Mission Accomplished

Credibility Check

Should Petraeus be believed? Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel of New York raised that question in his exchange with the general. Here's the video.

Engel: "The American people are fed up -- I'm fed up -- and essentially what I'm hearing from both of you today is essentially 'stay the course in Iraq.' How long can we put up with staying the course? Young Americans are dying in someone else's civil war, as far as I'm concerned. . . .

"You know, for years we keep hearing rosy, upbeat pictures about Iraq -- 'Victory is right around the corner; things are going well' -- and it never seems to materialize. General Petraeus, I have an article here called ' Battling for Iraq.' It's an op-ed piece that you wrote three years ago in The Washington Post . . . and I want to just quote some of the things you said. You said, 'Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.' . . .

"You talk about Iraqi police and soldiers, and you say they're 'performing a wide variety of security missions. Training is on track and increasing in capacity.' And finally, you said in this article -- op-ed piece three years ago, 'I meet with Iraqi security forces every day. I have seen the determination and their desire to assume the full burden of security tasks for Iraq. Iraqi security forces are developing steadily, and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months.'

"So today you said -- and I'll just quote a few things -- 'Coalition and Iraqi security forces have achieved progress in the security area. Iraqi security forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of the load.' And finally you said, 'The progress our forces have achieved with our Iraqi counterparts, as I noted at the outset, has been substantial.'

"So I guess my question really is that, you know, why should we believe that your assessment today is any more accurate than it was three years ago in September 2004? Three years ago I was able to listen to the optimism, but frankly I find it hard to listen now, four years-plus into this war with no end in sight. Optimism is great, but reality is what we really need."

Petraeus's response: "I actually appreciate the opportunity to talk about that op-ed piece because I stand by it." His explanation: That the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra in February 2006 set everything back terribly.

But who's to say there won't be another unpredicted setback in the months and years ahead. Or, as Engel tried to ask Petraeus before running out of time: "Will we be saying the same thing three years from now?"

A Moment of Drama

And here's something that was largely missing at yesterday's hearing: A sense of the dramatic stakes involved, in terms of American (and Iraqi) lives. One exception came in Florida Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler's exchange with Petraeus:

Wexler: "In your testimony today, you claim that the surge is working and that you need more time. With all due respect, General, among unbiased, nonpartisan experts, the consensus is stark; the surge has failed based on most parameters. In truth, war-related deaths have doubled in Iraq in 2007 compared to last year. Tragically, it is my understanding that seven more American troops have died while we've been talking today. . . .

"I am skeptical, General. More importantly, the American people are skeptical because four years ago very credible people both in uniform and not in uniform came before this Congress and sold us a bill of goods that turned out to be false.

"This testimony today is eerily similar to the testimony the American people heard on April 28th, 1967, from General William Westmoreland, when he told the American people America was making progress in Vietnam. . . .

"We've heard a lot today about America's credibility. President Bush recently stated we should not have withdrawn our troops from Vietnam, because of the great damage to America's credibility. General, there are 58,195 names etched into the Vietnam War Memorial. Twenty years from now, when we build the Iraq war memorial on the National Mall, how many more men and women will have been sacrificed to protect our so-called credibility? How many more names will be added to the wall before we admit it is time to leave? How many more names, General?"

Petraeus replied: "No one is more conscious of the loss of life than the commander of the forces. That is something I take and feel very deeply. And if I did not think that this was a hugely important endeavor, and if I did not think that it was an endeavor in which we could succeed, I would not have testified as I did to you all here today."

A Middle Ground?

Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, asked Petraeus to comment on the value of taking an intermediate course, somewhere between "your proposals for a token withdrawal" and "a hypothetical rapid and irresponsible withdrawal."

Said Lantos: "Now, as you know better than I do, there are very impressive members of the military with outstanding credentials who favor a much more rapid, but responsible withdrawal of American forces."

Petraeus insisted that the "very substantial withdrawal" he was suggesting represented his "best professional military advice on how to accomplish the mission."

But Michael Hirsh writes for Newsweek that "a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will 'differ substantially' from Petraeus's recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will 'recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there.' The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. 'There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views' to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus.

"Petraeus's draw-down recommendations have outraged critics of the war who accuse him of merely doing Bush's bidding and adjusting his recommendations to the politics of the Hill. ('General Betray Us,' the leftwing group MoveOn.org called him in a series of newspaper ads on Monday.) Even some supporters of the surge effort wonder whether Petraeus isn't thinking as much about selling the war as winning it."

Bin Laden Watch

Jonathan S. Landay writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "Contradicting President Bush's counter-terrorism adviser, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement chiefs and a Cabinet member said Monday that Osama bin Laden remained the most dangerous terrorist threat to the United States six years after the 9-11 attacks.

"Eliminating the threat that the al Qaida leader and his inner circle pose from their sanctuary in Pakistan's remote tribal region bordering Afghanistan 'is our number one priority,' Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told a Senate committee.

"The assessments by McConnell, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and FBI Director Robert Mueller came a day after White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend called bin Laden 'a man on the run from a cave who is virtually impotent other than these tapes.'"

