Hear me out before you attack me as some neocon (which, from anyone who's read this blog, knows is not true).
Was the report the entire truth? Maybe not, though it's tailed some of my own views on the situation in Iraq. Apart from the fact that I don't like attacks against our soldiers fighting overseas – even if Petraeus may not be doing any actual combat work, he's helping plan the fight – I like to consider his position.
Did the Democrats really expect Petraeus to waltz on to Capitol Hill and paint a dark, grim picture and say that we need to pull out tomorrow? I hope not, or they're clearly deluded. I don't know if Petraeus thinks the current strategy can work (that's what some pundits says), but what ever the case, he was ordered to tell the war, at the very best, like it is, and at the worst, like the administration wants it to be.
I think Petraeus needs to stay in Iraq, because as long as we're there, we need a competent leader for our troops. This is what Petraeus seems to be. If he went out on a tangent, he might end up fired. Then we could end up with someone incompetent there, though a loyalist to the administration. We don't need someone who'll fight this war to his dying breath on a bad policy to try and prove a point. We need someone who will competently lead.
The MoveOn ad was shameful, regardless of what I might think about the situation. You don't attack an active military man like that. Just my thoughts.