On the run today , so no new posts. In the meantime, check out the major investigation I worked on for MotherJones.com regarding a private security firm of ex-Secret Service agents that spied on Greenpeace, other environmental groups, and corporate targets by swiping garbage, infiltrating operatives, and penetrating confidential meetings. The piece is based on internal documents we obtained and includes references to Wal-Mart, Robin Wright Penn, the NRA, Mary Kay, and the Rolling Stones.

Quick--give me two words that did not appear in George W. Bush's speech today. How about "breathing space"?

When Bush announced his so-called surge of troops in Iraq in January 2007, he said it would create "the breathing space [the Iraqi government] needs to make progress." But the government has hardly made the best of whatever "breathing space" was offered by the escalation of troops. In today's address, Bush covered Baghdad's supposed progress in two sentences.

Of course, he offered no surprises and did not veer from his stay-the-course stance. And he backed General David Petraeus so thoroughly it was if he was subcontracting out the war to the commander:

General Petraeus says he'll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions. And I've told him he'll have all the time he needs.

What's wrong with this? Well, first, Bush is out of here in nine months. Easy for him to say, "Take as much time as you want." More important, Bush is going overboard in delegating. Is he suggesting that as commander in chief he will accept whatever Petraeus tells him? That he will unquestioning grant Petraeus a blank check? Isn't it part of the president's job to evaluate what his field commanders tell him?

Petraeus' approval ratings must be higher than Bush's. (Roger Clemens probably has higher numbers than Bush.) So it's to Bush's political benefit to hide behind the No. 1 front man for the war. But no commander in chief ought to grant a commander--even one who can wow 'em on Capitol Hill--so much leeway.

During the speech, Bush also said:

Some in Washington argue that the war costs too much money. There's no doubt that the costs of this war have been high. But during other major conflicts in our history, the relative cost has been even higher. Think about the Cold War. During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, our defense budget rose as high as 13 percent of our total economy. Even during the Reagan administration, when our economy expanded significantly, the defense budget still accounted for about 6 percent of GDP. Our citizens recognized that the imperative of stopping Soviet expansion justified this expense. Today, we face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland -- and intends to do so again....

We should be able to agree that this is a burden worth bearing. And we should be able to agree that our national interest require the success of our mission in Iraq.

Here we go again: defending the Iraq war and justifying its costs by connecting the war to "an enemy...that has actually attacked our homeland." You'd think that Bush would become tired of that old canard. Moreover, he says everyone should agree the war is worth it. Then why do 70 percent of Americans, according to polls, not agree with this proposition? The country just doesn't buy what Bush has to say. It long ago turned off to his never-ending disingenuous sales pitch. Consequently, the speechifying he did today won't matter. But maybe the next time he feels the need to make a speech on Iraq he should ask Petraeus to give the speech for him. And in that speech, Petraeus can declare: "I am giving myself as much time as I think I need. And I thank me."

Now it's back to the usual fun and games.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tried to look statesmanlike (or stateswoman-like) as each respectfully questioned General David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker. Neither senator provided much in the way of push-back to Petraeus' and Crocker's statements. Yes, they stuck to their overall criticisms of the war and their respective calls for withdrawing U.S. troops, but each had obviously calculated that the Petraeus hearings were not an occasion to raise a fuss or score points.

But today it was time to do so. At least for Clinton. At a campaign event, she said:

We need to be planning and preparing to start bringing our troops home, and I have committed to doing that within 60 days of my becoming president. Senator Obama, on the other hand, says he'll end the war, but his top foreign policy adviser said he won't necessarily follow the plan he's been talking about during this campaign. That the plan is "just words." Well, you can count on me to end the war safely and responsibly.

Once again, she was trying to depict Obama as a phony, indirectly citing remarks from ex-Obama adviser Samantha Power, who weeks ago had said that if Obama were to become president, his withdrawal plan would be reality-checked against the conditions of the time. That's logical. But the Clinton folks claimed Power had spilled a big secret: Obama didn't intend to stick by his vow to withdraw troops from Iraq. And they tried to make this a big to-do.

At the time, it didn't quite catch on as a campaign meme. (Reverend Wright came along.) But in this campaign, it seems, no allegation ever truly disappears. Clinton is trying to resurrect this charge.

The Obama campaign immediately fired back and released this statement:

Hillary Clinton's tired and discredited attack is just the same old politics that won't end this war that she voted to authorize, and won't change the fact that she has repeatedly misled the American people about her Iraq record. We're happy to have a debate with Hillary Clinton over who the American people trust to end this war, since Barack Obama is the only candidate who had the judgment to oppose the war from the very beginning, not just from the beginning of a campaign for President.

The Obama-Clinton bickering is getting old and annoying. In this round--as in many--her campaign is the more guilty party. But that aside, it's unfortunate for Democrats and war critics that these two candidates talk tougher about each other than they do about the front men for George W. Bush's war.

