The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - Review
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Elections — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Not an uninteresting week. We had Byron Dorgan (D-ND) disagreeing with Cindy (FNS); McCain expressing "policy disagreements" with, but not loss of confidence in, Don Rumsfeld (FTN); Dr. Barbara Porchia, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, asking why our soldiers were in Iraq and suggesting that the reasons might be political; Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), whom a RedStater had hoped a few months ago could eventually be a guest on one of the shows, suggesting a THIRD WAY for Iraq, as opposed to "stay the course" and "date certain for withdrawal." Wyden suggested a date certain for training the Iraqi troops. (He said it.)
See below the fold for the show-by-show review:
AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD ON MTP. Tim Russert spoke via satellite link with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, on NBC's Meet the Press. What happened this morning is being portrayed as the Sunnis rejecting the constitution but the Shi'ites and Kurds deciding to put it to an October 15 vote anyway. Khalilzad, however, indicated that there will be a signing ceremony this afternoon, and he expects some Sunni members of the committee to be there and to sign the document.
October 15, the ambassador said, "is the real test." If the Sunnis do not approve the constitution, "it will be a problem." Russert asked him if 2,000 American soldiers had died to create "another Islamic Republic." (In fairness, if I hadn't been following this process, that is a question to which I'd like to know the answer.) Khalilzad said no. The provision which mentions Islam is similar to the one in the Afghan constitution which we've applauded, and there is an equal provision in the Iraqi constitution which indicates that no law may violate human rights.
The ambassador suggested that disagreements between the parties should become campaign issues: "run against things with which you disagree."
He indicated that the Iraqi constitution will be a "living constitution": "To remain relevant, it will have to adapt." (There's a can of worms I do not wish on that society.)
Russert asked him how many Iraqi troops were now ready to independently provide for the country's security. On their own, the ambassador said, the "number is not very large." He indicated that there was a "very large number" who could provide security "with some degree of American support." He said that to be effective, the troops must not only be well-trained, but must also be trusted by the Iraqis.
Russert wanted to know if there would be additional insurgent violence, an "uptick," prior to the October 15 constitutional vote. Khalilzad explained that the insurgents "have declared war" against the constitution and the government and that there would be more violence.
TWO GRIEVING MOTHERS ON FNS. There was no Cindy Sheehan gutter-rhetoric on FOX News Sunday, as the well-spoken Dr. Barbara Porchia took the side against the war. Rhonda Winfield ably argued in support of the work our soldiers are doing. Both women have lost sons in Iraq.
Porchia wants to know for what "noble cause" our troops are dying. Why are we in Iraq? Why does the President say we're there to fight terrorists when the terrorists were in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq?
Warfield described the "dissension in the ranks" in the United States as "devastating to the troops." She referred to it as "blatantly an insult to our troops."
Porchia again asked: "What are we in Iraq for?" She argued that the war protestors were hurting the moral of the troops no more than the lack of WMD has. She said that if we are fighting for reasons which can't be explained, we should "bring them home." She suggested, then, that we were in Iraq, "for political reasons." She did not indicate what these were.
GENERALS ON MTP. Retired generals offering their opinions on the war to Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press.
General Wayne Downing explained: "We're not going to withdraw these troops based on any type of timetable." This was a very, matter-of-fact military answer, stripped of political argument for or against. He said that they will be withdrawn as conditions indicate. The various generals offering different hints at draw-downs, he indicated, were merely playing their roles, which is to project for their individual services.
General Montgomery Meigs indicated that the Iraqis have to beat the insurgency. We can help. And his active-duty friends have not suggested that the military has conceded that it cannot defeat the insurgency, as was reported by the Washington Post last week.
General Barry McCaffrey said that he could see a scenario where we have all the pieces in place that we could begin a draw-down by the fall of 2006, He said that this is "likely to happen."
MCCONNELL AND DORGAN ON FNS. Wallace's next guests on FOX News Sunday this morning were House Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Senate Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. Dorgan appeared to be a good face for the Democrats to wear this morning, as he wasn't oozing anything and his nostrils didn't flare with contempt.
McConnell explained that there "are a number of Sunnis who support the constitution." He said that the Sunnis were "a problem" but are a "distinct minority of the country."
Dorgan said that the Sunnis were "more difficult than anticipated."