This morning on CNN, Townsend sounded less dismissive: "Obviously, catching Bin Laden is a huge priority for us, and American military and intelligence assets are deployed against that. And I'm confident that eventually we are going to get him. But we've had many successes against the network, and that's what's really important."

Liberal blogger Brad DeLong writes: "If you had asked me six years ago what the odds were that Osama bin Laden would still be living out his allotted lifespan in the fall of 2007, I would have said that the odds were zero.

"No matter how feckless, incompetent, and stupid George W. Bush and his administration are, I would have said, nobody would let an Osama bin Laden kill 3000 Americans in an act of terrorism and survive.

"Silly me."

Opinion Watch

The Los Angeles Times editorial board writes: "America's 'war on terror,' which enters its sixth year today, now seems destined to redefine our nation for a generation or more to come."

The editorial decries the "harrowing consequences of a war waged by an administration that has misunderstood its enemy and its place in history. But the price of this president's military and domestic overreach has been highest in the loss of faith in America itself, in the values and institutions that have historically defined this nation. . . .

"No matter how much he insists otherwise, President Bush lacks [a] fundamental belief in American freedom. As a result, his war has not only subverted U.S. military interests but has undermined the liberties that make this a nation worthy of emulation. That is the tragic and true cost of these past six years."

Book Watch

New York Times book critic Michiko Kakutani reviews Jack Goldsmith's new book, "The Terror Presidency."

"The portrait of the Bush administration that Mr. Goldsmith -- who resigned from the Office of Legal Counsel in June 2004, only nine months after assuming the post -- draws in this book is a devastating one. It is a portrait of a highly insular White House obsessively focused on expanding presidential power and loathe to consult with Congress, a White House that frequently made up its mind about a course of action before consulting with experts, a White House that sidelined Congress in its policymaking and willfully pursued a 'go-it-alone approach' based on 'minimal deliberation, unilateral action, and legalistic defense.'

"Similar portraits, of course, have been drawn by reporters and other former administration insiders, but Mr. Goldsmith's account stands out by virtue that he was privy to internal White House debates about explosive matters like secret surveillance, coercive interrogation and the detention and trial of enemy combatants. It is also distinguished by Mr. Goldsmith's writing from the point of view of a conservative who shared many of the Bush White House's objectives. . . . But he found himself alarmed by the Bush White House's obsession with expanding presidential power, its arrogant unilateralism and its willingness to use what he regarded as careless and overly expansive legal arguments in an effort to buttress its policies."

In an excerpt from his book on Slate, Goldsmith writes: "Why did the administration so often assert presidential power in ways that seemed unnecessary and politically self-defeating? The answer, I believe, is that the administration's conception of presidential power had a kind of theological significance that often trumped political consequences. . . .

"But the Bush administration's strategy is guaranteed not to work, and is certain to destroy trust altogether. When an administration makes little attempt to work with the other institutions of our government and makes it a public priority to emphasize that its aim is to expand its power, Congress, the courts, and the public listen carefully, and worry."

Or at least they should.

Salon's Rob Patterson talks to Robert Draper about his new Bush book, "Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush." Says Draper: "A lot of Americans and people all over the world are taught to just say, 'I'm sorry I screwed up. I've learned from my mistakes, and I will try to do better.' For all of the other aspects of this president that I think are very emotionally honest that I witnessed, that was one aspect that is not -- his difficulty to own up to his mistakes. I think in a way he's like a baseball umpire who feels like if you call a ball a strike, you've got to stick to that. Otherwise people will question you. They will think that your equivocation is a sign of a lack of certainty. . . .

"I think where the rubber meets the road there is that Bush, for all of his talk about him being so comfortable in his own skin, possesses insecurities like the rest of us. And Bush, due to his insecurities, really doesn't like to be challenged. . . .

"This is a guy who really possesses a lot of insecurities, and I think that's why he evinces this sort of incuriosity. There are only certain kinds of challenges that he can deal with. What is admirable about Bush is also part of his insecurity. I think because his insecurity drives him to want to be relevant and want to do big things, he's willing to throw the ball long. And I think that because of that, history is not going to judge this man with indifference. They are not going to judge him as Franklin Pierce. He is either going to go down in history as a disastrous flop or a really monumental president."

Salon also has an excerpt from John W. Dean's new Bush book: "Broken Government."

Rove Watch

Adam Nossiter writes in the New York Times: "House leaders are beginning an investigation this week of the prosecution of Don Siegelman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama who was imprisoned in June on federal corruption charges. The case could become the centerpiece of a Democratic effort to show that the Justice Department engaged in political prosecutions. . . .

"Jill Simpson, an Alabama lawyer who signed an affidavit saying she overheard a Republican political operative connect the prosecution of Mr. Siegelman to Karl Rove, will be questioned under oath this week by investigators for the House Judiciary Committee."

Contempt Watch

John Bresnahan writes for the Politico: "House Democratic leaders have decided to postpone a vote on a criminal contempt resolution against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers for several weeks, and possibly longer, according to top lawmakers and aides."

Cartoon Watch

Tom Toles, John Sherffius and Stuart Carlson on yesterday's testimony; Jim Morin on the war on terror.