On Monday, I noted that when General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, testified before Congress last September he wielded a chart entitled "Iraqi Security Forces Capabilities." That graphic aid hardly backed up the argument that the Iraqi forces were on the march. It showed that the level of Iraqi troops that were fully independent or that could stage operations of their own with the support of U.S. forces had dipped slightly between September 2006 and September 2007. That indicated that over the course of a year, according to Petraeus' own numbers, there had been no progress--none--in fielding Iraqi security forces that could function on their own. That seemed a rather strong indicator.

So on Tuesday morning, as I watched Petraeus' testimony before the Senate armed services committee, I waited to get his handouts to see what had happened on this front in the past seven months. As soon as he began testifying, the committee made his charts available. And--whaddayaknow?--this time he had no version of this chart. There was one chart indicating that more Iraqi battalions were now taking the lead in military operations than in January 2007. But this point was challenged by Senator Carl Levin, the committee chairman. Levin said that he was recently informed that of 110 joint U.S.-Iraqi operations of company size or greater in Iraq in the first three months of 2008, Iraqi forces assumed the lead in only ten of these missions. Still, Petraeus testified that the Iraqi forces have "grown significantly" since September, but he did not provide information on their capabilities that would allow an observer to compare current numbers to those he presented to Congress in September. Anyone care to guess why?

During his testimony, Petraeus said what was expected: the so-called surge is working, progress is real if fragile. And he said that there should be no reduction of troops beyond a return to the pre-surge levels. At the same time, the Democratic war critics on the committee missed a chance to present a cohesive and extensive challenge to Bush's war. I suss it all out here.

Mark Penn's departure from the Hillary Clinton campaign took a punch away from Barack Obama.

It's a punch that Obama had not yet used. But as the primary campaign has intensified, I've been waiting for the moment--at a debate or during a high-profile campaign speech--when Obama would turn to Clinton (literally or metaphorically) and say something like:

With all due respect, Senator, how can you say that you are a candidate who will fight the for change against the status quo of Washington and champion the interests of working Americans, when your chief strategist is an inside-the-Beltway consultant who makes millions of dollars a year helping union-busting firms, corporate polluters, various industries, foreign governments and special interests get what they want out of Washington at the expense of hard-working Americans? How can you place your campaign in the hands of a fellow who's day job is to assist corporate powers so they win special favors and special treatment? Do you not see the contradiction between your words and this action? Should voters not wonder about your close and important association with this Washington insider who rents out his influence--for millions of dollars--to corporate special interests?

Well, that's not going to happen now. The Clinton campaign tied Penn's exit--ouster?--to the recent news that he was working for the Government of Colombia, advising it on how to win support in Washington for a free-trade treaty that Clinton says she opposes. (Was this arrogant? Foolish? Dumb?) But top-level Clinton aides have been grumbling about Penn for months, with some rooting for his fall. So the Colombian connection was convenient ammo for those on the campaign who have blamed Penn's go-for-a-general-election-message strategy for HRC's troubles during the primary season. There are some happy campers in Hillaryland today--and Obama has lost an opportunity.

COUNTDOWN TO PETRAEUS: On Tuesday, General David Petraeus will again try to take Capitol Hill. I've already done a set-up (here and here). But I was thinking about last year's Petraeus show and remembered that he had a pretty easy time snowing Congress. Read this posting (of mine) from September:

Citing General David Petraeus, George W. Bush, in his so-called "wayforward in Iraq" speech declared on Thursday night, "The Iraqi army is becoming more capable."

For days, I've been carrying around with me page 13 of the 14-page slideshow Petraeus showed during his multiple appearances on Capitol Hill. (That's how nerdy I am!) And to anyone unfortunate to get stuck in an elevator with me, I've flashed this chart to show that according to Petraeus' own numbers, there has been no progress in the past year in fielding Iraqi security forces that can function on their own. Yes, I said no progress.

The chart--titled "Iraqi Security Forces Capabilities"--divides Iraqi troops into four groups: units that are fully independent (Level I); that can stage operations with support of U.S. forces (Level II); that can fight side by side with U.S. forces (Level III); that are still forming (Level IV). If you look at September 2006, you will see that there were 11,000 Level I troops and 86,000 Level II troops. Fast forward to September 2007, and the numbers are, Level I, 12,000 and Level II, 84,000. That's a slight drop in capabilities, if you combine Levels I and II.

So how can Bush--or anyone else--say that Iraqi troops are becoming more capable? For all the money and effort spent during the last year--when the Bush administration was claiming that the training of Iraqi troops was a top priority (remember, they stand up, we leave?)--there's been little, if any, return on the investment. By the way, the chart includes the national police--a force so rife with corruption and sectarianism that the Jones Commission recently recommended it be disbanded. Petraeus's chart is further evidence that the administration gameplan isn't working.

Back in September, reporters and legislators did not pay attention to this important portion of Petraeus' presentation. Will the scrutiny be tighter this time?

Yesterday, I wondered aloud whether the members of the House and the Senate will give General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, much of a grilling when he testifies on Capitol Hill next week. After all, during his previous appearance in September, Petraeus was met only with a fusillade of softballs.

I asked a senior Democratic House aide if the questioning this time will be more vigorous. He responds: "Absolutely. The recent events seem to have confirmed everyone's suspicions about the “success” of the surge. Combined with the recent statements about retaining 140,000 troops, the McCain 100 year commitment, and the salience of the “cost of war” theme of the last few weeks, and the 4,000 death figure being reached, Members are ready to challenge assertions or predictions of success."

