stemming from this WaPo article:

For two hours, President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David H. Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress. Adm. William J. Fallon, his superior, argued instead for accepting more risks in Iraq, officials said, in order to have enough forces available to confront other potential threats in the region.

The polite discussion in the White House Situation Room a week ago masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops. . . .

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will be testifying before Congress on Monday and Wednesday, providing his self evaluation of his own military strategy in Iraq. It is no doubt tempting for Democratic members of Congress to challenge General Petraeus' self assessment. My view is that this would be a mistake. The line of argument to take is not to question Petraeus' military assessment. The optics of congresspersons battling on military questions with a 4 star General will not work in the short term.

The line of questioning should be to go above Petraeus's head and question the strategy of President Bush. In short the Surge is failing NOT because of Petraeus, but because the strategy that calls for the military TACTICS Petraeus is employing are failing. I suggest citing the conservative columnist George Will:

More....

Kudos to Frank Rich for taking the Media to task on Iraq, Petraeus and the "Surge. I especially liked this:

What's surprising is not that this White House makes stuff up, but that even after all the journalistic embarrassments in the run-up to the war its fictions can still infiltrate the real news. After Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two Brookings Institution scholars, wrote a New York Times Op-Ed article in July spreading glad tidings of falling civilian fatality rates, they were widely damned for trying to pass themselves off as tough war critics (both had supported the war and the surge) and for not mentioning that their fact-finding visit to Iraq was largely dictated by a Department of Defense itinerary.

But this has not impeded them from posing as quasi-journalistic independent observers elsewhere ever since, whether on CNN, CBS, Fox or in these pages, identifying themselves as experts rather than Pentagon junketeers. Unlike Armstrong Williams, the talking head and columnist who clandestinely received big government bucks to "regularly comment" on No Child Left Behind, they received no cash. But why pay for what you can get free? Two weeks ago Mr. O'Hanlon popped up on The Washington Post op-ed page, again pushing rosy Iraq scenarios, including an upbeat prognosis for economic reconstruction, even though the G.A.O. found that little of the $10 billion earmarked for reconstruction is likely to be spent. . .

More....

Yglesias:

In both political and policy terms, I think all of the candidates should consider that in the real world they need not Iraq policies that will make sense in the fall of 2007, but Iraq policies that will make sense in January 2009 . . .

Does Yglesias believe this holds true for the Congress as well? 4 Senators and 1 Congressman are running for President. Is the leadership they demonstrate in the Congress NOW irrelevant to Yglesias? Atrios writes:

At dkos, Georgia says:

. . . Let them prove their commitment to that promise now by doing "everything in their power" to stem the tide of inevitably atrocious bills that will be heralded by too many in our party as the "reasonable" and "bipartisan" way for a "new direction" in Iraq.

Members of Congress who are also presidential candidates have a unique power . . . They are the only politicians with practically a 24/7 news detail following them. They are the only politicians whose most innocuous moves (low cut blouses, anyone?) attract a media frenzy. They have the national megaphone necessary to shout down bad bills and to correct administration lies. Simply put, they have the power to almost instantaneously and drastically change the tone of this debate, if they wanted to do so.

So to them, to those who promise to do everything in their power to end this war (and that's not just Senator Clinton), I say follow through. Recognize the awesome power that you have by virtue of your unique position, and use it, all of it. Use it to lead, to get the Democratic Party to operate in harmony and to take decisive and binding action to truly end this war.

. . . Enter, leaders. Stage left

AP:

The No. 2 Democrat in the U.S. Senate said on Friday he could no longer vote for funding the war in Iraq unless restrictions were attached that would begin winding down American involvement there.
"This Congress can't give President (George W.) Bush another blank check for Iraq," said Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, who has always opposed the war but until now voted to fund it. "I can't support an open-ended appropriation which allows this president to continue this failed policy," he said in a speech at the left-leaning Center for National Policy.

Where's Obama?

At the Huffington Post, Tom Edsall writes a post titled Frustration OverIraq Could Lead To Dem Primary Challenges. Here is the key line:

A House Democratic leadership aide told the Huffington Post, "We understand their frustration, but we need to elect more Democrats in order to affect real change on Iraq." Another top Democratic leadership aide said, "What in the world are they thinking? All this is going to do is increase the possibility of electing more Republicans. Instead of going after Democrats, they should be focusing their efforts on pressuring Republicans to break with the president.