Dorgan went through the list of Dem complaints ("known facts"), and Wallace asked him if the Democrats had a plan of their own. Dorgan again went through the list, and McConnell pointed out that he hadn't answered the question. Dorgan replied that we have to deal with the situation as it is now, we cannot withdraw our troops. He is concerned, he said, with getting "straight answers" from the Bush Administration, answers which he said were not forthcoming.
Asked about Allmother Cindy Sheehan, Democrat Dorgan indicated that she had a right to protest. He would not stipulate "BUSH LIED!" – but he said that we were told that Iraq would be a "SLAM DUNK" and that there were WMD, and this turned out not to be the case. (The "slam dunk" quote is something Bob Woodward invented for George Tenet, having nothing to do with winning the war in Iraq.) He said we were getting no "straight answers" from the President.
Wallace asked him if he agreed with Cindy's call to immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq, and Dorgan said that this would be foolish.
To the same question, McConnell expressed that "everybody's entitled to their grief."
JOHN MCCAIN ON FTN. On CBS's Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer talked to U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Arizona). Before this, Schieffer: "And what about Iraq? Has it become another Vietnam?" On the Iraqi constitution: "Is it already doomed?" CBS reporter Lara Logan, an attractive young Brit who has done work for CBS' famous 60 Minutes program, indicated that the Iraqis were angry at having to look at U.S. troops and that we were making no progress in Iraq, that it was more dangerous than ever.
TIME mag's Mike Duffy helped with the questions.
Schieffer asked McCain about Logan's comments, and the senator said that "early withdrawal" from Iraq would be "catastrophic." McCain said that though he does not like to "disagree with Lara in any way," we were making a great deal of progress in Iraq. He reiterated Joe Biden's old complaint that U.S. troops clear an area of insurgents, have to leave, and the insurgents go back in.
Schieffer confronted McCain with Chuck Hagel's assertion last week that Iraq was becoming "another Vietnam." McCain carefully explained that "Chuck" was one of his "dearest friends," but that they disagreed. "The whole situation," he said, "is very different." The senator listed the obvious differences and added this one: "When we left Vietnam, there was no fear that they would come after us." The terrorists who would assume control of Iraq, he suggested, would.
Duffy asked him if he now thinks we need more troops in Iraq. McCain said that he has always thought that. If we had more troops after toppling the statue, we'd need fewer now, he insisted. Now, though, we need more army and more marines.
Schieffer asked him about Sec Def Don Rumsfeld, whom McCain indicated last week that he no longer trusted. This week, the senator admitted that he and Rumsfeld have had "strong policy disagreements." He indicated that Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the President and that he can work with Rumsfeld on that basis.
"He did a lot of things wrong," McCain opined on Rumsfeld. "He did some things right." He said that he hopes that the areas in which they had agreements "have been fixed," which means that the course will have been reversed and the Secretary was now doing things McCain's way.
When Schieffer tried to pin McCain down on an exact number of additional troops needed, McCain suggested "15 to 20-thousand," the acknowledged that he was "not that knowledgeable." Schieffer tried to pin him down on a "date certain," but McCain said that he would keep the troops there until the Iraqis could provide their security, then he would draw the troops back to "enclaves," then begin withdrawal.
Schieffer started quoting from a McCain speech in which the senator described Cindy Sheehan as "being used," and as a "symptom" rather than the cause. McCain explained that this was not the first time the anti-Bush left has used someone for political purposes and that Sheehan is a "symptom of the polling" which shows Americans are uncertain about the war.
Schieffer wanted to know why the support for the war began dropping "suddenly this summer." Instead of indicating that the media mood has helped erode support, McCain suggested that this was because there was no measure of success that people could "grab onto," and that certain events, like the deaths of the Ohio Guardsmen, reached our national consciousness.
Looking at the various generals who have discussed various withdrawals on differing timelines, McCain suggested that such talk was "not very helpful."
Duffy asked McCain why the Senate had killed the military appropriations bill merely because he wanted to include an anti-torture amendment. McCain said that he had proposed a "clear set of rules" which would prevent "another Abu Ghraib."
"I don't know why the Senate leadership yanked the bill," he said with some modicum of disbelief, calling it "inexplicable."
He said that he doesn't understand why the President doesn't support his provision proscribing torture. He does not understand their fears that the amendment would tie the government's hands in dealing with dangerous enemy combatant prisoners.
AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD ON LE. CNN's Wolf Blitzer began his Late Edition program by talking to U.N. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, who was interviewed earlier on NBC's MTP with Russert.
"I think it's a good day for Iraq, Wolf, that they have a draft constitution." He thinks some Sunni leaders will support the constitution while others will disagree with parts and discuss it amongst themselves. We won't know the "authoritative" Sunni he response, he said, for a few days.
Blitzer brought up Sunni on the committee who said that he would fight the constitution at the referendum this October. Khalilzad explained that the Sunnis got much of they asked for in changes, but not everything. "No one got everything." As to if the Sunnis will choose to reject the Constitution, "we'll see." He suspects that there will not be enough votes to reject (2/3) in three provinces to reject it.
He said that "the real struggle" was with the insurgents for "the hearts and minds of the Sunni population." He averred that it will "take courage" for the Sunnis to stand up and support the constitution, and he urged them to look at the document and note how they are protected.
Blitzer started going over the latest draft which he had in his possession. The Ambassador admitted that a provision which declared Islam the official religion and a source of legislation was in the final draft, but that there were later provisions which stipulate that nothing which violates human rights may become law.
Khalilzad said that the new draft of the constitution, changed in the last three days, stated that there would be no prior review of legislation by a body before it could take effect.
Wolf asked him about Article 90 which stated that the Iraqi supreme court would be comprised of a certain number of judges who are experts in the Sharia. Wolf expressed the concerns of women's groups for rights to divorce. Khalilzad indicated that there is a civil court option, and that the Iraqis should support candidates who support their position.
Regarding women, he said, "it is a very enlightened constitution." The parliament has a quota demanding that 25% of the membership must be women.
Passing the constitution, he said, will help in the war against the insurgency. "What we have here is a huge struggle for the future of Iraq," he said, on which includes not only Iraqis, but "regional powers."
Blitzer wanted a date certain for withdrawal, but Khalilzad left it to the military generals. He said that with the progress anticipated, we could see withdrawals by next year.
ROBERTS AND WYDEN ON LE. Blitzer next spoke with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas and Democrat member Ron Wyden of Oregon. Roberts is "rather amazed at the efforts towards consensus." He said that he thinks the ambassador was right, that it will take several days and up to the election to see how the Sunnis follow it.
Wyden said that the constitution should be "based on sound policy, not scotch tape." He declared that it was unfair to women. Blitzer agreed, indicating that it was based on Sharia. Roberts said that "Sharia is not in the document," and he cited a "bill of rights including women."
Blitzer played a Joe Biden clip, in which the senator said that if the Sunnis aren't on board, there will be a civil war. Wyden said that Iraq was a "train wreck" or "worse than that." He said that we need a date certain, not for troop withdrawal, but when the Iraqi forces would be trained, as that's when we could bring our troops home.
Wolf quoted Russ Feingold's dismay and demand for a date certain. Robert's thinks "that would be a bad mistake" and would leave our troops scratching their heads about whether or not there was a commitment to finish the job. If we cut and run, he said, we'd allow Iran to take over and embolden the terrorists.
Wyden suggested a third way. He said that we're making no progress in training Iraqis, so we should pick a date certain for training the Iraqi forces.
[The audio of the President's live remarks about the hurricane and Iraq were aired, sounding as if his voice were disguised slightly by a modulator.]
The President called the constitution an "inspiration." The President asked Roberts if the President might "come to regret those words" if the Sunni's split, declare an Islamic state, and attack everything, as has been predicted. Roberts indicated that only 51% of the voters in three provinces had to reject the constitution or it would go down. Blitzer corrected him, indicating that the actual number was a 2/3rds vote. Patiently, Roberts told him that it had been changed to 51%, which Blitzer appeared to accept.
Wyden said that he was not optimistic.
JOE BIDEN ON TW. George Stephanopoulos interviewed the imperious Joe Biden about the way things really are, just level with us, look, George, these people, George, I just don't get it, etc. Steph seemed to be moving Biden into the role of the most slanderous, staunch anti-Bush candidate, goading Biden into one-upping things he himself said or that were uttered by other anti-Bush politicians.
The war's not unwinnable yet, Biden averred. He wondered how much of the Sunni rejection is gamesmanship, but it is a "formula for civil war" if the Sunnis don't sign on. Steph said there already was a civil war in Iraq, and he cut off Biden from trying to respond.
