to it to give Halliburton and other contractors a temporary windfall of money?

(Make that temporary - until the next wars - Africa and Latin America).

[peacetalksforall]

22. I htink we need an Official Thread on this one.

What is a riot is a parallel thread where Repubs are having a fit about Dems meeting with the head of the CIA just before the Plame-Wilson hearing. (Novak column)

Every legislative and protocol trick they came up with in these last six years should be exposed.

Every meeting of heads of the government should be revealed (not kept a secret).

Every name of attendees at secret meetings should be revealed.

Every Orrin Hatch who appears on TV to cry about Dems doing something legally that Republicans have done better illegally should be ridiculed.

Secret strategy meetings across party lines to break a stand-off should be the only kind of secret that we should tolerate. The qualifier should be whether they can talk about it willingly or on questioning in front of a microphone.

I've had it with secret meetings - like the Doan Republican strategy meetings on our dime, on our property, on our time. I think we should call the single party politization of our givernment at our expense and on our property A Doaner and Doaning. (But it might be too painful to have to have her testimony pop back up in our memories). Funny, the other day I referred to Sampson as Kyle DR Sampson. DR for Don't Remember. Doan - Don't. Interesting rhythm to that.

[AnnInLa]

23. Who and what do you think the "moderate center" of

the Republic Party is? I think McCain has painted himself into the same corner of the far-right section of the Republics, so am wondering who is leading this so-called Moderate Center?

[IggleDoer]

25. Lemme get this straight .....

If for one day, the Sunnis and Shiites make a deal (with the Repubs brokering a deal on the sidelines) to stop blowing each other up, then Bush the younger can declare victory and go home. Just one day without violence. They we leave and the violence can resume.

Sounds a lot like when Bush the smarter went to Iran to make a deal to keep the hostages there until the inaugral.

[BlooInBloo]

26. .66 F.U.

EDIT: Bad day for arithmetic.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. "until August, until Labor Day"

until you know, October 15, right around the end of the year, and then the next six months will be critical. I am so sick of their criminal excuses.

[RamboLiberal]

28. K&R - and Thinkprogress is on the story

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/petraeus-caucus/

This morning on the Chris Matthews Show, NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell revealed that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, met “very recently” with the Senate Republican caucus to discuss their strategy on Iraq legislation.

“Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, I will have real progress to you by August,” Mitchell said. The Republicans claim they told him that after August, they will end their support for the war. “They have told him at a caucus meeting as very, very recently, that if there isn’t progress by August — and real progress means not a day of violence and a day of sanity — that they will pull the plug.”

Stunningly, Mitchell said that “moderate Republican” senators had told her that they didn’t believe the escalation would work but voted for it anyway. “They really are not in favor of the surge. They don’t believe it’s going to work. But they basically said the president has until August, until Labor Day. After that, if it doesn’t work, they’re running.”

Hope this doesn't get buried by a holiday week when Congress is out of session and journalists for the most part are on vacation as well. Wonder if KO is on the job this week?

[Swede]

29. Gee,all the luck soldiers that get to die for this little farce til fall.

This is a farce.

[rodeodance]

90. Bingo------

[WinkyDink]

30. Andrea got the real message out to the "moderates": "if it doesn’t work, they’re running.”

RUNNING.

"Think twice, guys; this is what you'll be tagged with."

[tblue37]

53. But instead of leaving honorably, they will

let more troops die, just to cover Republican butt. This so needs to be pinned to them so they can't shake free of it.

[WinkyDink]

64. There's always: "Why does Bush want more troops to die for Iraq?"

[Cosmocat]

80. Easy answer ...

partnered with the "there are SIGNS that it it working" ... When the Ds finally break through and find a way to defund the war, the foundation will be there that they can do what they do, wait a few years until the masses get fat and lazy again,. then say "we would have won the Iraq war had the Ds not defunded it, George Bush's plan to surge was working ..."

[rateyes]

32. If it was anybody but Andrea Mitchell saying it... nt

[EVDebs]

33. R's assume the Iraq insurgents will cooperate ...

"A September 2006 poll of both Sunnis and Shias found that 71% of Iraqis wanted the U.S. to leave within a year, with 65% favoring an immediate pullout and 77% voicing suspicion that the U.S. wanted to keep permanent bases in Iraq.<32> 61% approved of attacks on U.S. forces.<33>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_insurgency (under Analysis and Polls)

The Republican Party's support for the 14 Permanent Bases is what got the Quakers spied upon by the NSA,

"If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases?"

