Listening to National Public Radio today about new Bin Laden tapes, they were so worried that they not be forgeries! My first thought was, too bad they aren't half as worried about what comes out of the mouths of those speaking for the Military Industrial Complex. There's a river of money involved and it's no good unless profiteers get their squeeze. Leave it to the Republicans to lift up their skirts with glee!

tony somera, champaign, illinois

where is Michael Moore when you need him??!!

It's obvious the Calamity Bush is leaving the White House next year and he doesn't want the weight of the illegal war in Iraq on is shoulder before he leaves.

My personal opinion, Bush should be charged for war crimes along with Blair and their crones and leave this "general" to play toy soliders.

tad, scotland,

"Had we had the ability to see the future and the back-stabbing of our so-called allies, perhaps we should have told the Brits to BF themselves" -richard everett, Lebanon, NH, USA

Your president (sic) fabricates his 'dossier' on Iraqi WMDs and invades a sovereign nation. That in itself is a war crime but hey, I guess theres one rule for the US, and another for the rest of us, eh?

Now people are dying there for nothing. American casualties are peanuts compared to the death of Iraqi civilians, regardless of who is killing them. If the roles had been reversed, would you Americans be backing us as 'buddies'? Of course not! Grow up! This isn't a playground and you're not 12.

Pete, Cov,

The General, despite his service to this point, has currently and clearly accepted his political role working for the Bush administration. Motivations for this are unclear and are irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether such a role is in direct contradiction to American style democracy and the spirit of the Constitution. Clearly it is. Petraeus is Bush's General, all the way, for good or bad, and the mountains of evidence and peer testimonial suggest the old guard, not the Neocons, are bristling at his demagoging. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas, as they say. Fallon should squash him like a bug for fronting BushCo so hard. Links are hardly necessary. Read the paper.

Name Withheld, Scooterville,

To Ronnie from Paris,

I think the reason why most Americans bring up the WW2 issue, is that we for some reason think you French and British are our allies, (why I have no clue) considering the amount of US soldiers lives that were sacrificed so Hitler didn't level your countries. The majority of opinions and comments posted here are always so negative against the US and make me sick. We bring this up because we ask ourselves, was the loss of US soldiers worth it to a bunch or people who hate us so much. Fine, you hate Bush, and we never should have entered Iraq, but why does Europe seem to turn the other cheek at radical islamic issues and terrorism. I promise you all would think much different if 3000 lives were lost in Paris, or London. Plus, many Americans wish the war was over as well, but are also smart enough to realize terror will still exist reagrdless. I feel frustrated because the terror threats seem like no big deal to Europe and I just wonder why not.

Chris, Tampa, USA

It's the General's report. Not Bush's.

I don't buy the trumped up media spin that Patraeus is in Bush's pocket. He's professional military, thus he's a man of high honor and integrity - a man of much higher character, personal honor and responsibility than anyone in the media or politics.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

As a liberal I have absolutely no reason to fear Iran and its inevitable takeover of Iraq. If I recall correctly, 15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, not Iranian; the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi, not Iranian; Saudi money has been found in the hands of terrorists in Chechnya, Indonesia, UK, Italy, and North Africa, not Iranian. Why the drumbeat to attack Iran? Iran is more democratic than Saudi Arabia and, quite frankly, the country more beautiful. Give Iraq to Iran and let's leave. Let the Afghanis handle their own affairs - if we are concerned about extremism, we must attack the source - Saudi Arabia. Otherwise, the cycle of violence will never end.

Retreating is sometimes the BEST option that will lead to victory in the end.

scalito, Houston, TX

I can say, for idealogical reasons, "give the guy a chance."

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

As the writer of the Gore Years (http://thegoreyears.wordpress.com/) I am no conservative or supporter of the war.

But I do feel the troops, many of whom are just kids who had know idea what they bargained for when they signed up, are the ones paying the price of Bush's policies.

Having said that, Patreus is considered by even independent analysts as one of the best field generals the U.S. has, and, really, the only good appointment Bush has made.

