The Tank has several video clips of some of the more, er, interesting questions and answers from yesterday's hearing. I think I would have to be seriously medicated to go before congress, but General Petraeus did very well on the composure front.

A transcript is here at CNN, Hotline has a good summary. Certain Democrats will gnash their teeth, but Petraeus will get what he is asking for. The bottom line is that Petraeus put his reputation on the line back in February when he said that if he saw that the Iraq campaign was a waste of time, he would recommend a withdrawal.

Well, here we are with a six month later report and far from testifying that it's been a waste of time, he is reporting that he can send the extra troops home earlier than the surge plan called for. That's into the early part of 2008. Beyond that he won't make any commitments. Smart move considering what's been happening in Iraq.

A stunning and thought provoking article at the Independent:

The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq's Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.

"I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, 'No, that would be too soon'," Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.

Critics of the war in Iraq will be quick to say that this is proof that General Petraeus is cooking the books to make it look like progress is being made no matter what the reality. But for whom the only option is victory, this should be welcome news.

If Petraeus is a man of great ambition who has set his sights on the top job, he will also realize that there is only one way he gets to be president: he wins in Iraq. That means the troops come home and Iraq stays stable. If that happens, Petraeus will certainly have the potential to be a huge force in American politics. But if critics of the war are right about Iraq, they have nothing to fear about a political Petraeus.

America has a long tradition of successful generals becoming president, going all the way back to Washington himself. A winning Petraeus is becoming president is a very real possibility. The real wonder is that we haven't had a general president since Eisenhower. Wesley Clark gave it a shot, but apparently Americans were not impressed with high altitude bombing of Yugoslavia.

It would seem that the Democrats will be launching a series of "pre-emptive" strikes prior to General David Petraeus' report on the progress of the Iraq war. The International Herald Tribune has pointed out that a number of top Democratic leaders such as Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen. Joe Biden have reached out to the media to dispute the report.

Such a strategy looks like it will backfire on the Democrats considering that a recent CBSNYT's poll shows that the public holds its faith in the military command and neither congress nor the president in terms of who knows how to run the war. Attacking Petraeus could prove disastrous for the Democrats and should be avoided at all costs. If the Democrats start to push a hard anti-military attitude, they will be in DEEP trouble with the public which can accept anti-war, but NOT anti-military posturing.

Will Petraeus become the modern day version of Gen. MacArthur or Gen. Eisenhower? Perhaps. He will be appearing in an exclusive interview with Brit Hume on Fox News right after his report to congress in what is about as hard of a slap in the face to the mainstream media and the left wing establishment as he could muster. If Petraeus' comes off a media darling after his interview, the war will take a unique dynamic as the public will have a new hero to rally behind.

It would appear that General Petraeus' report has done very little to sway the opinions of the Democrats in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid has blasted Petraeus' Iraq plan (which includes drawing down 5,000+ troops by the end of the year and close to an additional 30,000 by summer's end) Reid echoed the sentiment of Speaker Nancy Pelosi that was expressed yesterday in a press release that lambasted Petraeus' plan.

According to the AP, Democrat leadership would prefer a more rapid withdrawal of a significant number of troops and the remaining troops would serve in a more limited capacity.

This posturing by the Democrats may have SERIOUS repercussions if the public relations strategy they are employing fails. Within much of the public, there is a sentiment growing that the Democrats are posturing against Petraeus as a means of scoring political points in order to win in the next election. If the Democrats become pegged as a party that seeks its own agenda at the risk of causing serious harm to the troops in the field, the public will become resentful and the Democrats may find themselves in trouble with a segment of the voting population.

The NY Post has a great interview with General David Petraeus, the leader of the "surge" in Iraq. Petraeus has instituted a brilliant plan whereby our people are in the community with Iraqi forces and staying there. Here's an example of the effect this tactic has produced:

And the tribal leaders in Sunni al Anbar Province, the general reports, "have had enough." Not only are the al Qaeda fighters causing civil disruption by fomenting sectarian violence and killing civilians, but on a more prosaic but practical side, al Qaeda is bad for business. "All of the sheiks up there are businessmen," Petraeus said. "They are entrepreneurial and involved in scores of different businesses. The presence of the foreign fighters is hitting them hard in the pocketbook and they are tired of it."

