That didn't take long, did it? Doesn't being "persistent" mean we need to say in Iraq?

White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto declined to comment on the video until it has been fully analyzed, except to say it was a reminder of the continuing terrorist threat.

"This is why we need to be more vigilant and more persistent in our pursuit of terrorists," Fratto said. "We will continue to pursue them.

And the special bonus, we also have to clamp down on more rights:

And it reminds us that we need to be certain that our intelligence professionals have all the tools they need to continue to disrupt their activities."

This is taken from the version of the Yahoo AP lead story that was up at the time of this post. Interestingly, the paragraph about the militant web sites being down is back, along with an expert quote suggesting the terrorists themselves took down the sites because of concerns over leaks with the US getting a copy of the video before it was released.

Glenn,

I've got to disagree on this one. Although past meanings of geek include carnival folks who bite off chicken heads, the current, most accepted meaning of geek carries too many positive connotations with it to apply to the group of people we are discussing here. In its most prevalent usage, a geek is someone who is extremely smart and capable, if somewhat socially inept. When your laptop gives you the blue screen of death, you call in the Geek Squad. I think of the extremely capable policy "wonks" who populated Bill Clinton's administration as geeks in that positive sense.

No, the folks we are talking about here are stupid, inept and sociopathic. If we are talking high school cliques, they're not the geeks, they are clearly the losers. In fact, I would think it would make sense for us to start calling W the "Loser in Chief".

They fail at school, they fail in their jobs and they have an innate anti-intellectual orientation. Calling themselves geeks is just another of their many attempts at compensation.

Glenn,

Thanks for your diligence in pointing out Petraeus' lack of truth in both his current and past announcements. By far, the most frustrating aspect of Bush using Petraeus for this report is found in question 66 of the NYTimes survey you cite:

66. If you had to choose, who would you say you trust the most with successfully resolving the war in Iraq -- the Bush Administration, Congress, or U.S. military commanders in Iraq?

Bush Admin:5 Congress: 21 Military commanders: 68 None:3 DK/NA:3

9/4-8/07

Bush is using Petraeus to lend legitimacy to his own talking points because he knows the public trusts the military commanders. The press has simply failed to point out in sufficient detail how Bush has removed all high level commanders whose message differs significantly from his. Bush knows, from previous experience as you point out in your post, that Petraeus will deliver the message that Bush wants.

Bill Schneider just came on CNN and announced both a CNN and a Gallup Poll found that, respectively, 53 and 54% of respondents believe Petreaus will present a report that overstates progress in Iraq. Schneider then contrasted that result with the NYTimes result I mentioned earlier, where the public trusts military commanders in general to make the best policy for going forward, with 68% saying the military commanders would be better than Bush or Congress. I think there is real encouragement to be taken that the public understands Petraeus to be a tool of Bush rather than a straightforward military commander.

How long will it take for them to get the microphones working? Seems like a very desperate delaying tactic!

Heh.

Move-On takes out a full page ad to use Petraeus' own words to point out his previous thinking and activity, and that means the Democrats are "over-reaching", even though they also provide a full page of substantiation on their website.

Karl's buddies unleash a barrage of unsubstantiated character assassination on a presidential candidate and that's just fine.

Aaaack!

Wow. Castor just blasted Petraeus with a good question on overall prospects for Iraqis assuming control of security. I'd like to trade in my very useless Rep. Cliff Stearns for this one. He has only distinguished himself by signing onto the effort to discredit Sesame Street a few years ago.