Patreus is not a Bush Buddy, he just has a track record of independent thinking (as far as such a thing goes) within the military.

I can't, for ideological reasons, say, "give the guy a chance."

I can say that when things go wrong, don't blame him.

thegoreyears, San Jose, CA

Liberals will ultimately show their colors - they no more support the troops than they support the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is back to spitting on soldiers once again.

By the way, if Al Qaeda and in-country warring factions can get the best military in the world's rear kicked out of Iraq, what will stop them from doing the same in Afghanistan once we retreat from Iraq and Al Qaeda re-focuses in Afghanistan?

Is it - Who cares? Let them have Afghanistan? I think we did that once....

Paul, San Diego, CA

If General "Betraeus" were indeed a "man of honor and integrity", he would apologize publicly to the Iraqi people for hundreds of thousands of dead and then resign. If he wanted to be a real hero, he'd take a few able men, go to the White House and arrest Bush and Cheney and put them on a plane to The Hague. Preferrably taped naked to stretchers with bags over their heads, like it is customary these days for prisoners of the US military.

Matt, Wuerzburg, Germany

Those of you who think you can win in Iraq might consider that the troubles in Northern Ireland involved two parties, not thee, and lasted 30 years, for most of which the neighbouring government did not actively support the insurgent parties. It finally ended when the two warring factions decided they wanted it to end, not because of any outside action. The situation in Iraq is a political problem and no military solution is likely to alter that, much like your war of independence actually.

Mark Wilson, Nottingham, England

You should read the 28 Articles By Cnl David Kilcullen.
At least he is trying to change the way the army
operates in Iraq, & get away from the Gung Ho approach opted by old style Generals.
The US military are doing everything they can to
bring some kind of peace to Iraq.
But the Iraq goverment it the biggest problem
They can not make a decision on anything.
If you want to lay blame on some one start with the Iraq goverment.
As usual TV & the news papers give us nothing but doom & gloom, their is an incredable amount of good work going on behind the scenes.
That never ever gets a mention.

Taylor, Brisbane=Australia, AUSTRALIA

Dear Joseph Yang, Taipei, Taiwan, "the world" doesn't "want the US to fail in Iraq". In fact "the world" wish the US never went to Iraq.
You say that "failure is not an option in Iraq", quite right, it is now a fact, and its consequences ARE a global catastrophe.
But you still have a great point: "There is something very dangerous going on" and "We have to deal with the aftermath of Bush's mistakes...". You should set up a think-tank.

Ronnie, PARIS, FRANCE

One would expect that Times readers express strong opinions but in a decent, courteous and more importantly, educated manner. Apparently the quality and elevation of some comments by US readers don't always match that of the articles.
Two examples:
America saved other nations backsides, some 60 years ago, and then should enjoy eternal gratitude.
Actually UK (and France, by the way) repayed all their debts, in cash. As for the body count, I'm afraid that "old Europe" had far more dead in WWII than America since 1776, meaning that it also paid in blood for it's mistakes, failures and even cowardice.
So the question about Americans RIP in Normandy and elsewhere is: are they a long term geopolitical investment or only as citizens fallen in combat for shared principles under the terms of previous diplomatic agreements?
Brits (and others) should stay out of American politics.
Sorry again. Since US politics has a finger in almost every country's domestic policy, we have a word!

Ronnie, PARIS, FRANCE

I don't understand why the world wants the US to fail in Iraq, even if they view Bush as the second hitler. The consequences of failure will be a global catastrophe. Al Qaeda and Islamic Militants are not the cold war communists. There is something very dangerous going on. Yeah, maybe Saddam, the middle-east mafia boss should have stayed, but that is history. We have to deal with the aftermath of Bush's mistakes... and failure is not an option in Iraq.