(Emphasis supplied.) How idiotic are these people? Do they think all we care about is electing Democrats? Do they REALLY think we do not care about the issues? The Democrats won in 2006 because the American People want out of Iraq. They still do. The DEMOCRATIC Congress has failed the American people. Up to now.

They can redeem themselves still. End the Iraq Debacle. Set a date certain for the end of funding of the Iraq Debacle. We do not need more Democrats for that. We do not need any Republicans. We can count. We know that the Constitution gives the Spending Power to the Congress.

Speaking only for me of course

The NYTimes reports on the lack of Dem resolve on Iraq:

With a mixed picture emerging about progress in Iraq, Senate Democratic leaders are showing a new openness to compromise as they try to attract Republican support for forcing at least modest troop withdrawals in the coming months. . . . Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, "If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that."

In response, Sen. Chris Dodd provides leadership on Iraq now:

More...

(Guest Post by Matt Stoller of Open Left)

I appreciate the opportunity that Jeralyn is affording me to post on this site in response to Big Tent Democrat's repeated criticisms of my blogging and activism. Here's BTD's essential argument.

If the Democratic Party listens to Shrum, Carville, Stoller and Greenwald on Iraq, and runs on the idea that nothing can be done about Iraq until 2009, Democrats will suffer politically.

If I were arguing that we ought to do nothing about Iraq, I would deserve this scorn, and more. But far from arguing for apathy, a strange position for an activist blogger who is constantly asking his readers to engage in political activities, I'm pushing for the opposite: concerted, strategic action within the political system by activists like us.

Now, I do think it's highly unlikely that the Democrats in Congress will stop the war or do anything meaningful to stop the war until at least 2009, and even beyond then I have no confidence that Edwards, Obama, or Clinton will end the war without extreme pressure from activists and the public. You can read their various pathetic non-withdrawal plans compiled by Chris Bowers, my blogging partner who is obsessively pushing candidates to take a pro-withdrawal stance. But that means our job as activists and voters is clear: to create that pressure.

More...

Kos:

Heck, I'd be happy if just the Democrats would follow their words with action this Magical September. We don't need Republicans to follow suit.

Republicans need 60 votes in the Senate to pass any funding bills, while Democrats can single-handedly squash any efforts in the House. If Republicans don't compromise on a withdrawal timetable, there's no impetus to pass a funding bill.

And without funding, there's no war.

Way to make me look dumb, Kos. And shut me up quick. I thank you for it.

Kudos.

For a year, the ACLU has been trying to get documents from the military on the killings of Iraqis by U.S. Troops. It is filing a lawsuit today because to date, only the Army has complied with their FOIA request.

Also today, the ACLU released 10,000 pages of documents it received from the Army in a searchable database here.

Those documents include new evidence of coalition forces’ involvement in civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The nearly 10,000 pages that the ACLU is making public today include courts martial proceedings and military investigations regarding the possible wrongful death of civilians.

The files in many instances show a lack of proper training. From the New York Times report on the released documents:

They show repeated examples of troops believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.

More...

Kevin Drum continues his stellar work exposing General Potemkin Petraeus. From a WaPo article:

[V]isits to key U.S. bases and neighborhoods in and around Baghdad show that recent improvements are sometimes tenuous, temporary, even illusory....Even U.S. soldiers assigned to protect Petraeus's showcase remain skeptical. "Personally, I think it's a false representation," Campbell said, referring to the portrayal of the Dora market as an emblem of the surge's success. . . . [T]he Dora market is a Potemkin village of sorts . . .

Frederick Kagan, of the Fighting Writing Kagans compares Anbar to Gettysburg and Bush's trip there to Lincoln's trip to Gettysburg. I kid you not. Write your own snark. My one observation - when did Bush become President of Iraq?

Finally, I continue my whining about cajoling of the Netroots on Iraq in my most recent piece in the Guardian Online's blog, "comment is free." [Note: The piece was edited by a Guardian editor.]