I agree with your assessment that speaker Pelosi "crossed the line" with her remarks, but there are two other things that I would like to point out. Firstly, I believe that the picture of speaker Pelosi meeting with Assad in Syria while WEARING A MINI SKIRT says more than words could about her lack of understanding Mid-East dynamics. I don't think there can be any doubt that her decision in this matter has brought additional ill will in the region against the US. Secondly, we need to remember that she is a person who has enormous influence over the party which controls the Pentagon's funding, the confirmation of generals, etc. And yet she publically seeks to influence the testamony of a general who is going to swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". To me there seems to be something at least corrupt, if not criminally wrong (abstruction of justice?), with her actions.

Oh, come on! All Pelosi is saying is that she wants the truth. General Petraeus has done a brilliant job bringing together factions which have been at odds for many years. He has the heart of a warrior AND a diplomat--an excellent combination. I don't see how the recent events in Basra can be considered a success. Many Iraqis refused to fight, and those who did needed the help of British and American troops--including air strikes--to put down the attacks of al Sadr's followers. It just amazes me that people who are so intent on keeping troops in Iraq talk out of both sides of their mouth: we can't leave if it's violent because the Iraqis need help, but we also can't leave if violence is down because violence might escalate again. It reminds me of that confusing, convoluted scene in the movie "The Princess Bride" about the rationale for putting the poison in one cup or another, and makes about as much sense. Iraqi oil was supposed to pay for the war, remember? What happened to that? I just watched "Bad Voodoo's War", and they seemed to give an honest assessment of how things are going--good and not so good. We need to hear all of it. The moveon.org ad was reprehensible, and there was no justification or excuse for it, but why try to connect it to Pelosi? It's very good that the violence in Iraq is down, and General Petraeus should get a lot of the credit for that. But it's also down because neighborhoods are segregated by large walls, many Iraqis are displaced in and out of the country and are not there to fight or kill, we are paying people not to join insurgent groups, and al Sadr's former and current cease-fire. That is what Pelosi meant. Yes, let's celebrate and build on the drop in violence, but let's be honest and candid about why that is happening, which means looking at *all* the reasons. That is the only way to make good decisions in the future. I don't think she was reprimanding him, I think she was setting the tone for expectations. She's the Speaker of the House. General Petraeus deserves respect, and so does she. To say she and the Democrats have already made up their minds is just silly.

By the way, your blog clock is way off. I posted this at 6:56 p.m.

Lynn, how many times have you been to Iraq?

I've never been there.

The Speaker has been there once.

I'm sorry, but I don't trust her judgment any more than a your typical man on the street.

Petraeus is the man who's living and working there. I think he probably knows the situation best. And he doesn't need to be warned like a little kid to basically "tell the truth." He's told the truth before and I'm sure he'll continue to tell it. If the Speaker has a problem, it's with the President, NOT the General.

I've never been to Iraq. And I never once hinted that Pelosi has more credibility than Petraeus. The reports coming from the White House are approved by the White House. Remember the so-called all important benchmarks? They were reported according to the assessment by the White House. So, in that you are right--her problem is with the president. I'm sure Petraeus is a man of integrity, but Bush is his boss. His loyalty is to his CiC. All Pelosi was saying--as I wrote before--is she wants all the facts. We'll see what happens on Tuesday.

Posted at 8:44. :-)

Yes the cease fire was brokered by Iran. I suggest you read some European news since the stuff we get in the US is full of propaganda. The speaker should start doing something to end the war. She can hold up funding by not allowing the bills to a vote in the house, which she hasnt done or start impeachment of the Bush crime family, which she hasnt done, so her comments about the one General willing to kiss Bush's ring are a shock to me too.
Oh, by the way, our invasion of Iraq was not justified and can be looked at as a war crime. The sooner we pull our troops out the better.

I can already tell you what's going to happen Tuesday. If Gen. Petraeus gives any indication - ANY indication- of progress - the Democrats will go on the attack...and the Republicans will cheer. It won't matter if what Petraeus says is true or not. I hope this isn't the case... but I'm 99% certain it will happen.

Let's watch together.

Yeah, not so fast there, Chris. This isn't as partisan as you might like to believe. Did you see the meetings with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of 2 April 2008? We just saw them yesterday. Flournoy and three retired generals (Odom, McCaffrey, and Scales) are in agreement that a contingent withdrawal is necessary. The Committee, as you know, is comprised of Ds and Rs. They all agreed. During another meeting on the same day, Rosen, Biddle, and Said were on the panel and said much the same thing (although Biddle and Said less so) *and* that al Qaeda was not the problem in Iraq. That was a shock to us, but they went on to explain. You can see all of the discussions on the cspan site. They were an eye opener for us. The citizens of the United States have really been kept in the dark about this war, to the detriment of our military and our country. Please open your mind just for a time, and set aside your disdain of Ds for a while, and watch the Committee proceedings on cspan. You might be as surprised as we were. I'm not sure what you meant when you wrote "it won't matter if what Petraeus says is true or not", because I think he will say what is true from his perspective, as long as the White House clears it.

