Doubling Down On Defeat & A Pattern Of Avoidance

Doug Ross has a superb retrospective on how our Dems have embraced defeat at all costs. After detailing their perfidy, he characterizes their actions:

They were wrong. They were unbelievably partisan, putting their interests before those of the United States and the safety of its military.

No party has been more wrong, more often, on serious issues of national import than the Democratic party since 1864.

Read the entire post.

Plus there is not only an embrace of defeat, but a refusal to defend it - at least from our would-be Messiah-in-Chief. Gateway Pundit notes that Obama met with Maliki but DID NOT raise the issue of his sixteen month timetable during the meeting - apparently wanting to avoid any fall out that might require Obama to publicly discuss "refining" his plans. To put this in context, Obama also deliberately avoided raising his sixteen month timetable when he had the opportunity to question General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in April. He went AWOL from a town hall meeting before military families where the issue of Iraq and his embrace of defeat was almost sure to be raised - rather pointedly. And he is staying as far away as possible from any debates with McCain that are not both truncated and moderated by MSM synocophants. There is a pattern here.

What does one take from all of this. My take is that Obama is one cowardly SOB without the courage of his convictions to be able to defend his positions in any sort of pointed debate.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pelosi Crosses The Line

The latest from the train wreck that is our House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi:

"The surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is . . . [because of] the goodwill of the Iranians."

So the question is, is she traitorous or simply insane?
_______________________________________________________

Nancy Pelosi gave an interview with the SF Chronicle yesterday. When asked about what she observed in Iraq during her May 17 visit, she replied:

Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.

As to reconciliation, Ms. Pelosi's narrative is ridiculous. Even our own perfidious MSM is now acknowledging both the great strides towards reconciliation that Iraq has made and the fact that the Iraqis are rallying around Maliki as a nationalist leader. Maliki is extremely popular across the spectrum of Iraq's citizens. Indeed, the only places where he is unpopular are in Tehran and, apparently, in the offices of Congressional Democrats.

As to Iran, any inference from events surrounding Basra that Iran is acting with goodwill towards the U.S. and the government of Iraq is not merely unsupported by the facts, it is a highly malignant falsehood. Iran's primary contribution to the situation in Iraq is death and mayhem. Their malign and extensive proxy war is at the heart of the need for the continuation of the surge.

Pelosi is a hyperpartisan hack. She is either wholly unable to distinguish reality or quite willing to ignore it in her all encompassing desire for political power.

_______________________________________________________

Reconciliation:

ABC News, May 28, 2008: Maliki's Midas Touch

. . . The Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites alike all eventually lauded the Basra operation as a huge success and whole-heartedly backed Maliki in his next endeavor — to revisit Mosul, and take on al Qaeda.

. . . Acutely aware of his political momentum, on May 12, Maliki, accompanied by crews from Al Iraqia TV, the official state-run media outlet — went to Mosul — and Maliki personally, and publicly, took charge of the military operations there.

He was the lead story and plastered across almost every local front page.

. . . Sadr is trying to grasp on to a sliver of political leverage, claiming to have struck the deal which brought his people their livelihoods back. While Maliki is lauding the latest in a series of successes to ensure security and a regained national unity to his country.

Certainly, it seems as though there is little Maliki can do wrong these days. With provincial elections around the corner, an Iraqi future without Maliki is almost impossible to imagine.

The Atlantic, May 13, 2008, Maliki's Southern Strategy

. . . At first, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's decision to confront Moqtada al-Sadr's Iranian-backed militas looked like a major strategic misstep. Now it appears to have transformed Iraqi politics, potentially paving the way for real reconciliation between Sunni and Shia.

. . . [T]here has also been a more lasting change: The Sadrists have been marginalized. Even the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has been reluctant to make political interventions in recent years, pointedly condemned Sadr for refusing to disarm. Leading Sunni faction have also returned to the fold. The Kurds, who have their own problems with Sadr, are also on board. Maliki, suprisingly enough, increasingly looks like the leader of all Iraqis.

. . . Unfortunately, few Americans understand what Maliki has accomplished, and how much international assistance he needs to beat back foreign elements that aim to undermine Iraq's fragile democracy -- which is, as far as neighboring governments are concerned (particularly those that begin with an "I" and end with an "n"), a profoundly subversive influence.

USA Today, April 22, 2008, Iraq Frees Detainees

Most of those released were Sunnis who had been low-level army officials or former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. . . .

The prisoners are being freed under an amnesty law passed by Iraq's parliament in February. More than 52,400 detainees in government custody have applied for their freedom. Of those, nearly 78%, or more than 40,000, were granted amnesty. . . .

"This is sort of a new life," Othman said. "Terrorism started and now it is ending. A new life is coming, God willing."

NYT, February 12, 2008, Making (Some) Progress In Iraq

Iraq’s Parliament has finally approved a budget, outlined the scope of provincial powers, set an Oct. 1 date for provincial elections and voted a general amnesty for detainees. All these steps are essential for national conciliation.

. . . We are, of course, cheered by the news that representatives from Iraq’s three main ethnic groups — Shiite, Sunni and Kurd — finally saw some benefit in compromise. . . .

_______________________________________________________

Iran

Washington Post, May 29, 2008, U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al Qaeda

. . . [CIA Chief Michael]Hayden warned, however, that progress in Iraq is being undermined by increasing interference by Iran, which he accused of supplying weapons, training and financial assistance to anti-U.S. insurgents. While declining to endorse any particular strategy for dealing with Iran, he described the threat in stark terms.

"It is the policy of the Iranian government, approved at the highest levels of that government, to facilitate the killing of American and other coalition forces in Iraq. Period," he said.

Fox News, Aug. 9, 2007, Captured Video Shows Iraqi Insurgents Firing Sophisticated Iranian-Made Rockets at U.S. Positions

Dramatic video produced by Iraqi insurgents and captured in a raid earlier this week by U.S. troops clearly shows a battery of sophisticated Iranian-made rocket launchers firing on American positions east of Baghdad, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.

The video, captured during a raid on Monday by the 3rd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment in northeast Nahrawan, shows insurgents setting up and carrying out an attack on Sunday, as well as an attack on July 11 that killed one soldier and wounded 15 others, officials said. The raid last month appeared to involve 34 launchers firing 107 mm Iranian-made rockets.

AFP, May 5, 2008, Iran Ex-President Under Fire For Comments On Insurgents

Ex-president [of Iran] Mohmamad Khatami was under fire from hardliners on Monday after comments interpreted as accusing Iran's clerical leaders of supporting insurgents in the Middle East.

. . . His speech has been seen by some observers as accusing the Iranian authorities of encouraging militants to destabilize the Middle East, in particular Iraq and Lebanon. . . .

Voices of Iraq, May 3, 2008, Karbala Operations Commander Accuses Iran of Disturbing the City

Karbala operations commander said on Saturday that Iranian intervention is disturbing the city's security.

He noted that huge quantities of Iranian made weapons were seized throughout different locations in the province.