And so you have it. Read the entire piece as it shows that we are gaining and making significant progress. We've shown that we're in it for the long haul and after four years of violence--caused mostly by foreign elements associated with al-Qaeda--the locals are sick of it and want to rebuild:

The sheiks have seen that the al Qaeda delivers only violence and misery. They are throwing their lot in with the new government - for example, encouraging their young men to join the Iraqi police force and army. (They are responding in droves.)

The political left in this country have expended so much capital in us losing that this is probably the worst things they've heard in weeks. Representative Murtha and his band of blithering (yet non-binding) syncophants will say this is all spin, that Petraeus is putting a nice coat of paint on a ramshackle building. They'd be wrong. Petraeus has always been portrayed as a straight-shooter (especially in the book In The Company of Soldiers written by veteran Washington Post reporter Rick Atkinson who could have ripped him if he chose) who tells things like they are, not what he wishes them to be. If this were Cheney or Bush saying this, I'd concede that they may putting a rosy glow on the situation, but not General Petraeus.

There's still hope in spite of what the MSM is reporting. We are making progress and we will win this battle. We must win this battle as it's the most important in the entire Global War on Terror.

This is pathetic. From ABC News, as first reported last night:

As the House and Senate prepare to vote this week on the final conference report on the $124 billion troop funding bill - which would also mandate that U.S. combat troops begin withdrawing from Iraq on Oct. 1 at the latest - Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to come to the Hill tomorrow to brief lawmakers on the progress of the recent troop escalation.

ABC News has learned, however, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will not attend the briefing.

Her arrogance is breathtaking. There is no excuse for this. If Field Marshal Pelosi wants to inject herself into foreign affairs and war planning, one would assume that she would be obligated to meet with the new commander of Iraq operations, General David Petraeus. That she she's skipping the briefing tells us a lot about how she really feels about both her job and the troops in the field, who she claims to care so much about.

An unnamed Democrat aide is quoted as saying that Pelosi was busy, but had a 30-minute conversation with Petraeus on the phone last night and had "requested a one-on-one meeting with Petraeus but that could not be worked out." If that is to be believed, it is still a slap in the face not to meet with the general in person. Nothing is more important right now than the funding for the Iraq war, and the war itself. Unless she has health issues that precluded a face-to-face meeting, this is unacceptable.

After all, she could have spoken to Syria's Assad on the phone as well, instead of flying out there to meet him. So she understands the protocol and significance of face-to-face encounters.

Last week there were some initial reports of literally tons of weapons gone missing in Iraq. We've already had reports of missing billions from contractors, the million dollar postage fee for two washers (yes, two washers) and the no-bid contracts leading the sorry list of corruption and Republican cronyism. But losing tens of thousands of weapons, what the heck? Who was in charge?

Several federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other materiel to Iraqi and American forces, according to American officials. The officials said it amounted to the largest ring of fraud and kickbacks uncovered in the conflict here.

Turns out none other than Gen. David Petraeus was in charge.

The inquiry has already led to several indictments of Americans, with more expected, the officials said. One of the investigations involves a senior American officer who worked closely with Gen. David H. Petraeus in setting up the logistics operation to supply the Iraqi forces when General Petraeus was in charge of training and equipping those forces in 2004 and 2005, American officials said Monday. There is no indication that investigators have uncovered any wrongdoing by General Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, who through a spokesman declined comment on any legal proceedings.

That's right no crime found yet but some very close ties and no matter what, it happened on his watch. It's also important to look for clues in articles like this and there's one here

But now, American officials said, part of the criminal investigation is focused on Lt. Col. Levonda Joey Selph, who reported directly to General Petraeus and worked closely with him in setting up the logistics operation for what were then the fledgling Iraqi security forces.

This is just another in a serious of blunders, incompetency, and outright crookedness that is happening due to this administration's ignoring the laws and lining the pockets of not only their corporate friends but apparently giving arms away to people who are using them against our own troops. Perhaps we don't want to see how FUBAR this war is or perhaps we're just too scared to acknowledge it. We need to restore the Constitution, the balance of powers and Congressional oversight.

It's probably not a coincidence that when the Moderate 11 went to have their heart-to-heart with the president that they told him the only person the people would believe about Iraq is General Petraeus. At least at this point, I think if he comes out in September and says we're making legitimate progress in Iraq (and explains why in verifiable terms), he might be able to buy President Bush some more time in Iraq. If, on the other hand, he comes out and says something negative -- then what happens? In the past, Bush has simply replaced his military commanders when they didn't tell him what he wanted to hear. I suspect the answer will be in the gray zone -- not black or white one way or the other.