Joseph yang, Taipei, Taiwan

Bush is trying to cast his mistakes on the Iraqi government
Government without responsibilities How will succeed
I think Bush made iraq as a field of testing and gave great support to extremists through his actions


Iraqi person

Muhsin Najim Abid, Bristol, UK

Had we had the ability to see the future and the back-stabbing of our so-called allies, perhaps we should have told the Brits to BF themselves. That is how you Limeys like to say it, isn't it?
What is that old phrase; "with friends like this, who needs enemies?"

richard everett, Lebanon, NH, USA

Spot on!
very good article Sarah Baxter, thank you once again.

Stanzler, NY, USA

It truly is a sign of the times that even the generals are pilloried like any other political figure. And Bush, keenly aware of his historic lack of credibility with the people, is doing his damndest to position himself as close as possible to the military - still the most revered institution this country has.

Petraeus is no doubt a very capable man, but the expectations Bush has heaped on him would require superhuman talents to meet. He may be a brilliant military tactician, but he cannot solve the intractable problems of Iraqi politics nor can he create a unified nation out of warring tribal factions. This war shall not be won by the marginally increased security that Petraeus has provided in Baghdad. It will be lost by Iraqis failing to have the political will to unite as a nation. Petraeus is powerless against that, but it will be very interesting to see how he frames his supplication for more time come September. This entire war is now just an exercise in face saving.

Ben M, Denver, Colorado

The most interesting thing about the bile spouted by rightwing Americans here is the depth of hatred for the Democrats. It is very apparent that the Iraq War and the so-called 'war on terror' has nothing to do with American foreign policy and everything to do with suppressing political dissent within the US. This - coupled with their profound ignorance, denial and inability to accept responsibility for their own catastrophic mistakes - is deeply worrying. I think it's a fair assumption that most of these people have guns. How will they behave when Bush finally goes and the neocon project is finally put to sleep? The terrorism threat to the US tomorrow will be from the far right, it will dwarf the 'Islamist' threat and I have no doubt that many who have raised their voices here will be among its celebrants.

Kate, Hampshire, US

As a full time political junkie, with the exception of the ultra-wacko 'Daily Kos/Code Pink" Left, I've seen essentially ZERO commentary in the American media that would support the headline re. Gen. Betraeus........that Larry Korb was associated with the Reagan Admin does not mean he's ever been anything other than a critic of virtually any and all things pro-USA for quite some time, so to use him as a source is simply preposterous.

carl palminteri, Monterey, ca

I don't see the importance of what Petraeus reports, whether accurate or not.

The US has lost in Iraq. Actually, it has more than lost, it has created a human catastrophe to no point whatsoever.

All it can do is prolong the agony.

John , Toronto, Canada

You can almost always know who is right, by seeing which side engages in ad hominem argument. When you don't have the facts or logic, smear the the other side. Why can't we wait to see what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker say and the logic of the next steps? The situation here is very complex, so every one will choose ancedotes to justify their politics. These two gentlemen are the responsible officers of our government. At least they should be given the benefit of the doubt

wiliam glueck, Baghdad,

Everybody knew this was coming. With only weeks left before General Petreaus gives his surge assesment--panic has set in. The surge is flat out working, and that is anathma to everything the Democrats stand for or believe in. Without a war to undermine they simply cannot get elected. They are masters of playing on the concerns of good Americans to achieve their ends. Their Country has always taken a back seat to their lust for power. The democratic party, more than any other group is responsible for the loss of life in Iraq. They never miss a chance to give aid and comfort to the enemy--just read the article above. Get ready, the smear campaign is on. If I were General Petreaus I would call these people out in his address. I would call them what they are--traitors! Then I would have them arrested en mass.

JayRay, No. Richland Hills,

In reply to Warner Todd, Minarets and Couscous are not all that is left in the UK, but we are getting there.

tony, birmingham, uk

With just one little modification, that great speech by COL Kilgore still fits the overall situation :

"You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son.
Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' Hadji body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill.

Smelled like... victory.

Someday this war's gonna end... "

Yep, bro'. At least the show business industry will have opportunities and add some sequels to "Apocalypse now" and "Full Metal Jacket", the military cultural references of our time.