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

If R's can't see the inherenent contradictions in their own plans, how praytell, do they expect to "win" anything ?

Besides, this crazy occupation planning has been a part of DOD planning for the region since 1973,


Document reveals Nixon plan to seize Arab oil fields
'70s embargo sparked 'last resort' measure, says British memo
Lizette Alvarez, New York Times
Friday, January 2, 2004
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

Oddly, it took the British to leak this information, not the NYTimes and check the release date, during a holiday, when the least readership would take note of it.

Please rent Three Days Of The Condor, and near the end, when the CIA/Cliff Robertson character says, "Will they (NYT) publish ?" you can answer truthfully, "No", as they did with Judith Miller et al. to enable this sad situation to unfold.

[bvar22]

34. How can they ask US soldiers to DIE so that ....

How can they ask US soldiers to DIE for the political convenience of the Republican Party?

How can the Democratic Party continue to FUND this insanity for Political Convenience?

How can you ask a soldier to DIE so that the WAR PRESIDENT can have one last chance to look good long after FAILURE has been written in stone?



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[ClayZ]

36. How can any of them sleep?

How do they even ever smile? NO MORE WAR!

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

58. Exactly, The perfect post (imho)

Nicely summed up!

Peace

[NMDemDist2]

35. 5 more months in the meat grinder -- oh joy!

:sarcasm:

[Forkboy]

39. I think the republican Caucus should stop trying to micromanage the war from Washington

:evilgrin:

[Dawgs]

54. Thank you!!!

[European Socialist]

40. If Petraeus is so great, why couldn't he get Iraq's troops ready.

He had 3 years to do it and made very little progress.

[DemReadingDU]

42. September? Why then?

What is going to happen this summer? or not happen?

[Bucky]

52. That's a great question. It may have to do with cycles of violence in Iraq so far

Septembers tend to precede dramatic upticks in the violence in Iraq. People laying low for the summer? Who knows? But the pattern seems clear, based on this graph of US military fatalities. If things are tamped down by the end of summer, we can expect an even bloodier mess in the fall.



This is ajust a guess. For all I know September is when the Rapture comes and the senators all wanna get right with Jesus.

[DemReadingDU]

61. That is an interesting graph

Also the entire website is very interesting!

[sellitman]

43. Wazzzmadda? Getting a little too close to 08?

These Repukes are sweating it already.

[Bucky]

45. But that's not a "deadline" or a "time table" is it? Cause otherwise, the terrorists have won.

[Roy]

48. A deadline for their support only, not redeployment......

They still will not support a deadline or timetable.

They just will not PUBLICLY give lip service to this president, they will still enjoy their fattened portfolios for so long as Bush trade troops for dollars though.

[Jonathan50]

47. Some subordinates do not like General Petaeus..

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/01/commander-in-chief-defies-his-generals.html

Incidentally, I offer the following sidenote about General Petraeus, by almost all accounts an enormously accomplished man: A student of mine at the UT Law School, who had had combat experience in both Afghanistan and Iraq, referred to him as "General Betrayus" because of what was thought to be his inordinate interest in good publicity (and presumed self-promotion) rather than concern for his troops. I have no idea whether this is fair, but I do know that this is what my sober and thoughtful student told me.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/11/generals_of_yes.html

Comment below written by: TBone

I don't know GEN Petraeus personally...but when I was in the "Devil Brigade" folks called him "Colonel Betrayus". He came up with things like the "Devil button" (button your BDU collar up to the top when on jumps) and the "Devil grip" (special name for keeping your trigger finger out of the trigger well) which sounded hokey to most of the troops at the time.

[originalpckelly]

49. Excuse me? A general met with a partisan caucus in the Senate?

This is what you fools trying to politicize the military get, that's a very very dangerous thing to happen and it shows Gen. Petraeus is conspiring with Republicans. That cannot be tolerated.

[madinmaryland]

56. That is what stunned me. Why the hell is he meeting

with a select group of Republic senators?

:grr:

[originalpckelly]

65. Yes, I hope that the House/Senate Armed Services Committees look into this.

This is totally inappropriate, and some type of punitive action should be taken against the General because of it.

[NewJeffCT]

75. Didn't Republics get bent out of shape over Waxman meeting with the CIA head?

Or, am I misremembering that?

