When Good News for the U.S. Is Bad News for "Us"

I think by now pretty much everybody has heard about the comment by Democratic House Majority Whip James Clyburn that it would be "a real big problem for us" (i.e., the Democrats) if General Petraeus’s report in September is positive, instead of the half-good, half-bad report that many in the news media have been predicting. Lots of people have already asked what it says about the Democratic Party when one of its top leaders in the House of Representatives seems to think good news for the United States’ efforts in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats (and, I guess, something they do not want to see happen). I will skip that one.

I have a different question: If General Petraeus’s report is positive, instead of half-good, half-bad, who will be the first Democratic leader to claim that General Petraeus does not really mean it but has been forced to say it, even though it is not true, by the Bush Administration? In other words, after having been confirmed in his present job by an 81-0 vote in the Senate, who will be the first major Democrat to say that General Petraeus has thrown away his integrity and said what he knows is not true because he was told to do so by the Bush Administration?

Is there anybody who doubts that some Democratic leader will say this? After all, if the Democrats really believe, as Representative Clyburn said, that a good report for the U.S. is a "problem for us," then somebody will say it. It is just a matter of who will be first.