President Obama spoke to disabled veterans in Atlanta today, and took the opportunity to highlight the progress of troop withdrawals in Iraq which have continued as promised and are on schedule to end all combat objectives in Iraq, though 50,000 troops will remain to continue training Iraqi forces in the region.

Now, one of those chapters is nearing an end. As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. (Applause.) Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by August 31st, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing -- as promised and on schedule.

Already, we have closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of bases. We’re moving out millions of pieces of equipment in one of the largest logistics operations that we’ve seen in decades. By the end of this month, we’ll have brought more than 90,000 of our troops home from Iraq since I took office -- more than 90,000 have come home.

He did not ignore Afghanistan, or the raging debate over it:

The effort in Afghanistan has been long and been difficult. And that’s why after years in which the situation had deteriorated, I announced a new strategy last December -- a military effort to break the Taliban’s momentum and train Afghan forces so that they can take the lead for their security; and a civilian effort to promote good governance and development that improves the lives of the Afghan people; and deeper cooperation with Pakistan to root out terrorists on both sides of the border.

We will continue to face huge challenges in Afghanistan. But it’s important that the American people know that we are making progress and we are focused on goals that are clear and achievable.

On the military front, nearly all the additional forces that I ordered to Afghanistan are now in place. Along with our Afghan and international partners, we are going on the offensive against the Taliban -- targeting their leaders, challenging them in regions where they had free reign, and training Afghan national security forces. Our thoughts and prayers are with all our troops risking their lives for our safety in Afghanistan.

And on the civilian front, we’re insisting on greater accountability. And the Afghan government has taken concrete steps to foster development and combat corruption, and to put forward a reintegration plan that allows Afghans to lay down their arms.

He once again articulated the ultimate goal in Afghanistan, too:

We will disrupt, we will dismantle, and we will ultimately defeat al Qaeda.

Continue reading »

Cheney being Cheney (left) & Russian and Georgian athletes embrace after winning Olympic medals Sunday in Beijing (right).

Download | play Download | play

On Sunday the situation in Georgia went from bad to worse. Russia rejected Georgia's call for a ceasefire, and instead demanded Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili step down. Russian troops pushed past South Ossetia into central Georgia and bombers struck targets in the capital, Tbilisi. To help with the fighting, Georgia has begun a full withdrawal of the 2,000 troops it had stationed in Iraq. The implications of that withdrawal don't bode well for the situation in Iraq.

Meanwhile, on our side of the pond, both presidential candidates have called for an end to the hostilities, but John McCain has ceded any moral authority to even weigh in on the issue as long as his top foreign policy adviser with lobbying ties to the Georgian government, Randy Scheunemann, remains with his campaign. U.S. "diplomats have conceded that there are few options for dealing what President George W Bush has branded a 'dangerous escalation'" but of course that didn't stop warhawk Cheney from talking tough:

"Russian aggression must not go unanswered, and that its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the United States, as well as the broader international community,"

If any of this has left anyone confused, thankfully the NYT's James Traub has a very good rundown on how this all managed to unfold so far.

Gosh, where would we all be without NY Times columnist David Brooks to tell us what is and isn't important? After all, John McCain's statement that he was right about Iraq was predicated on the notion that the surge was successful and that troop levels are back to pre-surge numbers. The fact that he is wrong about that (both the actual troop numbers and the definition of success, come to that) is of little matter to Brooks when considering his fitness as Commander-in-Chief. Why focus on little niggling details like actual troop numbers? You nitpickers.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Think Progress:

Contrary to Brooks’s claim that “no one’s going to care” about McCain’s reading of troop levels in Iraq, the issue is critically important. As Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) noted, “If you don’t know the number of troops it’s very difficult to make a judgment on if they are over-extended.”

Brooks claimed that McCain has a “pretty strong case” that he has been “right” about Iraq. But McCain’s gaffes are the latest in a series of ignorant comments about Iraq that raise questions about a candidate who has staked his campaign on the war.

And yet, McSame is supposed to have more credibility on Iraq than Obama, why? Could it be because the talking heads that have been wrong time and time again--and I'm looking at you, Bobo--keep telling us that a grasp of facts isn't all that important?

Same as the last time...Everything is better, but very fragile...Sure sounds like they want the 1oo year---McCain Plan to me.

Crocker: ...almost everything in Iraq is hard, but hard does not mean hopeless

He sounds like a basketball coach telling his team during a time out----that even though they are losing by thirty five points with 6 minutes left to go, they still have a chance to win,...Win, exactly?

NY Times: The general told senators that he was recommending a 45-day pause — which he defined as a period of “consolidation and evaluation” — before reviewing once again whether there should be further troop reductions.

Duncan notes:

A few minutes ago Candy Crowley told me that the presidential candidates need to appear "above the partisanship," or something like that, at the Senate hearings with Petraeus. I don't even know what that means, but to the extent that I do... uh, why?

I heard the same thing on NBC. How fast will McCain's camp product an ad with footage from the hearings? Will Crowley complain about it?

A man yelled : Bring them HOME!

General P. wouldn't give an estimate about troop levels at the end of the year. He admits the Basra assault. "It was not adequately planned."

LA Times:

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.

Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond 

Pace's recommendations reflect the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who initially expressed private skepticism about the strategy ordered by Bush and directed by Petraeus, before publicly backing it....read on

In today's Presser, Bush trys to explain his statement from the day before: "We're not winning, we're not losing..."

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT (rough trasncript)

Bush: My comment was done in this spirit. I believe we're going to win...we're going to succeed...My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted when I said at the time and that conditions are tough in Iraq. I'm going to work with the military and the political leaders to develop a plan to help us achieve the objective.

His responses don't seem to make much sense these days. We all know he's going to work with the military to try and figure this out. Who else is he going to deal with?

Q: If you conclude that a surge in troop levels in Iraq is needed, would you overrule your military commanders if they felt it was not a good idea.

Bush: That's a dangerous hypothetical question. I'm not condemning you, you're allowed to ask anything you want. Let me weight and gather all the recommendations from Bob Gates, from our military, from diplomats on the ground, interested Iraqis point of view and then I'll report back to you as to whether or not I support a surge or not. Nice try.

TPM: The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the White House was promoting the "surge" idea "over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Gen. Zinni was the second guest on "Meet the Press," today and was very powerful in his observations in the run up to the war, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush's loyalty to his people rather than to their performance which has been appalling by his standards. Russert let him give uninterrupted answers to his questions.
Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

Zinni: ...I heard the case being built to go to war right away- I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof that I ever saw that Saddam had WMD....

(transcript via TP)

ZINNI: I saw the - what this town is known for, spin, cherry-picking facts, using metaphors to evoke certain emotional responses or shading the context. We know the mushroom clouds and the other things that were all described that the media has covered well. I saw on the ground a sort of walking away from 10 years’ worth of planning. You know, ever since the end of the first Gulf War, there’s been planning by serious officers and planners and others, and policies put in place - 10 years' worth of planning were thrown away. Troop levels dismissed out of hand. Gen. Shinseki basically insulted for speaking the truth and giving an honest opinion.

The lack of cohesive approach to how we deal with the aftermath, the political, economic, social reconstruction of a nation, which is no small task. A belief in these exiles that anyone in the region, anyone that had any knowledge, would tell you were not credible on the ground. And on and on and on, decisions to disband the army that were not in the initial plans. There’s a series of disastrous mistakes. We just heard the Secretary of State say these were tactical mistakes. These were not tactical mistakes. These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policies made back here. Don’t blame the troops. They’ve been magnificent. If anything saves us, it will be them.

Seymour Hersh with Blitzer

Sy Hersh joined Wolf Blitzer, on Late Edition and discussed his new article called " "Up in the Air. " This article is loaded with peeks into the future of Iraq and some very scary stuff about Bush's mental make-up. (Transcripts)

Hersh: They're beginning to talk about some of the things the president said to him about his feelings about manifest destiny, about a higher calling that he was talking about three, four years ago. I don't want to sound like I'm off the wall here. But the issue is, is this president going to be capable of responding to reality? Is he going to be able -- is he going to be capable if he going to get a bad assessment, is he going to accept it as a bad assessment or is he simply going to see it as something else that is just a little bit in the way as he marches on in his crusade that may not be judged for 10 or 20 years.
He talks about being judged in 20 years to his friends. And so it's a little alarming because that means that my and my colleagues in the press corps, we can't get to him maybe with our views. You and you can't get to him maybe with your interviews.

How do you get to a guy to convince him that perhaps he's not going the right way?

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

Hersh: Jack Murtha certainly didn't do it. As I wrote, they were enraged at Murtha in the White House.

And so we have an election coming up -- Yes. I've had people talk to me about maybe Congress is going to have to cut off the budget for this war if it gets to that point. I don't think they're ready to do it now.

But I'm talking about sort of a crisis of management. That you have a management that's seen by some of the people closely involved as not being able to function in terms of getting information it doesn't want to receive. (hat tip Atrios)

Ademption has much more about troop levels and the use of our air power that Hersh talks about.

While speaking to Sean Hannity, Donald Rumsfeld was discussing troop levels in response to the criticism that we are thin on troops and National Guard that could have help with Katrina because of the war in Iraq. He says that we actually have too many troops in certain areas...

Download | play -WMP

Rumsfeld: We do not have a shortage of capability. Today there are hundreds of thousands of guard and reserve people who are still available and aren't being used in this. Indeed, there is some areas where we today very well have excess capacity and we may have to make adjustments in that as we go forward..."

Thanks for the tip Donald. A little later in the show, Geraldo looked at Hannity in disbelief and said he disagreed with Rummy on his troop level assessment.

Tim confronts him on the cost of the war, Wolfowitz, troop levels and the DSM.

Download | play -WMP QT soon

MR. RUSSERT: So never any mistake made on troop level?

SEC'Y RUMSFELD: Who knows?

MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is Lawrence Lindsey, one of the chief economic advisers to the president, was fired because he said the war in Iraq would cost $100 billion. We're way past that.

SEC'Y RUMSFELD: I don't think he was fired for that reason.

MR. RUSSERT: Oh, go back and read very carefully what happened.

SEC'Y RUMSFELD: I just don't know. I can't speak to that.

More later....