Ronnie, PARIS, FRANCE

My, my. Ron Moore doesn't know who the retired general is, and there are a lot of them, but he does know it's all about the Democrats. I wish I had his crystal balls.

Saul Johnston, Buffalo, NY

>privately calling him “General Betraeus” on the grounds that he is too ambitious...

Ambition=Betrayal?

Ohhhh, I get it. Because maybe “his ambition may be used in an inappropriate way.” That would be bad. So let's call him a betrayer. Sounds like a good way to preempt any success he might be having.

Brian, SD, CA

Either you are malicious or uninformed. The CONGRESS determined that the PRESIDENT must report on the progress of the surge. Thus, the White House staff is writing the report. What part of "following the law" don't you understand?

Laurence Smith, Titusville, Florida

Vince, "Betraeus" is from a retired general, supposedly, American but not identified in article. What I enjoyed was the description of Petraeus as "brilliant". Note the quotation marks !

US government is deluded & blinkered by illusions of global supremacy. Average American I have met or work with are absolute gems. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for their political leaders.

J. Taylor, London,

THE REPORT will simply be more grist for the mill. The Demoncrats have before, and are ready ,willing , and able, to again throw enough sand in the machinery to grind it to a halt. Consequences be damned.
And there will be consequeences. If Hillary is elected every wolf will be feeding on us and every opportunity for capitulation will be taken. Folks it should be a helluva ending.

Habu, Orange Park, FL

I haven't seen any reporter say why the White House, not Petraeus, is writing the report, even though for all of them it's significant enough to report. Sarah, if you want to write something new, true, and important, tell us why the White House is writing it. I suspect it's something benign; otherwise THAT would be your headline.

MissOrange, oceanside,

Must....lose......war.......

Must........save..........Democrats.........

Surge working.....makes Dems look bad.....must spin like Iranian centerfuge..........

"General Betraeus is just parroting White House propaganda! Never mind what he's actually accomplished, NOBODY believes anything he says!"

stockula, Anchorage,

Obviously, the concern is that Petraeus might report good news. Hence the need to discredit him, and the sooner the better. Democrats are invested in American defeat, because they see it as the path to domestic electoral success, which certainly is more important than defeating Islamists (and spiting Bush is always a plus). Sarah Baxter's sympathies obviously lie with the American Defeatocrats.

My prediction: we will not be allowed to win or even log significant victories while Republicans are in charge. Only once Democrats can take credit will victories become conventional wisdom.

kevin, West Lafayette, usa / in

Two equally brilliant people can hold opposing views on the basis of a single, possibly minor, premise. That is what keeps the lawyers going.

Henry Percy, London, UK

I know you Brits are across the pond and all, but you act as if you are on another planet. To imagine that Petraeus is universally disbelieved by "Americas" even a month BEFORE his testimony is as obtuse as can be. Those against his report before he even gives it would not have their minds changed by facts if those facts came up and knocked them in the head! Only extremists and far, left lunatics have their mind made up about Petraeus before the facts are even in.

So tell me, Times on-line. Should I imagine that every Brit exactly agrees 100% with your favorite politician, George Galloway? Or, should I, as befitting an intelligent person, have the good sense to realize that only your own extremists love him?

Perhaps I might be wrong? Maybe self-hating, nihilists are all that are left in England? Maybe Minarets and couscous are all that is left there?

If so, I mourn a once great but long passed civilization.

Warner Todd Huston, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Predictable that the slanted liberal media would try and discredit General Petraeus and his report, even before it was submitted. In the liberal mind, only failure and doom and gloom would be an acceptable report. Garbage journalism, indeed!

Kirt, Marshall, Tx

Sarah doesn't get that the "Center for American Progress" is a hard left front group headed by FORMER Senator Tom Daschle. Vladimir Putin is a right wing extremist compared to Tom Daschle.