"There is Iranian intervention . . . in Karbala," Major General Ra'id Shaker Jawdat said in a press conference at Karbala operations command's building, after showing a large quantity of Iranian-made weapons.

. . . "Those weapons entered Karbala to destabilize security, . . .

AEI, May 13, 2008, Speech by Col. H.R. McMaster, Advisor to Gen. Petraeus

Col H.R. McMaster: . . . When I traveled through the south on a last couple of visits, what I heard – and this is again on the point of militias being increasingly discredited, and this is from Iraqi Shiite leaders who were saying things like Iran is the true occupier of Iraq. They would say jokingly that the Iranians are now all Iraqi nationalists, which is a thinly-veiled swipe at some of the militias in some of these areas.

And so whereas before about a year ago, you wouldn’t really hear Iraqi leaders, especially in these areas in the south, offering criticism of Iran and the parties and communities within Iraq who were playing host to Iranian influence but you hear that almost all the time now among Shiite Arab leaders. And also a connection to Iran, and this again affects the militias, is becoming a liability much like being connected to Al-Qaeda was a liability for so-called resistance movements in the Sunni Arab community. These are again changes that I’ve seen in the last year.

The contradictions of Iranian policies I’ve mentioned at the beginning have been exposed and Iraqis have to deal with them now. They have to deal with them again partly because of that pressure on the political parties, who are embarrassed by the connections to Iran and what Iran is doing. So the sixth thing is, no big surprise, the exposure of Iranian activity and Iran’s true intentions. . . .

. . . In the case of what Iran is doing in Iraq, it is so damn obvious to anybody who wants to look into it, I think, that is drop the word “alleged” and say what they’re doing, which is, we know for a fact organizing and directing operations against the government of Iraq and against our forces – the government of Iraq forces and our forces – we know they have done that, certainly in the past. We know that they are supplying them with weapons and the most effective weapons that they used to attack the Iraqi people and our forces and these include the long-range high payload rockets that have been coming in from Iraq as well as the explosively formed projectile roadside bombs that come from Iran.

We know that they have trained forces in the employment of these munitions - and in pretty large numbers. We know that they were concerned that their maligned hand being obvious in Iraq would alienate their Arab neighbors so they try Arabize these efforts by using Lebanese Hezbollah for a lot of the training but it’s a pretty cosmetic shift that they’ve made in some portions of the training.

We know for a fact that they have directed assassination operations. They have a reputation of being some of the best assassins in the world. They’ve trained Iraqis to do that. They’ve trained them in skills not only for roadside bombs and in long-range rockets but also in snipers and other skills used to intimidate or kill individuals. And we know that they have been sort of backing all horses to destabilize the situation and we know that their support is continued to key Badr officials who are in influential positions who remain on the payroll of Iran and to advance the interests of Iran and, in some cases, to provide leadership for other militia organizations that are stood up.

We know that they ostensibly have supported this government but have armed, equipped and trained a militia that has been attacking the very government they ostensibly support. And this is not just something in Basra, this is last year. This is in Nasariyah, this is Samwa, this is in Diwaniyahm, this is in Amarah and it was in Karbala in August 26th and 27th of last year. And now again in Basra.

So I think it’s very obvious. Now on this specific question you have - has it increased or has it decreased? I think it’s very clear that what Iran has done over the last year is try to develop a considerable latent capability that it could turn on in short notice. And I think that it may have been that this bold and very quick action by the Prime Minister in Basra foiled what was to be perhaps a much larger and coordinated effort, maybe even coordinated with efforts in other places in the region, like what we’re seen happening right now in Lebanon.

So, anyway, I think it’s very obvious what they’re doing. I think it’s very obvious to Iraqis, it certainly is. The Iraqis I’ve spoken to are incensed about it and I think it’s no longer alleged. Yes?

Demetri Sevastopulo: If it’s been going on for so long, why is it you said earlier that the Iraqis are only recently starting to talk about Iranian involvement? Why did it not bother them before?

H.R. McMaster: Now, that’s a great point. Part of the reason is the intimidation factor. We know that Iran had really been able to establish a pretty high degree of control over some key officials, you know, provided them protection. And then also some assassination cells and elements of militia that would kill anybody who made a statement against Iranian interests. So what I think what has happened is Iran has so blatantly undermined the security situation and it’s so clear now that they want to keep Iraq as a weak, failing state, is what they would like I think, dependent on them for support that many more Iraqis now are disavowing connections to Iran and providing more space, more physical space in terms of intimidation. There’s more sort of a political space to address this issue than there had been previously.

And then also, if you remember Iran was a big supporter of the militias which before and this goes back to the effective operations against Al-Qaeda and the importance of it, those militias were justified in large measure because of the perception that they were protectors against these Takfirists and Salafi jihadistss who play with Al-Qaeda, and the Baathists, the former regime. So all these, what Iran could do was raise the specter of terrorist attacks against Shiite communities as a justification for its support in nefarious activities. Now, the contradiction of what they’ve been doing is much more obvious to many more people than it had been previously. . . .

Nancy Pelosi has slandered the incredible accomplishments of our soldiers. She owes our soldiers and our nation an apology. And she owes a special apology to the family of every soldier killed and maimed by Iran in the conduct of their proxy war. She has denigrated their sacrifice with her falsehoods in her pursuit of partisan power.

The tremendous offensiveness of Pelosi's falsehoods are bad enough. But what makes her remarks truly malignant are that those remarks are upon an issue at the heart of our national security. Indeed, on the largest national security issue we face, Iran, pretending that they are a benign and helpful entity can only serve to place our nation in ever greater danger. It prevents us from acknowledging reality and developing a plan to deal with Iran that will have the support of our nation. That is not merely inexcusable, but for the third most powerful person in our government, it is traitorous and criminal.

Read More...

Summary only...

Al Qaeda Failing In Iraq

Our ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, is a man not given to overstatement. Thus, things must indeed be looking bad for al Qaeda in Iraq indeed for Ambassador Crocker to chacracterize thier situation as near defeat.

This from the AP:

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq said Saturday that al-Qaida's network in the country has never been closer to defeat, and he praised Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his moves to rein in Shiite and Sunni militant groups.

Iraqi forces have been conducting crackdowns on al-Qaida militants in the northern city of Mosul and on Shiite militiamen in the southern city of Basra. Thousands of Iraqi forces also moved into the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad last week imposing control for the first time in years.

. . . U.S Ambassador Crocker spoke as he visited reconstruction projects in the southern city of Najaf.

"There is important progress for the Iraqi forces in confronting the Sunni and Shiite militias," he said, speaking Arabic to reporters. "The government, the prime minister are showing a clear determination to take on extremist armed elements that challenge the government's authority ... no matter who these elements are."

"You are not going to hear me say that al-Qaida is defeated, but they've never been closer to defeat than they are now," Crocker said.

The U.S. military says attacks have dropped dramatically — down to an average of 41 a day across the country, the lowest rate since 2004 — amid the crackdowns and truces. The U.S. military, backed by Sunni Arab tribal fighters, have scored successes in battling al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni insurgents in western parts of the country.