Steph stated the constitution mandates Islamic law and puts clerics and Islamic judges in charge, and that this was bad news for women. It will be in the hands of the clerics, he said, and he wondered if the Americans should sacrifice lives for this.
Joe Biden said he told us so, that this just might happen, but that "it remains to be seen" if this actually does occur.
Steph interrupted insisting that it had already happened.
Joe Biden, losing his patience, explained what we knew. That Sharia was A source of law, that the family decided whether decisions were made in civil courts or religious courts. He chastised Steph for demanding comment on reports he could not verify.
By now, Joe Biden was feeding off of Steph's anti-Bush vibe. He declared that the Administration had so badly screwed things up that it just might be as bad as Steph had asserted.
Steph cited Gary Hart's recent WashPost op/ed accusing Senate Democrats of blowing it. Biden said it was ridiculous for him to have to defend himself against (with contempt) Gary Hart. Steph insisted that Gary Hart was important. Joe Biden insisted that he hated the Administration more than Hart, with a long list of things this Administration has been wrong. He's listed what's wrong and offered solutions. So have John McCain and Chuck Hagel, he said.
Biden yelled at Steph for characterizing his suggestions to bring aboard the French and the Germans as "internationalization."
He told Steph to "go back and check" what he had said. Joe Biden defended Russ Feingold's request for dates when the President will do this and that.
Steph wanted to know if Joe Biden and Feingold are on the same page, and Joe Biden said that he wasn't going to speak for Russ Feingold. He's going to be where he's been for the last year and a half: offering specific recommendations.
He called this "a stark failure" but indicated that it was "redeemable." He said that the important thing was to protect our national interests. "This President has broken the pottery. He owns it."
First, "get rid of Rumsfeld" to reassure foreign governments. Lay out how many Iraqis to train, so that we know whether or not he has a plan.
Joe Biden said that he is closer to running for President, and Steph said: "That's good to know."
THUNE ON TW. Steph talked to Senator John Thune of South Dakota, and the senator indicated that "Joe Biden speaks with great passion." He agreed with Biden that we don't know what is happening on the ground, it changes by the minute, and "birthing a democracy is a painful process." (Which comment struck me as neatly appropriate this weekend.)
Steph insisted that we were not making progress and that the new constitution would deepen the divisions and cause civil war.
Steph asked Thune if his constituents "had the stomach" to "stay the course," to be in Iraq "10, 15, 20-years." Thune indicated that the people in South Dakota to whom he talks are concerned, but "at the same time they realize" that we don't have any other options.
Steph asked if Rumsfeld had become a "liability to the President." Thune said it was the President's call, and that his problem with Rumsfeld was "over the BRAC process." Steph said that Thune must be hoping that the President did not have complete confidence in Rumsfeld, because Rumsfeld said that it was dangerous to tinker with the Pentagon's recommendations for closure and the President could listen to Rumsfeld not the BRAC on Ellsworth.
Steph was clearly stretching, pretending to know what Rumsfeld would tell the President, in order to get Thune on board his OUST RUMSFELD! love train. Thune had introduced legislation to hold base closures until our troops were home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Steph asked if he now was going to withdraw the legislation now that Ellsworth had been saved. Thune indicated that his cosponsors might have changed their minds after the thoughtful way in which the BRAC had acted. One has to wonder if Steph sees a Cindy-spawned opening to blatantly smear the President yet still appear "mainstream." It was something of a meltdown, however, and it makes me question his current fitness for his job; by that, I mean that we can detect bias, or think we do, in Russert or Schieffer, in Wallace or Blitzer, but it's never that bold.
Thune impressed me.
Anyway, have at it!
-----
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - Lineup — Comments (12) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - Review 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Gen. Downing went on at length about how the MSM needed to offer more context in it's reporting on Iraq.
He understood that the media must report on casualties. But he lamented that none of those reports included the mission, what was accomplished or wasn't accomplished etc. He hinted the media reporting gave the impression that our troops just stood around waiting for IEDs to explode. He made some very, very good points - points that I wish the media would take to heart.
What was Russert's response? a diatribe listing all the arguments raised by the anti-war left. What did that have to do with the General's comments? Well, other than a vague reference to a comparison to WW2, absolutely nothing.
