What does it say if the ‘left’ feeds on the mainstream media for its information, but it’s proved that media is highly biased? Never before in America has the populace been so divided. Never before has that bias been so aptly demonstrated during General Petraeus’s recent report to Congress.

General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker gave testimony on Capitol Hill very recently about the recent surge in Iraq. It can be summed up as “The operation was a success, but the prognosis of the patient is guarded.”

Strange, but that’s not what we’re hearing from most of the mainstream media outlets. Very recent media stories include: 1) Newsweek’s assertion that a woman had become an ordained Catholic priest, 2) NASA’s James Hansen’s incorrect information on hottest temperatures in the decade, 3) Alan Greenspan’s rebuke that “I never said that the Iraq war was about oil.”, 4) ABC News’ Alexis Debat resigns after revelation of at least three faked interviews, MoveOn.org calls Gen. Petraeus “General Betray Us”. Even Hillary Clinton accused the General during his testimony of “the willing suspension of disbelief” about the real facts---a not-so-subtle way of calling Petraeus a liar.

But Petraeus was unanimously confirmed to go to Iraq by a Democrat-led Congress. Petraeus has a Masters and PhD from Princeton, served in Iraq for nearly three years, and wrote the book on counter insurgency. But why was the Democrat line so unified against any progress in Iraq when Petraeus did exactly what he was asked? Why are the Democrats so opposed to any progress? Was their unanimous confirmation simply based on the fact that he was supposed to tell Americans something the Democrats liked? Why is major media’s message so anti-Republican, and contains so many errors?

One begins to wonder about the ‘left’. According to a (9/6)Zogby poll, 42% of Democrats believe that the Bush Administration planned 9/11, executed it, and covered it up with a story of radical Islamists in order to justify more military involvement in the Middle East. Right--and the writer has a bridge in Louisiana across a swamp he wants to sell you.

Any thinking person has to see that all the terrorist attacks are happening in Iraq for a reason. Petraeus has already said that our #1 enemy is AQI(al-Qaeda Iraq). Is there something that we should not see in Iraq that was hidden by Hussein before he was toppled? Come to think of it, there are many places to hide a “WMD” where the main color is brown.

How can Petraeus and Crocker not speak of the striking military successes of the ‘surge’ strategy? Ken Connor(TownHall) admits that incidents of ethno-sectarian violence and deaths are down; number of weapons caches found and cleared, is up; IED explosions and car bombings are down; and the number of al-Qaeda leaders captured or killed, is up. Petraeus even reported that 100 key leaders were killed or captured, as well as some 2500 al-Qaeda militia.

It turns out al-Qaeda has been on the run in Afghanistan since 2003. Sizable numbers of al-Qaeda have already been neutralized in Pakistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia Yemen and other countries. Many local tribes are beginning to turn against al-Qaeda in support of our troops and the new government. Sunni tribes, in particular, seem to be turning against al-Qaeda.

But the picture is not totally sunny. Military successes have been many, but political victories have been few. Deep divisions remain over how to share power and divide resources among the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi’ites. Per Petraeus, there are two distinct enemy forces. They consist of AQI , and Iranian-backed Shiite forces. Petraeus was surprised by the depth of Iran’s involvement in the war. It was also determined that al-Qaeda, Iran and Syria are the primary instigators of ethnic violence and chaos in Iraq. And, videotapes recently found indicate that bin Laden and/or his disciples retain a laser focus on Iraq for some reason.

In addition to al-Qaeda, other jihadi militants like Iranian “Quds” officers and Shiite militants, are being caught in Iraq. But many, including Petraeus and Crocker, understand the sheer insanity of backing out immediately, and letting Iraq fend for itself. One of the expected horrendous results would be that Iran would snatch key pieces of Iraq for itself. Of course at that point, all terrorists would feel that they had a free hand to do as they will.

What’s really amazing is the staggering arrogance of lawmakers in rebuking the Iraqi parliament for failing to become stabilized, in a fraction of the time it took the American government to do it 250 yeas ago. Sooner or later, we will find out exactly why al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting so hard to retain possession of Iraq…