The Mosul sweep aims to dislodge the terror network from its most prominent remaining urban stronghold. . . .

Read the entire article. This coming from Ambassador Crocker is indeed good news. It also fits with bin Laden's November comments that Iraq was, in so many words, lost to al Qaeda, and now, in his most recent tape, not even mentioning Iraq. This also coincides with a significant weakening of the al Qaeda brand world-wide, as discussed in the TNR article about which I blogged here.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Week Of Enemy Propaganda & Pusillanimous Interviews

Iraq is the penultimate issue for our national security today. The economy will bounce back, but Iraq will not if the Dems win the presidency or a veto proof majority in the Senate. We are winning in Iraq against both al Qaeda and Iran – a fact that is reverberating throughout the Islamic world. Moreover, the government of Iraq has made tremendous strides politically and militarily since the start of the New Year. If we legislate surrender in Iraq, the ramifications will be dire and permanent. We will have handed a victory beyond reckoning to al Qaeda and to Iran, and we will have done far more to advance the cause of Islamic radicalism than had we never gone into Iraq. Yet we have seen this week:

- Fox’s Bill O’Reilly do, at best, a marginal interview of Hillary Clinton on the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan on Thursday

- The Washington Post run a front page story Wednesday about American efforts to defeat the Sadrists in Sadr City – written from the Sadrist perspective and complete with photos of dead babies.

- The AP run an incredibly disingenuous story spinning statistics on our war dead and, in addition, ignoring all the positive indicators out of Iraq.

- Fox’s Chris Wallace do a horrendous interview of Obama on the issues of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan on Sunday. It was one puff ball question after the next with no follow-up.

I. Hillary and O'Reilly

This was Hillary Thursday night in her interview with Bill O’Reilly discussing issues of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran:



1. Why does O’reilly, of all people, play this kabuki dance with Hillary of accepting at face value her ostensible reasons for legislating defeat in Iraq? Her opposition to the war in Iraq is pure opportunistic partisanship. Very coldly, very calculatingly, she’s tossing our national security under the bus so that she can gain power. Her base wants to label Iraq a failure at any cost. She heard the clarion call of her base and then tried to get to the left of Edwards and Obama. She is ambition unguided by any principles. Why in God’s name allow this woman to make her utterly ridiculous assertions without calling her on her motives?

2. O’reilly opens the segment of questions on Iraq by saying that "Iraq is a mess." Apparently the incredible progress in Iraq, both in terms of security and politically, since the start of the surge literally through today counts for nothing. What an utterly pretentious pusillanimous pontificating pedant O’Reilly is.

3. Once Hillary starts in, it is just insane. O’Reilly let’s Hillary get away with the tired and intellectually dishonest half quote of Gen. Petraeus, that "there is no military solution" to Iraq, and then a bald and breathless assertion that what we face in Iraq is "unprecedented." What is "unprecedented" Hillary never explains and O’Reilly never asks. She utterly refuses to acknowledge any progress in Iraq, as apparently does O’Reilly. Update: As Gateway Pundit sagely asks, "why is there no 'military solution in Iraq' but there is a military solution in Afghanistan?"

4. Hillary trots out the dishonest argument that to withdraw is the only way to "focus the Iraqi government." This is so transparent as to be mind-numbing. Iraqis are doing a tremendous job of focussing with us there at the moment. Further, we know from the recent hearings that Amb. Crocker thinks that pressuring the Iraqi govt. with withdrawing U.S. forces will have the precisely opposite effect.

5. Can Hillary possibly believe that Iran actually wants the U.S. to remain in Iraq? Every intelligence briefing we have seen and everything Iran is doing is designed to drive out America and create a Lebanon out of Iraq. This is a ridiculous theory made out of whole cloth. I want our spy-chief Mike McConnell to poll our intelligence agencies to see if there is any analyst who has been able to seriously consider Hilary's Iran-wants-us-to-stay-in-Iraq theory without laughing to the point of incontinence.

6. Under what possible alternate reality is Afghanistan more strategically important than Iraq? How much of the world's oil reserves are in Afghanistan? Iraq’s economy is, what, 100 times the size of Afghanistan’s. Iraq is dead in the center of the Middle East, it has both major Islamic sects and two major ethnic groups. Its loss to either al Qaeda or Iran would be exponentially more devastating to the war on terror than would be the loss of Afghanistan. There is a reason al Qaeda’s leaders have been saying publicly and privately since 2004 that Iraq is their main effort and there is a reason Iran is trying to "Lebanize" Iraq but not Afghanistan.

7. How does Hillary square her claim that Iraq is harming our effort in Afghanistan with the recent testimony from our military that Iraq is not detracting from our effort in Afghanistan.

8. O’reilly is at least accurate when he tells Hillary that withdrawing from Iraq will appear as weakness to Iran and al Qaeda. Both Benard Lewis and Arthur Hermann have written excellent essays on how destructive that would be, and I written on the topic here. O’reilly is also accurate that once we are out of Iraq, the Dems claims to go back into Iraq in case of problems is devoid of substance. The only reason we are succeeding in Iraq is because we have the large scale support of the people. That is what counterinsurgency is all about. If we pull out and things fall apart, who in Iraq at the local level will put their trust in U.S. troops - who will be on the ground for only a few days - while the people who will kneecap them with a power drill will show back up again as soon as the U.S. leaves? Where will we get our intelligence? If Clinton or Obama actually believe that we can pull out of Iraq yet remain close with a QRF and that such is sufficient to keep al Qaeda and Iran out of Iraq, they are utterly clueless.

All in all, I would have to rate the O’Reilly interview of Hillary a D. And that is by far the best of this rouge's gallery of agenda journalism for the week.

II. WaPo Does Dead Baby Propaganda For Sadr

On Wednesday, the Washington Post ran a front page story, U.S. Role Deepens In Sadr City, which discusses the U.S. push into Sadr City to put an end to the fiefdom being run by the Iranian backed Sadrists and to end the Iranian proxy attacks on the Green Zone, where, among other things, the Iraqi Parliament meets. Those attacks have been ongoing for months. Our soldiers are dying at the hands of Sadrists.

I sat down to fisk the article, but have found myself so outraged on each occasion that I have refrained, as what I would have written would have been incoherent profanity. The majority of the article is given over to presenting the Sadrist point of view and dwelling on collateral damage caused by U.S. counterattacks against Sadrist combatants who have taken up positions in inhabited dwellings. The article reports the casualty count according to the Sadrists and clearly gives the impression that the Sadrists are being more honest than the U.S. military – who stand accused of wantonly killing civilians. Here are the money quotes/photos from the article:

. . . An Associated Press photograph showed a boy being pulled from the rubble [after a U.S. counterattack]. The AP reported that Ali Hussein, 2, died at the hospital.

"Sadr City is under the American hammer and nobody is monitoring it," said Leewa Smeisim, the head of the Sadr movement's political bureau. "Eighty percent of the military operations are targeting innocents, . . .

