They can continue to claim they’re simply disagreeing with policies of the Bush administration, but listen to their words and you’ll see it’s much more than a simple disagreement. And it’s downright disgusting.

Senator Harry Reid is trying to preempt the report General David Petraeus is to give to Congress tomorrow… by calling the four-star general a liar.

“Before the report arrives in Congress, it will pass through the White House spin machine, where facts are often ignored or twisted, and intelligence is cherry-picked,” said Reid.

On Friday, Reid went so far as to question not only the true source of the report but also the four-star general’s honesty. “He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual,” Reid said.

Of course, Reid doesn’t give us any specific examples of the numerous lies he claims General Petraeus has told. To call a four-star general who is commanding troops in an active war a liar in a public statement is not a “disagreement of policies”… it’s unpatriotic and disgusting.

Not to be outdone, Democrat Dick Durbin (who likes to compare our soldiers to nazis) said:

“By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence is decreasing and that the surge is working. Even if the figures are right, the conclusions are wrong.”

He tries to hedge on Reid’s calling Petraeus a liar by including Bush’s name when claiming the report will be a fraud, but look at his last line: “Even if the figures are right, the conclusions are wrong.” He’s saying that Bush and Petraeus plan to manipulate the statistics to make the report say something that doesn’t jive with reality but then admits that even if they don’t manipulate the statistics, the report will still be wrong… (even though Petraeus hasn’t even delivered the report yet). Durbin’s arguing in the alternative here. He’s betting the report will contain some good news and is trying to explain the report away before it arrives… saying that the numbers are fake and the conclusions are flawed or the numbers are accurate, but the conclusions are flawed.

Of course, it’s obvious why they’re doing this. Democrats have already admitted that good news from the Petraeus report would be bad news for them.

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”

Bottom line, Democrats think Petraeus will deliver a report that highlights successes in Iraq and they’ve already admitted that good news for America will be bad news for Democrats.

The logical conclusion then is simply that Democrats and America have mutually distinct and independent goals.

UPDATE:
“U.S. poll finds more faith in military than politicians in resolving Iraq.” Hello, backfire.