In any event, I really like what the guy says. The results of a recent Army survey showed that many U.S. military personnel in Iraq felt that it was okay to torture suspects and that they would be unwilling to report abuse by comrades. In an open letter dated May 10th, posted on a military web site, General Petraeus said:

This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground....Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.

Compare this statement to that of Rear Admiral Richard Jeffries, the Marine Corps' chief medical officer, who said that the survey would be scrutinized to determine "if there is a problem here". A major part of Petraeus' offensive to improve security in Baghdad is protecting Iraqi civilians rather than abusing them. He went on to say:

Iraqi forces must distance themselves from the abusive practices of the former regime...It is very important that we never turn a blind eye to abuses, thinking that what Iraqis do with their own detainees is Iraqi business.

It's too bad that General Gates and General Petraeus weren't in charge four years ago. Of course, they probably would have recommended against the whole dismal affair, and then been fired.

Every American should pay attention and analyze General Petraeus's words as to the situation in Iraq:

...18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up... ...And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq... ...Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished... ...Progress has also been made in police training. In the past week alone, some 1,100 graduated from the basic policing course and five specialty courses... ...Considerable progress is also being made in the reconstruction and refurbishing of infrastructure for Iraq's security forces... ...Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months...

No, these words are not part of the report that Petraeus will deliver to Congress this week. They were all taken from an Op-Ed he wrote for the Washington Post on September 26, 2004. Petraeus was dead wrong in his assessment of the situation then, so what makes us think that he'll be doing any better this time around? The police force is corrupt and virtually useless. Sectarian militias rule the street. The Iraqi army is still not ready to take over its own security. A drop in sectarian killings in one area of the country is wiped out by rises in another. Most damning of all, there's still no political progress among the Iraqi's themselves.

But nobody's fooled anymore. An significant majority of the American people seem to already know what we'll be hearing this week is nothing more than spin.

Carl Levin will reintroduce his failed Levin-Reed Amendment as an attachment to the Defense Appropriations bill, the Senator announced last night at the National Press Club.

Levin said he would revive an amendment he sponsored with Democratic Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.) to begin drawing down forces within 120 days of enactment and curtail U.S. missions in Iraq. Levin said the Levin-Reed amendment would be "essentially" the same as the Levin-Reed amendment previously introduced to the same bill and voted on in July.

In July, the Levin-Reed Amendment lost by three votes. With the reception General Petraeus got from the Republicans in the Senate last week, it's doubtful that the amendment would even get that many votes this time around. Especially if Senators on both sides are reminded of what Petraeus said last week, when questioned about the repercussions of an announced large-scale withdrawal of forces such as those included in the Democrats' amendment.

Petraeus' testimony to Congress stated: "Rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of the strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces; rapid deterioration of local security initiatives; Al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of maneuver, a marked increase in violence and further ethno-sectarian displacement and refugee flows; alliances of convenience by Iraqi groups with internal and external forces to gain advantages over their rivals; an exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran."

The Democrats are determined to lose this war. They asked for a change in tactics, and that has been done. But the change has been successful, and that's not good for the Dems. Their own commissioned reports to Congress acknowledge that improvements are slowly being made, we are defeating al Qaida, and withdrawals would be disastrous. Even General Jones' report on the Iraqi Security Forces recommends not a draw-down, but a redistribution of forces to and from the Green Zone to get us to engage the enemy more directly.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) is the House Majority Whip and part of the Democratic congressional leadership. He said some amazingly truthful things yesterday that we don't usually hear. Speaking with Chris Cillizza from the Washington Post:

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

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."

Whoa. Did he just say what I thought he did? That good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democratic party? Well, of course it is, everyone understands that the position that the Democrats have put themselves in requires bad news for American for them to win. The Democrats could have taken a position that they supported the war but opposed Bush on other matters, or that they supported the war but would pursue much different tactics to win. But they themselves have declared from top to bottom that we've already lost in Iraq and all we're doing is waiting for the inevitable.

What if the inevitable isn't? That question apparently has Jim Clyburn spooked.

The bottom line in this NYT article is that General Petraeus is not calling it quits, and is saying that progress is significant enough to continue on for another six month effort. But regardless of how that goes, the forces sent to augment the coalition forces in Iraq will start drawing down in December.