Not to appear cold-hearted, but we are in a war and the people trying to kill our soldiers were in or near where that child was located. But a photo of that does not appear in the WaPo. The only reason to run the photo of this dead child is to create a negative emotional response towards our military. The child's death is a tragedy. The photo of that child's death is utterly despicable agenda journalism on behalf of those who wish to kill our soldiers.

If you would like to express your displeasure with this traitorous propaganda, the author is Amit R. Paley and can be reached by e-mail form here.

III. AP Misleading Reports Of U.S. Casualties

Also spinning beyond the pale was the A.P. with their article, US troop deaths push monthly toll to 7-month high in Iraq. It is a piece that ignores the incredibly positive news from Iraq in April and spins the rest in a manner as to approach the WaPo article as a piece of enemy propoganda. Dafydd at Big Lizards does an exceptional job of addressing this article, and I will simply link to his work here.

IV. Chris Wallace Interview of Obama

And then, lastly on Sunday, Fox’s Chris Wallace did a puff ball interview of Obama, letting him get away with ridiculous answers to easy questions on Iraq with no follow-up of any note. There were at least eight questions that should have been put to Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan, and I posted them here in detail. To summarize them:

1. At the Senate Hearings, you had a chance to ask Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker to evaluate your plan to leave Iraq beginning as soon as you take office – to let the American people know what the costs and benefits would be? You chose not to ask them that. Why not?

2. How much damage will it do to the war on terror, the fight against radical Islam led by al Qaeda and Iran, and our ability to convince any nation facing a threat to ally themselves with us if we leave Iraq before it is stabilized, allowing al Qaeda to reinfiltrate the Sunni portion while Iran creates a Hezbollah to dominate the Shia south?

3. Ambassador Crocker has clearly stated that attempting to pressure Iraq with threats of pulling out our soldiers is counterproductive because it puts Iraq’s political groups in the position of looking at their interests when the U.S. is gone rather than having enough feeling of security to make concessions. Why should we believe your argument to the contrary?

4. Al Qaeda says Iraq is its main effort. Zawahiri and bin Laden hate the Sunni Anbar Awakening movement and have vowed to destroy it because its success poses a mortal danger to the radical Islamic cause al Qaeda champions. We have all but destroyed al Qaeda in Iraq. So why should we leave and endanger all these gains before Iraq can handle its own internal and external security?

5. If Afghanistan is so important in your eyes, why, if you are in charge of the Sen. For. Relations subcommittee, have you not put the interests of the nation ahead of your own for a week and convened hearings to put pressure on our NATO allies to support the Afghan mission?

6. The Protect America Act contains an immunity provision for telecom companies who voluntarily cooperate with our intelligence community. Those companies face massive law suits from a dem special interest group - the tort bar. The Chairman of the House Sen. Intel Comm., a democrat, is on the record as noting that continued voluntary cooperation from these companies is vital to our national security and would be endangered by these lawsuits. You voted to strip out the immunity provision from the act. Why did you place the interests of a special interest group ahead of our nation’s security?

7. Given Iran’s long history of terrorism since 1979 and their clear goals to expand their influence and build a nuclear arsenal, what could you possibly offer Iran in talks that would change the inherent nature of the theocracy and move them from their current course?

8. What makes you think your plans to hold talks with Iran under the current circumstances are, one, justified, and two, would be any less ill advised, counterproductive and disastrous than the attempts to find a middle ground with Hitler in the 30's?
______________________________________________________

If you value intellectual honesty, objectivity and reality, this has been a very bad week for you, indeed.

Read More...

Summary only...

Petraeus & Crocker Draw The Line In The Sand

Wow. I just sat down and flipped on the House hearings, expecting not to hear much of anything different there than yesterday. Wrong. Petraeus and Crocker just laid out the cost of leaving Iraq in very explicit terms far beyond what they tactfully explained yesterday. I think they are getting tired and a bit exasperated.

I will post the transcript as soons as I can find it. In essence, Iran will make a move into Iraq. Al Qaeda will move back into Iraq. There will be chaos in the Middle East. The players in the Middle East will look upon the U.S. as unwilling to pay the price necessary to win and act towards us accordingly in the future with dire and long term consequences.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Democrats Go On The Offensive

Our partisan Dems were kind enough to instruct General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about the objective reality in Iraq during hearings before the Senate committees today. And, in a few instances, our Dems even managed to work in a question or two. What became clear were the new Democratic talking points. And there were even two award winning performances. The most smacked down award goes to Evan Byah while Obama takes the Slick Willie award:

__________________________________________________________

I’ve spent the day watching and blogging the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker before Congress, including the three Presidential candidates. Here are my observations as to our partisan left.

1. The laugher of the day has to go to Biden who concluded his speech opening the hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee by saying that those who advocate leaving Iraq immediately are being being "unfairly" labled as "defeatists." In reality, they are "patriots." Right. If that is how we defined "patriots" since 1776, we would be singing God Save the Queen today and Washington, D.C. would be abutting the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America.

2. Gone is any question that includes the words “bench marks.” That favored of all topics but a few short months ago has been vanished from Democratic vocabulary except for speeches to which neither Petraeus or Crocker are afforded an opportunity to respond. The answer of course would have been that 12 of the 18 benchmarks are substantively met and the other six are all on a forward trajectory.

3. Democrats have become fiscally conservative, seeing the money being spent in Iraq as breaking our nation’s economy. Of course, what was unsaid was that Obama and Clinton have both promised to use the money going to Iraq to fund their vast new experiments in socialism. I guess this would be called highly selective fiscal conservatism.

4. Several Senators tried the argument that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri have been lying when they have repeatedly said, as recently as four months ago, that Iraq is the central focus of al Qaeda. According to these budding intel analysts, bin Laden is conducting a brilliant disinformation campaign designed to bankrupt America by keeping us fighting in Iraq. The fact that al Qaeda's defeat in the Iraq is having a very negative impact on the popularity of their cause apparently does not enter into Democratic calculus.

5. Many of the Senators claimed our forces are too stretched by the Iraq War so that we are unprepared to respond if our forces are needed elsewhere. The unspoken logical extension of that is let’s surrender in Iraq so that we can bring our troops home and they can prepare for a hypothetical war that no Democrat will committ ground forces to anyway. And that way, Congress will not have to waste money increasing the size of the military that is the smallest in our nation’s history since WWII. Its a far left two'fer.

6. Iran is an ally of the Shia in Iraq and in a close relationship with Maliki. Apparently, allowing Ahmendinejad to conduct a state visit to Iraq a month ago showed the Iraqi Shia led government to be in an anti-American alliance with Ahmedinejad – a bargain they sealed with a kiss. I thought that was a hanging offense in Iran. Perhaps Ahmedinejad is just letting his hair down outside of Tehran.

7. Iran is only conducting its malign proxy actions in Iraq, attempting to recreate Lebanon in Iraq, is only because the U.S. is in Iraq. If only the U.S. would leave Iraq, Iran would immediately stop their attempts at meddling and embrace Iraq. The fact that an Iraq with a real democracy and that honors the millenium old Shia tradition of a wall between mosque and state, if you will, presents a mortal threat to Iran by its very existance on Iranian borders is apparently merely ancillary to this argument.