[originalpckelly]

85. Did the CIA head meet with him as the head of a Congressional committee...

or as a Democrat? I'm pretty sure Mike Hayden didn't meet with only the Democratic caucus, he just met with the chairman of a committee.

[NewJeffCT]

87. I'm sure it was as the head of the committee

However, stubborn things like "facts" and "truth" usually don't hinder the Republican ability to show mock outrage.

[depakid]

57. Mitchell has no credibility

So it really doesn't matter what she says.

[Beetwasher]

60. BWAHAAHAHAHA! What Idiots! It's ALREADY Politically Too Late For Them

to cut and run from Chimpy's disaster, and they are STILL going to give him until August???? :rofl:

Does 'myopic' even begin to cover it?

[The Backlash Cometh]

63. Wow. That's worse than saying I was for it, before I was against it.

Those Republicans were against it, and still voted for it.

[lpbk2713]

67. Military personnel take an oath of allegiance to the entire USA ....

not to any particular sect or political party. He should be demoted and canned.

[progressoid]

68. August? Sounds like a TIMELINE to me!

Why do they hate the troops?

[Danascot]

72. There are "moderate" Republicans?

Hooda Thunk?!

[NewJeffCT]

74. well, I thought there was maybe 1, didn't realize it was a 'caucus'

Hagel & Graham certainly aren't moderate, but may appear a bit moderate compared to the radicals on the right that make up the mass of them.

[Senator]

73. GOP to Troops: "See You In September ... Maybe."

Everyone send the link to Imus. [e-mail]

Maybe when he gets Mitchell on the phone he can pin her down over her Valerie Plame lies.

--

[liberalla]

76. I would really have liked to heard what Joe Klein

was trying to say. It sounded like he was completely contradicting her. (Mitchell)
(I had taped it and just went back to watch it again)

The video clip at Think Progress is edited and omits about 37 seconds at one point, including this:

Klein: Can I just say there has been a really unfair time line set.
Petraeus has said "You can't cut it off in August", but everybody's looking to August.
And I think the six -

Matthews interrupts: Well because the term six months got into the air.

Klein: Well six months -

Matthews: "Who came up with that? The President did.

Klein: The President did, Condi did, and especially George Casey who doesn't like Petraeus very much, did -

Mitchell interrupts: Excuse me, * Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, I will have real progress to you by August. They told him, if — we’ll stick with you —

KLEIN: I don’t think he did.

MITCHELL: Well, I — excuse me…

MATTHEWS: Agree to disagree.

KLEIN: I believe that he did not, and I think that this is a…
________________________

* this is where the video and transcript cut in.

He was shaking his head in disagreement and seemed equally confident in his assertion that Petraeus did not say or do this. So, I would be curious as to what his full comment would have been.

[tsuki]

78. Isn't this Andrea Greenspan? And I should believe her about

"moderate Republicans?" Wasn't Chafee defeated? What "moderate republicans" is she talking about?

[TwilightGardener]

79. Truly wrong and should be looked into if Petraeus is meeting

with Repugs only, or if the purpose of the meeting was to conspire with 'Pugs politically about the war. If he met with Dems, would he be telling THEM the same thing? Either way, hopefully word of this will reach the general public and everyone will know that the Repugs in the Senate (with honorable exceptions) knew they were sending kids into the "grinder" AFTER they knew the war was hopeless--just like LBJ. Sick. The only Republicans left standing in '08 should be the ones who broke early and followed their consciences. The rest of them can go to hell.

[Ganja Ninja]

81. "I will have real progress to you by August."

It's the same tired old story with a twist. Instead of doing the projecting themselves they have to have someone from outside of the administration or the GOP do their projecting for them since the general public doesn't trust them anymore.
I expect the story in July will be we're turning the corner and things should start looking up by the 1st of the year. If it's spring then progress is coming in the fall. If it's summer then progress is coming in January. If it's January then progress is coming by the summer.

[TwilightGardener]

82. Yup--there will always be a "six more months"--until Nov 2008.

Like someone who beats his wife--"Please--give me one more chance!" The American public has soured, though, and the impatience will snowball, I predict.

[MilesColtrane]

83. I thought the revelation was going to be...

that Greenspan likes to be tied up and "Objectified" by her, all the while calling her Ayn.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

91. I just forwarded this to Keith Olbermann. eom