Petraeus: Give Me Just a Little More Time

Six more months, six more months...

General David Petraeus,interviewed for NBC's Today Show yesterday, said, when asked about the progress of the Surge and whether troops could be withdrawn, “We think we won’t know that we’ve reached a turning point until we’re six months past it. We have repeatedly said that there is no lights at the end of the tunnel that we’re seeing. We’re certainly not dancing in the end zone or anything like that.”

If this sounds like, as Yogi Berra would say, "deja vu all over again", it’s because Petraeus, in front of Congress in September, stated, “decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months.”

Why Ray McGovern was Thrown Out of the House

'Swear Him In'

by Ray McGovern

That's all I said in the unusual silence on Monday afternoon as first aid was being administered to Gen. David Petraeus' microphone before he spoke before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.

It had dawned on me that when House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) invited Gen. Petraeus to make his presentation, Skelton forgot to ask him to take the customary oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I had no idea that my suggestion would be enough to get me thrown out of the hearing.

I had experienced a flashback to a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in early 2006, when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) reminded chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that Specter had forgotten to swear in the witness, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and how Specter insisted that that would not be necessary.

Now that may or may not be an invidious comparison. But Petraeus and Gonzales work for the same boss, who has a rather unusual relationship with the truth. How many of his senior staff could readily be convicted, as was the hapless-and-now-commuted Scooter Libby, of perjury?

So I didn't think twice about it. I really thought that Skelton perhaps forgot, and that the 10-minute interlude of silence while they fixed the microphone was a good chance to raise this seemingly innocent question.

The more so since the ranking Republican representatives had been protesting too much. Practicing the obverse of "killing the messenger," they had been canonizing the messenger with protective fire. Ranking Armed Services Committee member Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) began what amounted to a SWAT-team attack on the credibility of those who dared question the truthfulness of the sainted Petraeus, and issued a special press release decrying a full-page ad in today's New York Times equating Petraeus with "Betray-us."

Hunter served notice on any potential doubters, insisting that Petraeus' "capability, integrity, intelligence … are without question." And Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, rang changes on the same theme, unwittingly choosing another infelicitous almost-homonym for the charges against Petraeus – "outrageous."

Indeed, Hunter's prepared statement, which he circulated before the hearing, amounted to little more than a full-scale "duty-honor-country" panegyric for the general. On the chance we did not hear him the first time, Hunter kept repeating how "independent" Petraeus is, how candid and full of integrity, and compared him to famous generals who testified to Congress in the past – Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Schwarzkopf. Hunter was smart enough to avoid any mention of Gen. William Westmoreland, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, who fell tragically short on those traits.

If memory serves, the aforementioned generals and Westmoreland were required to testify under oath. And this was one of the more embarrassing sticking points when CBS aired a program showing that Westmoreland had deliberately dissembled on the strength of Communist forces and U.S. "progress" in the war. When Westmoreland sued CBS for libel, several of his subordinates came clean, and Westmoreland quickly dropped the suit. The analogy with Westmoreland – justifying a White House death wish to persist in an unwinnable war – is the apt one here.

If Petraeus is so honest and full of integrity, what possible objection could he have to being sworn in? I had not the slightest hesitation being sworn in when testifying before the committee assembled by John Conyers (D-Mich.) on June 16, 2005. Should generals be immune? Or did Petraeus' masters wish to give him a little more assurance that he could play fast and loose with the truth without the consequences encountered by Scooter Libby?

With the microphone finally fixed, much became quickly clear. Petraeus tried to square a circle in his very first two paragraphs. In the first, he thanks the committees for the opportunity to "discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command for the way forward." Then he stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point – at least for me:

"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 Congress."

Is not the commander in chief in Petraeus' chain of command?

As Harry Truman (D-Mo.) would have said, "Does he think we were born yesterday?"

Loebsack Recommended Reduction "Doesn't Go Far Enough"

"I have argued we need to disengage immediately in Iraq," said Loebsack, who sits on the committee. "Reductions to 130,000 by next summer doesn't go far enough for me, or for the people of the 2nd District, either."

He said he favored beginning to remove U.S. troops over the course of the next few months and a full withdrawal by next year, if possible. Loebsack expressed disappointment that Petraeus never said how long he thought U.S. forces should remain involved in Iraq. He said Congress will require similar reports twice yearly.

Loebsack said he was concerned that conditions may worsen for Iraqi civilians after a U.S. pull-out but noted that it is important to keep in mind the conditions U.S. troops face now. "For me, the fact is we have American troops in the middle of the civil war," said Loebsack. "If our troops were to be called to duty anywhere in the world, (we would not be ready)," Loebsack said. "The bottom line is, our troops are in the middle of a civil war, and they should not be in that position any longer."

This is What Democracy Looks Like...