8. The Basra offensive, with Shia on Shia violence, was proof positive that the surge had failed. The fact that the Basra offensive was the government seeking to stop criminal gangs who contol Iraq’s sole port and economic center were apparently not reasonable justifications for the offensive. Nor was the fact that the only militia to react is armed, funded and trained by Iran. That was not evidence of a civil war. It was evidence of an Iran Iraq war.

9. We have not conducted a "diplomatic surge." Other Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, are not assissting us enough in Iraq because of a failure of Bushian diplomacy. Apparently, the fact that Iraq, if we succeed, will be a shining democracy amongst a world of repressive police states – and will be a particular threat to Iran – simply does not explain the lack of concern amongst Middle Eastern countries with making Iraq a success. It must be Bush's fault. And as to Iran, we have tried to set up meetings with them for months to discuss Iraqi security. Unfortunately, they keep running into "unavoidable conflicts" with scheduling.

10. Multiple Senators strong armed Crocker to submit the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that we are negotiating with Iraq to Congress for approval. The fact that this will be an Executive Agreement within the President’s Article II powers to sign and that Crocker said will not in any way tie the hands of our next president is meaningless to the narrative that this is an end run around Congress. As is the fact that President’s have negotiated SOFA agreements without Congressional approval in 79 out of 79 other similar scenarios. Clearly, the Democrats would love to see our forces in Iraq with no authority under international law or by force of agreement between the U.S. and Iraq.

11. Most of the Democrats did not understand why we could not predict today a bright line set of conditions that would allow us leave as soon as we meet them. Particularly disingenuous was Obama, who was trying to portray those in favor of staying in Iraq as only planning to draw down when every last al Qaeda sympathizer is wiped out or jailed. No one has ever claimed that, though Obama stated it today as if its been part of the Republican platform since 2002.


And the Most Smacked-Down award goes to . . . . .

Senator Evan Byah. Senator Bayh sounded like a lawyer doing just an incredibly poor cross examination.

- Bayh tried to get Petraeus to say that reasonable people could disagree on how to go forward in Iraq – clearly implying that an immediate withdraw is within reason. Petraeus picked it up and responded that reasonable people could differ, but anyone who advocated a quick withdraw would "not be reasonable."

- Bayh was the brilliant mind that suggested it is possible that bin Laden and Zawahiri are both lying about Iraq still being al Qaeda’s central focus, merely trying to stretch our effort and break our piggy bank. Crocker indicated he rather believed bin Laden on this one.

- Bayh asked Crocker to agree that we needed to put more pressure on Iraq’s government by giving a time certain deadline for withdraw. Crocker responded that his experience was that political progress and concessions occur when there is less pressure on the Iraqi legislators, not more. Further, the pressure of a timeline for quick withdraw would end the political gains in their tracks as each side starts to look at what is to come after America pulls out.

- Finally, Petraus responds to Bayh’s suggestion that our effort in Iraq has caused an increase in jihadi recruitment. Petraeus disagrees and then goes on to state he believes bin Laden’s repeated assertions about the centrality of Iraq to al Qaeda and that removing troops cannot be on a date certain. It must be conditions based if it is to be done while sustaining the progress made to date.

The Slick Willie Award for prevarication and disingenuousness in the spirit of William Jefferson Clinton goes to . . .

Obama.

Obama had a perfect opportunity to let Petraeus and Crocker ponder the ramifications of his plan to get out of Iraq a brigade or two a month. True, in prior testimony, Petraeus and Crocker were both explicit that that a precipitous withdraw would be an incredible disaster – and that of course is what Obama has proposed. Instead of asking about the problems with his surrender plan, Obama spent his time asking rather innocuous questions that sounded sage but were of little substance. Only when his questioning was nearly done did he make a statement, not allowing Petraeus nor Crocker the opportunity to respond. To paraphrase, Obama stated his narrative:

“The decision to go into Iraq was a blunder and it is the cause of al Qaeda and Iran going into Iraq. The surge has not resulted in reconciliation. Basra was done for political purposes. We need a timetable for withdraw and a diplomatic surge that includes Iran. We need Iran as partners to assisst with stabilizing Iraq. The money we are spending is breaking our budget. We have finite resources.”

And for that very disingenuous performance, he of course earned copious praise from the MSNBC crowd.

Read More...

Summary only...

Liveblogging Petraeus & Crocker Testimony Before The Sen. Foreign Rel. Committee

3 p.m.

I just caught the tale end of Biden's opening remarks that he concluded by saying that people who want an immediate withdraw from Iraq are "not defeatists," but "patriots." One wonders where he got his dictionary?

And now Richard Lugar (R) is worse than Biden. His list of assertions is incredible. One wonders if the last time he was briefed on Iraq was in December, 2006. This is really incredible. This idiot is making a speech to the left of something I would expect from Kos. I am literally speechless. This son of a bitch needs to be tarred and feathered on his way out of the Republican Party.

Biden:

Biden is asking about conditions under which we will withdraw, but does not seem to be asking much of real substance. He is posing a series of hypotheticals that really are impossible to answer. Ambassador Crocker refuses to answer as the conditions Biden poses as unlikely.

Lugar:

This man is an idiot. He is making remarks about sub-prime mortgages. Perhaps the things he is raising need to be strategic considerations about Iraq - but they have not the slightest thing to do with Petraeus or Crocker. He seems to be advocating withdraw and diplomacy with the "surrounding countries." His question is completely incomprehensible. He needs a challenge come next primary.

Petraeus - We need to do precisely what we are doing now. My hat's off to Petraeus to even attempt to answer a question that I still cannot understand.

Dodd

Making a speech that suggests we need to bring our soldiers home to be prepared to fight some other war that does not exist. And he suggests our soldiers are overstressed. Comment: The answer here is to win the Iraq war and expand the size of the military. Petraeus can do the first - the Congress is responsible for the latter.

Petraeus: Counterinsurgency operations are full spectrum operations. Their mission is not leaving them untrained and unable to do full spectrum operations elsewhere in the world. The Iraq mission is putting stress on our soldiers, but reenlistment rate goals are being met and exceeded. One unit just finishing 3rd tour in Iraq has already exceeded its 2008 reenlistment goal.

Petraeus: We are not arming Sunni militias. Each Iraqi is allowed an AK-47. They started out completely as unpaid volunteers. It marked a seismic shift in the Sunni world against al Qaeda. We started paying them only much later, in order to draw in more people.

4:13

Hagel:

Hagel is making a speech that we can't afford to stay in Iraq, reconciliation is not happening, and that it will remain a violent place. Hagel is ignoring the changes in Iraq since 2006. He has yet to ask a question after 5 minutes. Now he is asking Crocker about his September testimony of a "diplomatic surge."

Crocker: There are biannual meetings with the surrounding countries. Arabs need to be more engaged. We are prepared to have face to face talks with Iran over Iraqi security. We can't compel the neighbors to act positively.