Such challenging is long past due. One question is, will it matter? The Democrats in the Senate and House have been completely stymied by George W. Bush. They have tried many times to force Bush to change direction in Iraq. He has said no. And they have declined to go nuclear: that is, vote against general funding for the war. The Democrats don't have the votes to win that battle. And many of them do not want to be placed in a position where Republicans and conservatives can accuse them of being responsible for what could be a nasty ending to the war. Their strategic aim has been to force Bush to clean up his own mess. He has refused.

So it's unlikely that any tough questioning of Petraeus will lead to policy change. But this remains an important moment. For the past year, there's not been much popular and media attention paid to the war. In recent months, it's barely been in the news. Occasionally, you see video of the aftermath of a market bomb-blast, but the war is usually off the screen.

The public certainly does not support the war. But what's the nature of this opposition? Last night, I attended a screening of Body of War, a gripping documentary directed by Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue (yes, that Phil Donahue) that follows the story and travails of Tomas Young, an Iraq war vet who was shot while on patrol and paralyzed from the waist down. After the film was shown, Young spoke to the audience and noted that even though close to 70 percent of the American public say they oppose this war, this only means that these Americans are willing to pick up a phone and tell some pollster on the other end that they don't fancy this war. That's not passionate opposition. Are they willing to take any action to stop it? Not really. Public sentiment regarding the war is closer to alienation than anger. After all, the costs of the war are hidden (that is, not felt) by most Americans,

The upcoming Petraeus testimony is an opportunity. The national media, for at least a day or so, will focus on the war. The dominant media narrative of the war in recent months has been that the surge is working. Now war critics and skeptics in Congress will have a brief chance to rewrite (or at least challenge) that script. But that will only happen if they are forceful in questioning Petraeus. Too much deference will lose the day for them. And the point is...to make a point: the war is not going as well as Bush claims. Doing so will help the Democratic presidential candidate--whoever wins--do battle with John McCain, a cheerleader for the war, and also help the Democratic nominee, if he or she is elected, to begin disengagement from Iraq.

It may be weeks or months before the American public (and the media) next pays any intense attention to the war. The Democrats ought to make sure they don't blow this engagement.

The Democrats in Congress have been rolled on the Iraq war. That's no news flash. Given that they long ago decided not to pull the trigger and defund the war, they were left with the option of trying to force George W. Bush to change course. He stood firm. They blinked. And when General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, testified before Congress last September, the Democrats greeted him with softball questions. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wimped out when they had a chance to grill Petraeus. Bottom-line: Bush won political space for the war, and the meme was established that the surge was working and the war was going better. That narrative, though, had a hole in it, for a successful surge (if that is what it was) was not equivalent to a successful war. Sure, pouring 30,000 extra troops into the hotspots of Iraq would certainly cause some of the violence to decline. But that did not mean that the roots of the conflict(s) in Iraq were being addressed--let alone addressed effectively. Yet Petraeus, generally unchallenged by the Dems (who were scared to be associated with MoveOn's anti-Petraeus campaign), was able to sell the surge.

Now that sales job is wearing thin. The recent fighting between the Iraqi government and the militia of Moqtadar al-Sadr suggests that the problem in Iraq is civil war rather than insurgency. Or, at least, maybe both. Here we have the government trying to crack down on what is, as journalist Patrick Cockburn calls it, "the only mass movement in Iraqi politics." Say what you want about Sadr, he ain't no insurgent. What's our dog in this fight? What does any of this have to do with combating al Qaeda (which seems to be a small slice of the challenge in Iraq, Bush's pronouncements to the contrary)? Why back the inept and corrupt regime of Nouri al-Maliki?

The surge was supposed to create space for national reconciliation. But even Petraeus has recognized that this opportunity has been squandered. And if one Shi'ite bloc (the government) is fighting another Shi'ite bloc (Sadr and his followers), what does that tell us about progress on this front? Meanwhile, top U.S. military officials told Congress on Tuesday that the surge in Iraq and deployments in Afghanistan have stressed out the military so much that it may not be able to handle other conflicts. This assessment comes just as Petraeus is expected to tell Congress next week--when he comes back for a return engagement--that he wants to delay any de-surging.

So it's a mess. The surge may not be the temporary move Bush had promised when he announced it in January 2007. The violence is increasing. Four million Iraqis remain dislocated and displaced. The Sunnis have been armed to beat back al Qaeda in Iraq--but those arms can be put to other use. And civil war between the Shi'ites is but a flashpoint away--and only prevented recently due to the intervention of Iran, which helped cool down the clash between the government and Sadr and which seems to have more influence in Iraq than the United States.

Will members of Congress--Democratic and Republican--grill Petraeus about all this? Or let themselves once again be dazzled by charts, graphs, and confident assertions of progress. This is a good time for a surge in oversight. And if the Democrats need any help, I've prepared a list of questions that national security experts would like to see posed to Petraeus. (See it here.) But I am sure they can come up with their own queries. One only needs to read the papers and to wonder, what the hell is going on?