Apparently Petraeus Cheney really didn't like our pointing out that Petraeus was just lipsynching for Cheney. So right at the start of his "testimony" - after Chairman Ike Skelton refused to swear him in and arrested protester Ray McGovern for demanding it - Petraeus declared:

At the outset I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress until it was just handed out.

Does anyone in America believe that? Especially when Ed Gillespie talks to Petraeus twice every day? If Petraeus was put on a lie detector would he pass these questions?

• Did you write every word of your testimony yourself?
• Did you share any part of your testimony with anyone in the White House or the Pentagon?

Of course not. Does anyone think Petraeus put all the charts and graphs together himself? Gimme a break.

Petraeus may have been caught red-handed by - of all people - Joe Klein (h/t Josh Marshall):

Matthews: Let me ask you Joe, what's your estimate of the statement by Gen. Petraeus yesterday, some people call it honesty, candor, whatever you call it when he was asked is this war and this blood and treasure that we're losing in Iraq making us safer at home, he said "I don't know." I can't imagine Ike having said that at D-Day.

Klein: Well you know what? It was the truth, it's what he really believed. And then a very funny thing happened - I was in the room. They went into recess and clearly someone from the White House called him up and said "Are you kidding me?!" And when he came back he was asked another question by a Senator and he went back to that statement and he corrected himself and said he hadn't thought it through or whatever. I think that both Crocker and Petraeus...

Matthews: Well that's sort of like Charlie McCarthyism isn't it? Are they using this guy as their puppet? They said he's talking independently and the minute he gets off the talking points they fix him.

I think Klein was guessing about the call, but it seems like an informed guess. And if that call did take place, Petraeus lied to Congress when he declared he wrote his own testimony. Will Congress hold him in contempt?

But why would Petraeus lipsynch and lie about it? Does he have a motive? You bet!! According to the UK Independent (h/t Josh Marshall), he told a top Iraqi he planned to run for President in 2012. If so, wouldn't he want the support of Bush, Cheney, and the Bush political machine? Nothing could be more valuable!

To add fuel to the conspiracy fire, someone even registered "Petraeus2012.com"

Domain Name: PETRAEUS2012.COM

   Created on..............: 2007-09-11 01:19:55 GMT
   Expires on..............: 2008-09-10 19:19:55 GMT
   Last modified on........: 2007-09-11 05:21:51 GMT

Registrant Info: (FAST-12875263)
   Puissant Web Solutions
   Jonathan Strong
   9647 Wenzel St.
   Fairfax, Virginia 22032
   United States
   Phone: +1.5712433175
   Fax..:
   Email: jonathan.strong@gmail.com
   Last modified: 2007-09-11 01:19:55 GMT

I wonder why? I registered Petraeus2012.org just in case Petraeus gets the psychotic idea he wants to destroy the U.S. the way he helped destroy Iraq.

Oh, and by the way, the General Who Must Never Be Criticized seems to have a critic - his immediate boss:

In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer [...]

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.