John Kerry:

Speech telling Petraeus that the Senate is concerned with far more than Iraq. There is a sectarian power struggle that Iran is increasingly in control of. Wow. It is as if the last several months never happened in the Iraqi Parliament. Our military capability is steadilly degrading. Kerry asks - himself, rhetorically - how do we end this. No military solution - only politics and there is insufficient progress there. Petraeus tries to jump in and Kerry cuts him off. Our allegiance from the Sunnis is rented and they are not being integrated. Still not a question. Kerry finally asks whether we can get any political results with an open ended committment.

Crocker - Tries to answer that the answer is no, pressure will not work.

Petreaues - Sunnis are being integrated into Iraqi security forces. And the Iraqi Army is an integrated force with Sunnis, Kurds and Shia all mixed in units. We are not renting loyalty.

Kerry keeps interrupting. AQI did not exist in Iraq before we entered into Iraq and claims that AQI did not attack Sunnis?

Petraeus - The Anbar Awakening succeeded because of U.S. support.

4:32

Coleman

What the hell. Is every republican on the foreign relations committee to the left of Moveon.org? He is asking what pressure we can put on Maliki to force quicker political progress.

Crocker - the Anbar Awakening lessened the need for Shia to rely on militias for security. That has made progress possible and it is showing up in willingess to compromise. Basra offensive has greatly improved the political climate.

Petraeus - drawdown of forces needs to be based on conditions, not a date certain. It is all a question of risk.

GREAT Question How do we stop Iran from their proxy war?

Petraeus - there needs to be a regional and global approach with the decisions to be made above his pay grade as to what actions to take beyond simply targeting their proxies and agents in Iraq.

Feingold

Speech - Our actions in Iraq is causing al Qaeda to grow. Iraq is an Iran and Turkey problem.

Crocker - al Qaeda is our strategic threat. Al Qaeda was well on its way to a safe haven in Iraq that would have allowed them operate from Iraq as a base.

Petraeus - bin Laden and Zawahiri both have expressed that Iraq

Feingold - keeps interrupting and claims the threat from al Qaeada has increased over the past six years. Feingold suggests that we are playing into bin Laden's hands by staying in Iraq becasue he wants to bankrupt us.

Petraeus - several militias have been integrated into Iraqi security forces that had received funding in Iran per a 2004 law. But those militia elements are seperate and apart from the special group proxies.

Crocker - the heads of the major parties in Iraq all want to see a long term relationship with the U.S.

Feingold ends with claims that the majority of Iraqis want US forces out of Iraq. Crocker is not given time to respond.

Corker

Petraeus - we are gradually moving, province by province, to an overwatch / reserve position that will allow us to drawdown. In the provinces other than Basra, Iraqi forces performed quite well and were up to the task. It will be a process of risk assessment.

Petraeus - a drawdown does put pressure on the Iraqi government. Too quick a drawdown would put too much pressure on them. We have been putting pressure on them with every tool in the book. It has worked sometimes, and sometimes it hasn't.

Crocker - Iraqis want to stand on their own two feat - and Basra was a clear example of that. The Iraqis have the willingness and intention to take the lead and be indepenant.

Petraeus - over 1/4 of our combat forces will be withdrawn by July. That is a huge drawdown over a short period. At that point we need time to sit pat and take stock.

Boxer:

Petraeus: As of today, here are only a few thousand al Qaeda left and a few thousand of Sunni insurgents.

Speech from Boxer - the gains are fragile because there is no political solution - and MSNBC has just cut off. Missed the rest. Now Boxer wants to cut off funding to "militias."

Petraeus - tells her these are not militias this is how you end this type of war. Says he will ask

Boxer - Ahmedinejad given the red carpet treatment while our President has to sneak into Iraq. Iraq will only start to deal with Iran when we set a date certain for leaving. Iran is stronger and more influential in Iraq than the U.S.

Crocker - Ahmedinejad did not have to worry about security because Iran controls the special groups. As to how Iraqi government feels today about Iran, they are very upset and concerned today about what they have recently seen with the degree of Iranian acts of war in backing the extremist militias.

Boxer seems concerned with diplomatic niceties more than reality.

5:10

Voinivich

We are going broke because of the war. We need to drawdown and have a diplomatic surge. He indicates that he is responding to the anti-American polls.

Crocker - the reality is that it is hard in Iraq.

Voinivich thinks that just telling the Iraqis we are on the way out will act as some sort of light switch.

Crocker - If we decide that we want out now, than the consequences will be severe.

Petraeus - It is easy to dislike where we are, but the consequences of pulling out will be very severe. There has been extensive diplomatic activity. We are working very hard

Voinivich - This idiot thinks that Egypt and other dictatorships are not overly energized to make Iraqi democracy a success. They do not want it to succeed. Where did we get this class of Republicans?

Obama

Obama - Al Qaeda was not there before we went in. Should we be successful in driving them out of Mosul, do we anticapate that there is ever a time that they could not reconstitute themselves.

Petraeus - Al Qaeda will try to reconstitute. The question is will Iraqi alone be able to stop them from reconstituting. Over time, we will be able to draw down and Iraqis will be able to handle it alone.

Obama - Are Sons of Iraq being treated fairly

Petraues - Yes, they are. No favortism is being shown and the process to integrate Sons of Iraq is moving forward and is now routine.

Obama - when can we drawdown as regards Iran

Crocker - Iran's strategy of Lebanonization is the problem right now. It is being directed by the Iranian government.

Obama - If Iraq's government knows this, why did they welcome Iran

Crocker - Maliki knows of the problem.

Obama speech - The decision to go into Iraq was a blunder and it is the cause of al Qaeda and Iran going into Iraq. The surge has not resulted in reconciliation. Basra was done for political purposes. We need a timetable for withdraw and a diplomatic surge that includes Iran. We need Iran as partners to assisst with stabilizing Iraq. The money we are spending is breaking our budget. We have finite resources. If we had the status quo without U.S. presence in Iraq, would that be considered a success?

Crocker - I can't imagine the current status quo being sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown.

Obama - definition of success is too high. No traces of al Qaeda. No trace of malign Iranian influence. A functioning democracy. We need an achievable messy goal.

Crocker - Iraq is hard. When Iraq gets to the point that it can carry further its development with confidence that they will experience significant danger, than our presence will drawdown dramatically. We are not there now.

Obama cuts him off.

5:34

Murkowski

Petraeus - we are getting very good effort from multiple civilian and non-military support. More is needed.

Crocker - we are not paying for large infrastructure projects now. We are now doing capacity building measures with experts.

Missed a portion.

Petraeus - 12 month tours will work.


Nelson

Petraeus - the math in payments to Sunnis is much in our favor. The key over time is to integrate Sons of Iraq into security forces or education and alternative employment for them. And those programs are in force.

Nelson - there is no loyalty in these forces. They are beholden to local strong men.

Petraeus - tribal sheiks are the reality and we need to work through them. But the integration plan is still the key.

