From MakeThemAccountable.com:

ETERNAL NIGHTMARE

By David Podvin

When Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez commanded the American troops in Iraq he passionately insisted that the United States was winning. Now that Sanchez has retired he describes our nation's occupation of Iraq as being "a nightmare with no end in sight." This statement not only reverses Sanchez' pronouncements made while in uniform, it also contradicts the optimistic congressional testimony of current commander General David Petraeus... who apparently really did betray us. Sanchez says it was his duty to obey orders and not dissent publicly when he was on active duty, but that in retirement he feels obliged to speak the truth. By acknowledging candor is incompatible with military service the former officer has mocked the Senate resolution that condemns questioning the integrity of warriors. According to the prevailing wisdom, Sanchez must be regarded as a traitor.

MORE MORE MORE

PSEUDO PATRIOTISM

By David Podvin

The United States Senate has voted 72-25 to express "the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, commanding general, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces." The resolution was passed by a bipartisan coalition comprised of forty-nine Republicans who emulated Joseph McCarthy and twenty-three Invertebrates who channeled Barney Fife. Congratulations must be extended to Hillary Clinton for voting "no" and to Barack Obama for fleeing in terror. Whatever motivation led her to oppose the resolution Clinton showered herself with glory, and since Obama didn't have the guts to stand tall he was wise to make himself scarce.

MORE MORE MORE

From The Hill's Pundits Blog:

Bob Gates or Bob McNamara? Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Westmoreland?

Brent Budowsky

In his book about the failures of the Vietnam War, Dereliction of Duty, H.R. McMaster writes of how the delusion and hubris of President Lyndon Johnson, combined with the failures in judgment and political courage of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, created a devastating tragedy for the American military and American security.

Some enterprising journalist might ask McMaster, who is close to Gen. Petraeus: Are we not making the same mistakes today?...

MORE MORE MORE

PROGENY OF GEPETTO

By David Podvin

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs Of Staff unanimously recommended that President Kennedy bomb a major American city to frame Fidel Castro and provide a pretext for conquering Cuba. It is one of history’s most amazing coincidences that four decades later New York City was bombed and Saddam Hussein was framed and Iraq was conquered… imagine the odds against the original military plan recurring with such precision. In any event, John Kennedy was a liberal Democratic president rather than a conservative professional soldier so he opted against bombing the American people. Joint Chiefs Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer then illegally attempted to destroy all evidence of the proposal so that he could deny it had ever been made, but the general was as inept as he was deceitful and some documentation survived.

During the Vietnam War, the American military again engaged in grotesque deceit.

MORE MORE MORE

Between General Petraeus's testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, and Senator Obama's planned Iraq speech tomorrow, it looks as though this week could end up shifting the focus on Obama away from his good judgment 5 years ago to his leadership as a senator today, which could ultimately serve to quell voters' fears about his readiness to be president.

Obama's statement yesterday was a less than auspicious beginning, considering the fact that while it stressed immediacy of the need to withdraw troops...

The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now - not six months from now.

...there was a conspicuous absence of an end date for withdrawal, leading some to speculate that perhaps Obama is leaving himself room to embrace an open-ended bill.

Chris Dodd for one, pounced.

While we are glad that Senator Obama has called for a change of course in Iraq, he isn't clear as to what he will do to make that happen, or when. [...]

We urge Senator Obama, and all the other candidates in the Senate, to state clearly and directly whether or not they will support Iraq legislation if it does not include a firm, enforceable deadline to begin and complete the redeployment of troops from Iraq.

I do wonder if that criticism will stick, however, since Obama did introduce a bill early this year that would have brought the troops home by March 2008 -- his credentials on that are clear. But I appreciate the role Dodd has taken up here, pushing both Obama and Clinton to err on the side of clarity and away from nuance. Dodd's use of his position in the senate to both talk the talk AND walk the walk, something Edwards has the luxury not to have to do as an ex-senator, is invaluable.

My doubts as to the effectiveness of that argument were further reinforced after seeing Obama actually confront Petraeus and Crocker today. He used his time to pretty much give a speech and he came off as thoughtful, sincere and evenhanded yet tough. Greg Sargent does a good job of breaking down his best moments. I'd agree with Sargent that his best came at the end of his time when he pretty much revealed the hollowness of Petraeus and Crocker's dog and pony show:

"If we're there the same place a year from now can you please describe for me any circumstances in which you would make a different recommendation and suggest it is now time for us to start withdrawing our troops? Any scenario. Any set of benchmarks, that have not been met."

The lack of any definitive answer told us all we needed to know.

Tim Grieve at Salon also makes a good point:

Yes, Obama said, the "surge" has had some impact. "I would hope it would, given the sacrifices and loss that have been made," he said. But the political progress that was supposed to come hasn't come. Echoing the words a young John Kerry said nearly 40 years ago, Obama asked: "How long will this take, "and at what point do we say, 'Enough'?"

Watch it:

As the Petraeus testimony is taking place against the backdrop of the 2008 presidential election with four sitting Democratic senators running, it's impossible to separate it from the political ramifications on the presidential race. What may be most important about what happens today for Obama politically, is the extent to which it gives a rare glimpse of him in action as a senator. Questions remain, however, will it get widely reported and viewed and will Senator Clinton blunt the impact with her own confrontation with Crocker and Petraeus later on in the day?

Obviously, the big news of the week has been General Petraeus's report before Congress this week - yesterday, he testified before the House, and he's currently testifying before the Senate.

I've noticed a number of posters on this site expressing their respect for Petraeus, and, while I don't know much about his background other than what I read on Wikipedia, it does seem like he's been a good general and that he does deserve our respect (and certainly does not deserve MoveOn's attack against him).  However, I thought it was strange that a military man is essentially the highest profile defender of a political strategy - and then, I found this article.

PUPPET MASTER

By David Podvin

According to news reports chronicling the American military's recent success in pacifying Iraq, al Qaida fighters have disappeared throughout much of the war-torn Anbar province. It is not that more terrorists are being killed, but they have suddenly become scarce. Congressmen returning from Iraq attribute this development to the Surge, the more aggressive approach implemented by General David Petraeus.

The optimists may be right, but this would mark the first time during the Iraq War that they have been. Up until now the warmongers in the political/media complex have been consistently delusional or deceptive, and there exists an ominous alternative explanation for the miltary's recent "success". With General Petraeus' long-awaited status report to Congress due imminently, it appears that Osama bin Laden is once again manipulating America into disaster.

Osama has been gaming the United States every step of the way during the "War On Terror".

(more...)

From The Hill:

What Petraeus must answer

By Brent Budowsky

It is fashionable though wrong to state "the surge is working," but this debate misses the point about the devastation to the United States Army, the destabilization of our global force structures, the near-total destruction of our conventional deterrent capability, the extreme damage to the war in Afghanistan and the collapse of recruitment standards imposed by the status quo policy in Iraq.

When Army Gen. David Petraeus testifies next week, here are the hard questions that the nation deserves to have asked and answered, clearly and unequivocally:

Do you agree that the government of Iraq is indebted to, and dependent on, Shiite factions that control death squads and militia that favor Shiite military victory in sectarian wars that have raged for hundreds of years?

MORE MORE MORE