Harry R, Seattle, WA

Any outcome other than total defeat will be disastrous for the Democrats and they will smear Petraeus to ensure the perception we've lost.. Remember the Dem's motto: "Party before God, Party before country, Party before family, Party all the time." This is why Al Qaeda sees the Democrats as their greatest ally , they both want the same thing: a US defeat.

JDMCarter, Cool, CA USA

Sarah Baxter should have taken the trouble to look at the results in Iraq. Even the most poorly military-educated journalist should understand counter-insurgency operations take a LONG time: P4 and Big O have made significant achievements. Al Anbar tribesmen are now fighting Al Qa'ida. (Remember Malaya). The Sunni Arab to the north of Baghdad are coalescing and requesting Coalition Force to fight Al Qa’ida. Evidence that the US-led force is winning can be seen by the migration of A’ Qa’ida’s murderous activities away from the main centres of population, to the softer towns on the periphery. The biggest threat to success in Iraq: Short-sighted politicians will seek a cheap electoral-buck by condemning Iraq as a failure just when it is becoming a success. The next fight will be to apply the same successful strategy to the disparate Shia groups in the south. Being British, we know only too well what happens when politicians do not send or support sufficient well-equipped forces.

NickT, Aldershot, Hants,

Sir,
At least we still have a sense of humour - Et tu Betraeus?

SC, London, United Kingdom

What a specious hatchet job on a fine man.

Gee, Democrat operatives doubt the General's honesty. How surprising from the party that has done its level best to ensure American defeat. He's too ambitious is he? Not at all like Wesley Clark who has a long record of political self promotion and now treasonous speech. But The Times would see him as a wise and credible source and hold him up as authoritative.

Your article disgusts me.

Michael Standard, London,

Vince:
From the context of the sentence it seems that the name 'Betraeus' is American in origin. I have never heard it being used previously in the UK.

This is a horribly political war, hence the backstabbing between The Centre of American Progress and the Whitehouse.

James , Edinburgh, UK

This is a preemptive hit by Democrats and their supporters to lessen General Petraeus' record of success in Iraq and to cast doubt on his upcoming Congressional testimony.

If Gen. Petraeus' report shows progress is being made, it will expose the Democrats as cut-and-run defeatists.

Most Americans are not cut-and-run defeatists if given facts showing the Surge is working . The Democrats and their supporters in the press know this, and that's why we're seeing preliminary strikes on the General and his upcoming report.

scotty, NC, USA

Let's get the facts out, Larry Korb has been a critic of the war since its inception.

Sarah, as for your "unnamed" recently retired general, war has never been uncontroversial. President Abraham Lincoln had to fire (retire) numerous generals during the Civil War before victory.

Michael W., Minneapolis, MN - USA

Oh dear. You're only a couple of years away from the headline Who Lost America? Actually, the time to ask is now, but you won't.

Meantime, perhaps you'll have a go at: Britain? Who Needs It?

Good luck with your 'country.'

fred , los angeles, ca, usa

I can't readily explain Petreaus' success. He was very lucky in his division being assigned a sector in northern Iraq rather than Anbar or Baghdad. His next task, training Iraqi forces, was a fiasco as witnessed by the handful of Iraqi units judged to be capable of independent operations and over 190,000 weapons "missing". The COIN manual is largely plagiarized from French sources who I believe lost the two major COIN campaigns they fought. As to his "brilliance" Barry Macafferty uses that term to describe someone in almost every interview he gives. Petreaus' PHD was on why we lost Vietnam. Hardly a leap in imagination or a subject short on research material for a US general. One wonders how hard his PHD program could have been for a serving officer to find time to complete it. Don't PhDs normally take years to complete. So I think Petreaus is a self made illusion ...but the insulting nickname should have been attributed

Michael Shannon, Baghdad, Iraq

The left is going over the cliff. This is total desperation from a party that has become shallow, power hungry, and not to be taken seriously. Are there any adults left in today's democrat party? Oh my, how sad.

Albert, Nashville, TN, USA

"Odierno said last Friday that plans were under way to reduce troops to presurge levels by August 2008. By then the US presidential election will be only three months away and the White House is hoping to take some of the political sting out of the war."