General Petraeus, whose long-awaited testimony before Congress will begin Monday, has informed President Bush that troop cuts may begin in mid-December, with the withdrawal of one of the 20 American combat brigades in Iraq, about 4,000 troops. By August, the American force in Iraq would be down to 15 combat brigades, the force level before Mr. Bush's troop reinforcement plan.

Kick the can down the road is not the game that the Democrats want to play here, but the small successes that are evident in Iraq are forcing them to essentially do nothing. The anti-war elements of the party will surely be unhappy, but the fact of the matter is that the Democrats do not want to be seen as the ones guaranteeing a humiliating exit in Iraq just when daylight is in sight. The argument over whether that is daylight we are seeing or an oncoming train.

You can read the news blurbs at the usual places or thanks to the power of the Internets you can go straight to the Pentagon channel which is hosting the video below:



The upshot?

• 2/3 reduction in sectarian violence;
• Sensational attacks have continued and overshadow the other progress;
• Commerce and some markets are thriving;
• Progress in Anbar province is breathtaking;
• Tactics and placement of troops led to more casualties;
• A forthright assessment will occur in September of 2007.

Republican Senator John Cornyn offered a Sense of the Senate Resolution this afternoon, requiring a three fifths majority, decrying the personal attacks that we've witnessed over the past two weeks on General Petraeus and his troops' integrity. As General Petraeus was confirmed to his position as head of Multinational Forces in Iraq unanimously by this same august body, one would assume that this resolution would also be unanimous, or close to it. Especially when you read the entire text:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

That's it. No hidden language, nobody specifically mentioned. Just 47 words. A good time for the Senate to unite in a bipartisan way in support for the commanding General currently in combat in Iraq. It passed, 72 to 25, with three Not Voting. The "Nays" consisted of 24 Democrats and 1 Independent. The 3 "Not Voting" were all Democrats.

NAYs ---25 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3 Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Obama (D-IL)

Ah, true profiles in courage. Well, at least the troops know who their friends are - who has their back up on the Hill. And al Qaida knows who their friends are, as well.

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace had a very good interview with the head of the Multinational Forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus. The General said quite a few things that should be self-evident to the media and the public, but are rarely commented on. Namely, that when you are fighting a war and you escalate your operations, it results in an increased direct response from the enemy, along with increased attacks where our forces are not. General Petraeus also confirmed that the 'surge' is really just beginning, with the last of the requested troops finally arriving in theater last week.

He also had some interesting things to say about the intersection of Iraq and the War on Terror, and the involvement of al Qaida in Iraq:

WALLACE: But again, the Pentagon quarterly report tells a very different story, and let's put that up. It says, "Much of the violence is attributable to sectarian friction." And as you pointed out, there was a substantial jump in sectarian violence in May. Isn't the Sunni-Shiite conflict much more responsible for the violence in Iraq these days than Al Qaida, sir?

PETRAEUS: I'm not so sure about that, Chris. In fact, Al Qaida is the Sunni violence. Al Qaida is the face of what is happening on the extremist Sunni side. They are carrying out the bulk of the sensational attacks, the suicide car bomb attacks, suicide vest attacks and so forth. This is, I think, all of the individuals in the intelligence community -- General McCrystal, the head of our Joint Special Operations Command -- all of us feel that the central front of Al Qaida's terror war is focused on Iraq. So I think it is appropriate to emphasize the role that Al Qaida Iraq is playing and the role that they play in provoking and giving excuses to the extremist militias of the other side, of the Shia side, as a justification for what they are doing, ostensibly, to protect the Shia people, but then in their own turn carrying out violence of their own. There is no question but that there is sectarian violence between, again, Al Qaida, certainly between some other Sunni insurgent groups and these extremist militias. And that is, in fact, what we are trying to try to break the cycle of, the cycle of violence that can really damage a neighborhood, the cycle of violence that, in fact, tore the fabric of society in Iraq and particularly in Baghdad, and especially in the mixed neighborhoods, during the latter part of 2006 and into the early part of this year, with really enormous damage as a result.

If the Democrats really want us to be on the offensive against al Qaida then they are going to have to admit that to do so means recognizing that the so-called "civil war" in Iraq is being manufactured in large part by the terrorists. Adequately dealing with al Qaida means finishing the job in Iraq - not surrender and retreat, which will only embolden the terrorists and give them a new secure home to launch worldwide attacks from.