In case anyone is interested:

A summary and some quotes from the meeting:
Wednesday, April 2nd

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Iraq After the Surge: Military Prospects

Lt. Gen. Odom Testified That The Surge is Prolonging Instability. "The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant in several other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province." [Lieutenant General William Odom's Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 4/2/08]

Iraqi Government Failed to Take Advantage of Security Gains, Can't Meet Basic Needs of Iraqis. "The Maliki government appears largely unwilling or unable to take advantage of the space created by improved security to move towards political accommodation, provide for the basic needs of the Iraqi people and lay the foundation for stability - and its own legitimacy. And the Bush administration appears to lack a strategy for getting them to do so." [Michelle Flournoy's Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 4/2/08]

Lt. Gen. Odom Said The Surge Has Made The Military Situation 'Far Worse' Because of Proliferation of Armed Groups. "Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses." [Lieutenant General William Odom's Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 4/2/08]

General McCaffrey Said We're Breaking the U.S. Army. "U.S. combat forces need to reduce their footprint to get down to twelve combat brigades by December 2008. We are breaking the U.S. Army." [General McCaffrey's Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 4/2/08]

Gen. McCaffrey Testified Iraq War is Badly Damaging Our Military. General McCaffrey pointed out that many troops are on their 4th combat tour. On his last trip to Iraq he observed that American military forces are the de facto low level government of Iraq. General McCaffrey believes our army is starting to unravel and we have a huge recruitment and retention problem. He said 10% of the recruits joining the military today shouldn't be in uniform and multiple deployments to Iraq are the major problem in recruiting quality troops. He also warned that we are overly dependent on private contractors for all our military needs in Iraq. [General McCaffrey' Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 4/2/08]

Lt. Gen Odom Testified Withdrawal Is The Only Sensible Option in Iraq. "The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq." [Lieutenant General William Odom's Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 4/2/08]

General McCaffrey Said War as it Is Now Configured Is Not Militarily Nor Politically Sustainable. "There is no US political will to continue casualties of 100 to 1000 US military killed and wounded per month..The war as it now is configured -- is not militarily nor politically sustainable." [General McCaffrey's Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 4/2/08]

Flournoy Supported a Timetable for Withdrawal in Iraq. "Under this approach, if the Iraq central government made reasonable political progress, U.S. forces would gradually shift to an overwatch role as currently envisioned by in the current military campaign plan, on a timetable determined by the extent of political accommodation and conditions on the ground. More specifically, it envisions a gradual transition of U.S. forces from protecting the Iraqi population to advising, training, and assisting Iraqi Security Forces in doing so." [Michelle Flournoy's Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 4/2/08]

Lynn, I find it very interesting that you're so eager to listen to a retired general's opinion on Iraq... than the general who's actually *in* Iraq. Saying Gen. Petraeus needs 'clearance' from the White House for what he says is inappropriate, unfair, and calls into question his character. You act as if he is a puppet.

There is, no doubt, stress on the military. This is a problem created by two factors: (1) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and (2) the peace-time downsizing our military went through in the 1990's.

The Democrats proclaimed and still proclaim the surge is a failure. First they said it wasn't bringing violence down, then it started bringing violence down. Then they said it wasn't producing the results we were hoping for as far as political reconciliation... and now the reconciliation is starting to come together. In previous posts, you have screamed from the rooftop intelligence reports that have either (1) talked about Iran's nuclear ambitions, or (2) talked about Iraq's problems. Now, there's another intelligence report that contradicts what you've been saying. Are you going to portray this as just "cleared by the White House?"

The Dem leadership couldn't help themselves, trying to discount the report from Gen. Petraeus before he even gives it. Shameful as usual. What are they afraid of, good news?
Is Pelosi trying to tell us not to believe the General? It's not surprising, during his last visit Clinton told Gen. Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief". These Dems sure have a round-a-bout way of calling him a liar. Why don't they just use the "MoveOn" in your face way, and let the public decide who the liars are.
Gen. Petraeus will have good and bad things to say, this is a WAR. Is Pelosi warning us to only believe the bad.
It doesn't surprise me to see senate Democrats holding oversight on the conduct of the war in their determination to change the course in Iraq, carefully choosing their speakers. For every one of their choices you can find another expert with a different view. Maybe they should have a hearing on what will happen if we leave now, I want to know about the possible consequences if we leave now, shouldn't we be talking about that first.

Actually, Chris, I want to hear opinions from a lot of people. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, of course, but also from others--who are well qualified to speak on the issue. I don't think Odom's opinion--or anyone else's--supersedes that of General Petraeus, but do think they should be considered. There are things said in the Committee proceedings that I had never heard before, and they should be weighed carefully to decide how much, or even if, they should be taken into account.

No, I don't think General Petraeus is a puppet, but I also don't believe he can speak freely. Others have paid a heavy price for doing so. Also, maybe he can't say as much because of security. I'm sure we can't be privy to all his information.

I posted parts of the Committee proceedings because, while the CSPAN video is available, it's also hours long. And, as I wrote before, we were struck by the level of agreement among the Ds and Rs. Of course it was memorable --how often do you see that? :-)

You wrote that you were 99% sure that Ds would attack and Rs would cheer. How do you know that? Some may be more antagonistic than others (as was Boxer during one of the Committee meetings), but it seems that those who are "for" the war see any questioning as attacks. Why can't it be looked at as gathering information to make the best decision for all involved? Just as reports of good news and good progress should be part of the gathering process.

The surge is not a failure as far as our military is concerned. It is as far as the Iraqi parliament is concerned. The surge was initiated to give them "space" for political reconciliation. Instead, it has been more of a grass roots effect of bringing previously divided factions together--thanks to General Petraeus. The Iraqi parliament has not made good use of this opportunity, but Petraeus sure has! I love serendipity, but that does not mean we should ignore the original reason for the surge--and it seems those who call it a success are doing just that.

Which intelligence report are you talking about?

Look, focusing solely on one side or another of a problem--and the Iraq war *is* a problem--never brings good results. We do have to look at both sides. (By the way, if you haven't read "Team of Rivals" yet, I highly recommend it). And there are fanatics on both sides--some who will never try to see any viewpoint but their own. You may think I'm one of them. :-) I'm not. All facets of this very difficult situation need to be looked at carefully, along with all the possible repercussions of every potential action. If that doesn't happen, this could get much worse. And NO ONE (no, not even Ds!) wants that.