Compiled from CNN, US News and World Report, and The Raw Story. Protesters could be heard yelling "war criminal" at Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who were about to testify about conditions in Iraq. At least one woman could be heard shouting briefly, before Ike Skelton (D-MO) ordered anyone who disrupted the proceedings to be removed from the hearing room. "Out they go," Skelton said. He paused a few seconds, then asked no one in particular, "Are they gone?" The long awaited testimony of General David Petraeus on the status of the Iraq war, took even longer Monday as the microphone for the top commander malfunctioned. After opening statements from the Democratic chairmen and ranking Republicans at the Joint Hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Armed Services Committee, the room fell silent as Petraeus began to speak. And it stayed silent, as the general waited for technicians to fix the problem. Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton called a five minute recess. But not all the microphones were broken. After one of the several protesters in the audience was escorted out after shouting, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee shared his thoughts on the matter. The protesters "really p—- me off," Skelton said, further characterizing them as "ass——s." Rep. Duncan Hunter, the ranking Republican on the committee, then leaned over and drew Skelton into quieter conversation farther from the microphone, leaving Skelton's further phraseology to the arena only of informed speculation.

Later in the hearing more protesters were removed, including one who appeared to be Adam Kokesh, an Iraq veteran who has become a leading figure in the anti-war movement. Several more Code Pink members and other anti-war activists remained in the hearing room, and some members worried about further disruptions.

As Petraeus was delivering his testimony, another protester began shouting, "That's a lie," as Petraeus accused Iran of supporting insurgents in Iraq.

"Would the entire group that's back there supporting that person be removed," Skelton requested.

The Testimony:

What General Petraeus said.

What Ambassador Crocker said.

Here's Some Audio/Video:

The Full Court Press the Way Forward

"We are kicking ass" in Iraq, our cowboy president has said. Fox News and other unofficial mouthpieces for the president are pointing out the many reasons why we should be cautiously optimistic about winning in Iraq. Sen. Lindsey Graham said, "Within the next weeks, not months, there will be a major breakthrough on the benchmarks regarding political reconciliation. And after the last two weeks of being a reservist, you could see Sunnis and Shia and Kurds taking a second look at Iraq."

And we have already been marinated by "leaked" reports that point out that while all benchmarks haven't been met, some have and what General Petraeus is likely to say is the surge is tarting to work. Despite past history regarding the reading of intelligence, the DC storyline will be "stay the course."

The bottom-line is that the war is going to continue as long as George Bush is in the White House and it ultimately will be decided on election day 2008 what the exit strategy will be. Politically, the Democrats can trial balloon, protest, and threaten, but the truth is that unless the Republicans in the Senate jump ship wholesale on the president, it will be more of the same.

For General Petraeus, as the co-pilot said in "Snakes on a Plane" to protagonist Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson)-- "It sucks to be you right now, huh."

Congress: Get It in Writing

From Inside the Ringblog

A major political event unfolding Monday will be the report to President Bush by Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker.

A senior military officer said there will be no written presentation to the president on security and stability in Iraq. "There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them by testimony," the officer said.

The only hard copy will be Gen. Petraeus' opening statement to Congress, scheduled for Monday, along with any charts he will use in explaining the results of the troop surge in Baghdad over the past several months.

That testimony will follow the meeting of the president, Gen. Petraeus and Mr. Crocker at the White House.

Gen. Petraeus is expected to tell the president the surge is working but that more work is needed. He is not expected to recommend withdrawing significant numbers of U.S. troops, as the U.S. troop presence is still needed to bolster the slowly growing Iraqi security forces' capabilities.

The picture presented by Mr. Crocker will be critical of the new Iraqi government for not doing more to foster political stability.

Petraeus to Recommend Troop Reductions?

From the BBC: The most senior US commander in Iraq has hinted that he may recommend a reduction in US troop numbers to avoid placing a strain on the army. Gen David Petraeus told US television there were limits to what the military could do, and agreed that next March was "about right" for reductions. The general is due to present his much anticipated assessment of US military strategy in Iraq to Congress next week.

Who to Believe:The Report V. The Testimony?

It has widely been bandied about that the Iraq War benchmark report, which will be delivered to Congress in mid-September, will come from an assortment of sources, not just the top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. It will be authored, as Congress dictates, by the White House and will likely include the assessments of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and many others.

Additionally the White House has fought off suggestions that it will not allow General Petraeus to answer questions from Congress in open hearings. According to the Congressional Quarterly, Petraeus's "testimony will be his word coming out of his mouth. Nobody is going to be telling him what to say or how to say it,” according to a senior official.

The key issue will be how much weight Congress will place on the benchmark report versus the weight placed on the sworn testimony of key military staff. In other words, does Congress trust what is published from the White House or what they hear from the field commander in Iraq? This situation places General Petraeus in a lose/lose situation. If he reports things are going well, he is likely to be seen as a Bush toadie. If he reports that things are going poorly, it may be spun that he is an ineffectual leader.

At the end of the day, Congress will have to decide if it has sufficient votes to press for an end to the war or to continue in a divided fashion to stay the course. At stake is the sense of the American people that Congress is acting with due dilligence on the information they have, as opposed to seemingly uphold each party's line.