What is an attempt to make this look like political calculation on the part of the Republicans is instead a very revealing admission. If we were able to reduce troop strength by then, it would be because the surge worked and the Iraqi's can supply their own security. The liberals, of course, can't permit that so they are desperately trying to shift the "surge is not working" chant to "don't trust Petraeus". They still hope to stop the surge before it's success is too broadspread to ignore.

Michael Bardell, Alpharetta, U.S./Georgia

Petraeus "the most political General since MacArthur"? Have any of you guys ever heard of Wesley Clark?

Ron Roth, Granite City, Il.,

I've got an idea for your next hatchet piece that attempts to preemtively undermine the good news he will likely give: "A relative of Petraus was named 'Michael' and lived near the same state as Michael Vick, a known dog electrocuter." Use it for free, it's for the cause!

Andy A, Aurora, Colorado, USA

Lawrence Korb, a defence official under Ronald Reagan...who said the surge would be a disaster. Now look at his assessment. And Lawrence Korb who helped craft Reagan's enabling policies towards Iran.

Reagan's team was fumbling around in the dark in the 1980's trying to find the light switch then the door. They thought leaving Beirut would have no effect. People gave that advice like Collin Powell and Korb now have the audicity to armchair general while they are on the payroll of HIllary's foreign policy think tank.

Why would you go to him for an opinion? He should keep his mouth shut about the mideast. His cynical "realist" strategies failed. He created the mess Patreaus is fixing.

Steve, Seattle, USA/washington

People like you, Sarah, have lost all credibility. The amusing thing is that you don't even see it. You keep throwing oil on the fire.

Bob T, Phoenix, AZ

Ah well..an interesting take here, demonizing an American General who is attempting to fight against our common enemies.

I understand the mentality here. If I were a Brit and not quite comfortable with the way my navy ( and, my army, in a matter of weeks) was running for the hills and abandoning its long time ally, I suppose I too would be writing articles like this one as a sop to my conscience.

Some of them may actually believe it.

The funny thing is, while many in the UK are pre-occupied with isolationism and appeasement , their own country is in grave danger from within and without. That becomes more clear every day.

It was one of your greatest men who said, in similar times, that an appeasor is one who thinks the crocodile will eat him last.

While many of my countrymen have pretty much written off Britain, I remain confident that deep down, the spark remains that once brought Britain the admiration of the free world.

I suppose we'll see, cousins.

Robert, Los Angeles, California. USA

This rant is ridiculous. There hasn't even been a report on progress yet. But Europeans and the far left in America are so invested in surrender and defeat that they are absolutely terrified that something positive might happen. It is evil. Period.

Erick Blair, Los Angeles, USA

The only Americans who doubt General Petraeus are the ones who have invested their entire political future in defeating the American effort in Iraq. One of the best American Generals, Petraeus' new strategy is working, the USA is starting to win, and the Democratic Party in America is panicking. So what do they do? Character assassination of the military leader of the next greatest generation of Americans. Progressive Liberal Socialists want power so badly in America, they will aid a foreign enemy in defeating their own country. The United States needs to have a national discussion about the definition of treason.

Davecatbone, Cincinnati, Ohio

Well if you don't like the message then attack the messenger..!!!

A good report of progress in Iraq in Semptember won't result in a 'backlash' , when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse, and that applies to the American public too...

the-smiling-buddha, Paris,

Oh goody, let's set the table with some wonderful kool aid. Everybody ready for the Democrats version of a report, before it is given?

Tim R, ketchum, idaho

If MacArthur is to be cited as a "political" general, it might be well to recall that he responded that if a general was going to sit in the White House it would be Eisenhower and not MacArthur. And so it turned out.

The point is not that generals should be apolitical, but that we should demand of politicians and generals alike that they should tell the truth and be competent enough to know the truth.