Petraeus - we are keenly aware of the strain and costs of the war. It is why we are drawing down 1/4 of our combat power by July and then looking after that.

Nelson - the only thing that will keep Iraq united is a long term committment by the U.S. or a new dictator.

Crocker - no one in Iraq wants to see a dictator. And all want to maintain a larger Iraqi identity, including the Kurds after seeing the Turkey invasions. Oil revenues are also a powerful part of the glue holding Iraq together.

Isakson

Crocker - the Basra offensive has had a "very positive resonance throughout Iraq." And existing Iraq law says that if you have a militia, you cannot take part in politics. Upcoming elections are critical for settling political questions by non-violent means.

Crocker - Iraqi budget execution is three times better than 2006, but still have a ways to go. They are spending 62% of their budget currently. Dept. of Treasury folks are coming out to look at this issue.


Menendez

He is accusing Maliki of fighting in Basra for purely political reasons and that Iran is funding all of them.

Crocker - Maliki went to Basra because of these special groups.

Crocker is not being given a chance to answer. Menendez is reading off a group of "facts" that claim Iraq is far worse off than before the war.

Crocker - has no clue where those "facts" came from. The BBC poll tells a very different story than those facts Menendez just read off.

Menendez doesn't identify his source, just calls it "pretty reliable" and goes into a closing speech, ignoring Crockers remarks. Shock and awe is the American people. He accuses Crocker and Petraeus of not giving specific bench marks for how we will withdraw.

Biden tells Menendez to give Crocker his figures and allow him to comment.


Barrasso

Petraeus - Iraqis require help when we turn over areas to them. In some areas we can slowly draw down, but some areas are more challenging and require we maintain a more active presence.

Petraeus - majority of Sunni communities have rejected al Qaeda and other extremist ideologies. This is important in Iraq and throughout the world. This has huge significance throughtout the region.


Cardin

This idiot claims none of the bench marks have been met (12 of 18 have been and the rest are in various stages of completion). No national leaders who are willing to make concessions. He is concerned that the SOFA agreement and the fact that it will not go through congress.

Crocker - Concessions are being made. The SOFA agreement is an executive agreement.

Cardin warns that it must go through Congress. Someone give him a copy of Article II of the Constitution.


Casey

Complaining about language such as "victory" and "defeat" in regards to Iraq. Crocker has used the phrase "sustainable security." How does that stack up to the current training levels.

Petraeus - good Iraqi units are being raided to act as the skeleton for other units. That is why only a few Iraqi units at level I readiness. He agrees with that approach.


Webb

He blames Bush for not having a strong enough diplomatic effort, implying as to Iran.

Crocker - There is a Strategic Framework Agreement and, from that, a SOFA agreement. The SFA, setting out a vision for on-going relationship in fields from security, economic, etc. That does not even rise to the level of an Executive Agreement. We have briefed Congress on this and are being transparent.

Read More...

Summary only...

Liveblogging Petraeus & Crocker Testimony - Senate Armd Svcs Committee

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave their brieifing before the Armed Svcs Committee today, concluding at 2 p.m. They will brief Foreign Relations Committee this afternoon. My contemperanous notes of the questions and answers are below the fold. Both Petraeus and Crocker gave opening statements. General Petraeus's statement is here, and Ambassador Crocker's before the Armd Svcs Committee is here, and before the Foreign Relations Committee (not sure if they differ)is here.


Highlights and summary of the questions and answers:

1. Basra offensive was not a defeat for Maliki. The Iraqi government now control the ports in Basra and is conducting on-going operations in that city aimed at the "special groups."

2. The Iraqi military performance in Basra was uneven, partly becasue of poor planning. The Iraqi military successfully quelled Sadrist uprisings in all other cities.

3. Maliki has gained significant stature among all Iraqis for his willingness to take on all criminal elements, irrespective of their sect.

4. The biggest problem now is Iran's attempts to "Lebanonize" Iraq, creating an Iraqi "Hezbollah" militia beholden to Iran that dominates the Shia portion of Iraq. Iran's training, funding and arming of "special groups" culled from Sadr's Mahdi Militia is the primary vehicle for that strategy. Within the past month, this has become both completely clear and a point of great concern for the Iraqi government.

5. Taking control of Iraq remains al Qaeda's ultimate goal, and that if we leave Iraq precipitously, we can expect al Qaeda to make a resurgance and we can expect Iran to make a determined effort to dominate the Shia portion of Iraq. Allowing this to happen would drastically effect our national security.

6. As to diplomacy, Iran is refusing to take part in talks about Iraqi security and Iran's proxy war. Each time a meeting is scheduled, the Iranian side cancels due to scheduling conflicts. Another meeting is scheduled for next week.

7. Petraeus believes that the ultimate key to defanging membership in the Mahdi militia is getting employment prospects for the young and often illiterate members of the militia.

8. Sadr's popularity was predicated on Iraqi and Arab nationalism. His ever closer relationship with Iran and the gangsterism of his militia has severely damaged any nationalist appeal he might have had. There is wide support for disarming and disbanding his militia.

9. Somebody check to see if Evan Bayh has recovered yet. If you did not see it, Bayh was the last person to question Petraeus and Crocker, he approached them like a laywer on cross examination, and he got his ass handed to him in a very respectful way. Specifically:

Petraeus - Explicitly says that he does not agree with Bayh that leaving Iraq precipitously would be reasonable.

Crocker - bin Laden recently referred to Iraq as the perfect base for al Qaeda - Bayh cuts him off and says that we should not believe bin Laden because what he may be saying is disinformation.

Crocker - putting pressure on Iraqis to do more by threatening to leave and pull out is counterproductive. If they sense that U.S. is wavering and looking to pull out, than the Iraqis will be moving away from compromise as they consider what comes after the U.S. pulls out.

Petraeus - does not agree that we are creating more terrorists globally by our actions in Iraq. Takes issue with Bayh on his assessment that bin Laden may be giving us disinformation. Further, it is not responsible to say that we will draw down troops on a date certain. It must be conditions based if it is to be done while sustaining the progress made to date.


Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing

9:35 - Carl Levin opens with a 5 minute speech - the surge has failed because of Basra, there has been no reconcilliation (based on a 5 month old State Dept. paper) and we can only win by retreating

Petraeus Opening Remarks:

Iranian proxies are the greatest threat long-term to Iraqi security

Al Qaeda is successfully being dealt with, and this is in and outside of Iraq.

Really hammering home about the Qods Force and their meddling in Iraq.

Some forces performed well in Basra, others did not. Many of the problems were staff problems of command and control, etc.

Will draw down surge forces by the summer, but any further reduction may jeapordize security gains and must be done on a case by case basis.

Crocker Operning Remarks:

Progress being made with reconcilliation and political development.

Iraq's parliament has gone from frozen to much more fluid and willingness to compromise

The decision to take on Mahdi militia in Basra was important to reconcilliation. Sunni, Shia and Kurd.

The surge has worked. We are in the midst of developing an agreement for long term contacts - the SOFA agreement.

Iran has a choice to make.

Success in Iraq is quite possible. If we stop our support for Iraq, than it will fail and al Qaeda and Iran will move in to fill the vacuum.

Levin Questions:

- Asks Petraues to commit to hard numbers of troops to draw down. Petraeus doesn't bite.

- Levin asks whether the Basra operation could have been better planned. After Petraeus agree, Levim implies U.S. forces were called to support in large numbers because of Iraqi incompetence.

Chapaquidick Ted:

What an utter asshole he is. Few questions, long on wind. He states that Maliki had no business going into Basra, they should only be fighting al Qaeda, and that this may lead to civil war. This man is clueless.

Warner:

Asks P and C whether the costs of Iraq have been and will be worth it in terms of providing greater security to Americans in the 50 states. Petraeus is prepared this time. Saddam is gone and a nascent democracy is in place. Petraeus answers yes.

Lieberman:

Petraeus says Iran is a serious concern. Qods force and Hezbollah are deeply involved in training and support of special groups. They are responsible for deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis. Crocker says Maliki's decision to go into Basra has a very positive message - that they will go after extremists regardless of sectarian identity. Iraqi national security council is calling for all militias to be disarmed and warns against "outside" interference.

Inhofe:

Petraeus says detainee operations have been very successful, with training and education offered to all detainees. The irreconcilables are taken out of the general population. Low recidivism and 100 have asked to stay in detention to complete their studies and education.

Crocker says Iran is pursuing a "Lebanization" strategy to co-opt local Shia community. And says that Iran would step in if U.S. pulled out.

Petraeus says people in Basra gave much support to the recent offensive. Operations are continuing in Basra and increasing.

Jack Reed:

Petraeus - the ultimate key to defanging Mahdi militia is more of an employment problem just as with Sunnis.

Basra went much quicker than we expected.

Reed is another ass who asks a question, gets an answer, than spins it and moves on without allowing Petraeus to respond.

11:32

Sessions:

Crocker - Maliki's Basra offensive has drastically changed the tone of the other members of government and they perceive Maliki as a nationalist leader.

Petraeus - In Basra, Sadrists were armed by the Iranians.

Crocker - the militia actions were very unpopular amongst the Iraqi populace. Iranian influence is malign and destablizing, but is also limited by the Persian / Arab divide.

Akaka:

Let's lose the Iraq war so we can have an army not ready to fight in the next war. That is not quite what he says, but it certainly is what he means.

Collins:

She asks why Iraqi troops are not fully taking over operations and why they did not do so well in Basra.

Petraues - This is a process, not a light switch. We did not take the lead in Basra. Basra were criminal gangs and militias threatening the population. The U.S. provided air support.

12 p.m.

Nelson:

Petraeus - there has been important movements of top-down reconciliation in terms of de-baathification, amnesty, pensions, etc.

Another ass. Nelson is asking if the laws have been implemented yet. They were passed in the last month.

Crocker - they are moving in the right direction towards reconciliation.

Graham:

Petraeus - al Qaeda came to Iraq to establish an extremist caliphate in the heart of the Middle East, and the change of Iraqi Sunnis against al Qaeda is the most important event to date.

Crocker - Iran wants a Lebanization of Iraq. Iran is concerned about a functioning Shia democracy on its border. Iran and Syria are working against the creation of a stable Iraqi state.

Petraeus - The success of the surge has led to an improved Iraqi economy. If Iraq fails, it will effect our national security. Graham is trying to get Petraues to say the drawdown of a brigade a month will be a disaster. Petraeus doesn't bite and says he disagrees very tactfully.

Ben Nelson:

He wants to see Iraq bear more of the costs.

Thune:

Petraeus - The original cease fire was by Sadr militia that refused to disarm before going into Karbala. That was the general militia. Iran is clearly in control of the special groups. Iraqi political leaders have become very concerned about Iran and Qods Force in the past month.

Petraeus - Congress needs to fully fund Commander's Emergency Response program. Uses small funds in local areas to meet immediate needs. It is making a critical difference. Also being used to fund Sons of Iraq security personnel.

12:40

Clinton

At least she does not claim that she is having to suspend disbelief this time. Instead she is making a speech that reconciliation has been sufficient. She really does come off a witch. She is also trying to portray the SOFA agreement as requiring Congressional approval.

Petraeus - Maliki directed the rapid deployment to Basra because of the increasing problems with criminal gangs associated with the militia.

Martinez:

Crocker - Explains that SOFA agreements are essentially always executive agreements that do not determine troop levels, etc., and thus 79 of the 80 we have in force do not require congressional approval. The only one that has was the one with NATO becasue it contains security guarantees that were unique.

Crocker - U.S. has agreed to talks with Iran about the security situation. Iran keeps refusing to talk, claiming scheduling problems.

Petraeus - Iran is arming the special groups. We have detailed intelligence on this. There is clear evidence of direction, though it is unclear whether Iranians are providing on the ground leadership.

Crocker - Sadr touched a deep vein of Iraqi and Arab nationalism that he has since lost because of Iranian contacts.

Pryor -

Great question. Is Sadr setting himself up to be the Supreme Guide of Iraq?

Crocker - Crocker doesn't answer. Given the nationalist roots of the Sadr movement, Sadr is losing support.

Wicker -

He starts with a dig at Hillary - "it would take a major suspension of disbelief" to believe that the situation in Iraq has not substantially improved.

McCaskill -

Petraeus - repeating his testimony that Iraqi govt. has just kicked in $300 million to fund the Sons of Iraq.

Crocker - SOFA talks are underway.

Crocker - Maliki did not lose in Basra at all. Maliki now has broad ranging political support as a result of the Basra offensive.

Chambliss:

Petraeus - CER program allows U.S. to generate tremendous good will in local areas and provide much needed services long before the government can get into a cleared area to provide services.

Petraeus: In 2006, al Qaeda had a substantial presence throughout large areas of Iraq.

Crocker - Iraq and Iran have major economic ties.

Webb:

Makes the point that the Anbar Awakening began before the surge was announced. He does not ask whether the Awakening would have succeeded without U.S. support. Minimizes the threat of Iran and criticizes Bush for failing to open diplomatic ties with them.

1:35

Bayh:

Petraeus - Explicitly says that he does not agree with Bayh that leaving Iraq precipitously would be reasonable.

Crocker - bin Laden recently referred to Iraq as the perfect base for al Qaeda - Bayh cuts him off and says that we should not believe bin Laden because what he may be saying is disinformation.

Crocker - putting pressure on Iraqis to do more by threatening to leave and pull out is counterproductive. If they sense that U.S. is wavering and looking to pull out, than the Iraqis will be moving away from compromise as they consider what comes after the U.S. pulls out.

Petraeus - does not agree that we are creating more terrorists globally by our actions in Iraq. Takes issue with Bayh on his assessment that bin Laden may be giving us disinformation. Further, it is not responsible to say that we will draw down troops on a date certain. It must be conditions based if it is to be done while sustaining the progress made to date.

Read More...

Summary only...