It was Truman's administration which indicated to the Communists that America was not concerned with Korea, and then reacted in alarm when South Korea was invaded. It was the Eisenhower administration which put together an arrangement in Korea which has been lamentable, and arguably unnecessary at the time. Any thought that politicians are always more competent than generals when it comes to political matters is too sad for words.

Truman detested MacArthur for being "political". But Truman blundered as a politician and as a general. The real issues are truth and competence.

George Gladfelter, Rapid City, South Dakota, USA

Interesting how most of the press constantly bombard people with a certain party line, then cite polls that a large percentage of people agree with the same party line.

No doubt General Petraeus has an ego and is ambitious. No one becomes a four-star general without those attributes. But that no more diminishes his accomplishments and his loyalty to his country than it did those of General MacArthur.

General Petraeus is a man of honor and integrity, and so is Ambassador Crocker. Desperate Democrats, who seek political victory over all else, will do everything they can to denigrate these two men now that they know what they're going to hear is not what they want. God forbid that any policy of the hated Bush administration might be going well.

Tom, Austin, Texas

It is probably too early in the decline of the American Empire for an ambitious general to seize control of the government, but everything happens so fast nowadays...

Bob Kay, Oakland, CA

The report is required by law to be presented by the president. Anyway, why would I believe Lawrence Korb? A democratic think tank....isn't that an oxymoron?
Sounds like you have your own predisposed ideas, Sarah.

daniel gaffney, Englewood, nj

"How contemptable from our so-called Allies"

Isn't it rather more contemptible for a retired American general to describe a serving general in a war zone in this way?

The reality is, you Americans have lost this war and seek to place blame everywhere but where it belongs - squarely on yourselves. You supported the war and then voted in a second time the incompetent who started it.

God help us all if you are our best hope...

Neil Murphy, cromer,

So, here we go. The media, desperate for the U.S. to lose in Iraq, starts up the drumbeat of anticipating what Petraeus will say and rejecting his presentation before it is made. The safest prediction in the world is that we'll see a lot more articles like this one.

David, Wichita, United States

Just look at the headline. It could just as easily read "Germans rape sheep." After all, at least one German has in fact raped a sheep (just read about it in "odd news") therefore it is perfectly acceptable, according to Sarah Baxter, to headline an article implying ALL Germans are sheep molesters.

Right Sarah? I mean, I learned this by watching you you know.

EasyLiving, Denver, Colorado

What garbage journalism.

Cute nickname you made up for the general though.

q-bert, Kashmir,

Nothing like being a competent US commander and given the responsibiltiy to lead our troops in battle, only to have the Congress that confirmed you and wished you "God Speed" desert you before the ink was dry. Now we have 'retired general' calling you a traitor - what the hell has this country turned into? Who are these retired generals? Why are they hiding behind the "press" with their confidential source nonsense. I wonder if any of these retired generals would say this crap to his face?

Steve, Newburyport, MA

What do they mean a "Recently retired General" calling him Gen."Betreaus"? What kind of Democratic crap is that. Name the General or retract the saying.The Democrats are affraid of what Crocker/Petraeus have to say, and the good reports coming out of Iraq. Their No.2 man in the house already said so.That "Recently Retired General" wouldn't be that Clintoon syncophant Gen. Clark would it??What a clown act.

Ron Moore, Harbor Springs, Michigan USA

Why did you fail to identify the so called recently retired general who called Petraeus General Betraeus?

Wayne Trieschmann, Zachary, USA/LA

Ms. Baxter's steady drone of defeatism is becoming quite droll.

Lew Waters, Vancouver, Wa./USA

I am interested to know where the 43% that trust them live. I know of no one in this part of the world that trust them at all.

Kim Glynn, forest Grove, Washington, Oregon

Knowing the veracity of the Bush administration is there any wonder why many Americans doubt an honest assessment of the surge will be provided?

Hopefully the report will not include the phrase "victory/success is just around the corner."

K Winghart, Centennial, USA

"Betraeus’"?

How contemptable from our so-called Allies.

Vince P, Chicago, IL