To my ear, it was a total admission that the mainstream press report only casualty counts and doesn't include context, because the MSM speaks for the anti-war left!
read the full exchange here - scan for the word 'context' to see the relevant paragraphs.
Great overview as usual, Mark. The most poignant thing to me from reading this commentary this week, with all of the banter about Vietnam and the handwringing over the constitutional process in Iraq, is that people really are jaded, including our Senators and Representatives. They barely seem to be able to recall the difficulties our own Republic had to face in the early years, and they all want to give us the easy, five-cent synthesis of what needs to be done. Stephanopoulos was really horrible this weekend. He should join Jon Stewart's team.
This constitutional process in Iraq should always be viewed by people in America as a very difficult and wrenching process: this is, at the core, an ethnically divided country that has existed for much of the past half-century under brutal totalitarian rule. We're in this for the long haul, and we need to decide that the fight is worthwhile, for our own sake as much as for the 25 million people in Iraq whom we promised to help. That's what I fault the Administration for, more than anything else: a failure to prepare the American people for the possibility that this wasn't going to be an act of prepackaged "fast food" nation building.
Bill Kristol is correct:
Isn't it more likely that they're now too worried that we're going to leave, creating a dangerous dynamic in which Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds each feel they have to fend for themselves?
...
The success of the Bush presidency depends on his success as commander in chief. So does the success of American foreign policy.
There's a thin line between love and hate. And if America loses its will to see this war through to its conclusion, no matter what it takes, and even if it means that John McCain will be our next president, millions of people in Iraq who are currently ambivalent about our involvement will surely hate us for leaving.
The Democrats desperately need Iraq off the table by 2008. They know that even with all the mistakes that have been made they don't have the stomach for dealing with it either. They know they would do an even worse job because it's not their forte. They genuinely have no ideas. If the Dems take the White House in 08 they don't want Iraq on their plate. If we are still in Iraq in a meaningful way they know they will have to cave to the pressure of the Cindy-wing of the party and withdraw. They will declare Iraq to be in a hopeless coma and pull the feeding tube. The ensuing disaster would be on their permanent work history.
Watch for more calls to set a pre-2008 withdrawal date.
He understood that the media must report on casualties. But he lamented that none of those reports included the mission, what was accomplished or wasn't accomplished etc. He hinted the media reporting gave the impression that our troops just stood around waiting for IEDs to explode. He made some very, very good points - points that I wish the media would take to heart.
I read a blog/article/something recently that argued this, and I think it is spot on. When people see soldiers dying without a context, they may not understand why.
I mean what if the news just said "2,000 soldiers died in an assault today"-without the added "invasion of Normandy" people probably wouldn't have support that much either. If people know and understand the context of the death, they have a better understanding of why and what.
Granted I think one legitimate criticism of the administration is that they don't argue the broad mission often enough, and I almost never see context for the casualty lists from the MSM when listing who died.
They also leave out the fact that we are killing/capturing the insurgents at an astronimical rate.
Kristol does have several valid points. IMHO, this is the most important - President Bush must do a better job at conveying this message:
"During the last few decades, the terrorists grew to believe that if they hit America hard, as in Lebanon and Somalia, America would retreat and back down. . . . So now they're trying to break our will with acts of violence. . . . Their goal is to force us to retreat. . . . We will stay on the offense. We'll complete our work in Afghanistan and Iraq. An immediate withdrawal . . . would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations. So long as I'm the president, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror."
--George W. Bush, speaking to National Guard soldiers and their families, Nampa, Idaho, August 24, 2005 (From Kristol's article)
I noticed a significant change for the better, and a greater sense of urgency and matter-of-factness in the president's rhetoric in his speech on Wednesday.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/print/20050824.html
Speaking to the press today about Katrina and Iraq, President Bush took a more forceful position and emphatically expoused:
"I want our folks to remember our own constitution was not unanimously received. Some delegates at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 refused to sign it, and the draft was vigorously debated in every state, and the outcome was not assured until all the votes were counted.
We recognize that there's a split amongst the Sunnis, for example, in Iraq. And I suspect that when you get down to it, you'll find a Shiia who disagrees with the constitution and Shiia who support the constitution, and perhaps some Kurds who are concerned about the constitution. In other words, we're watching a political process unfold. Some Sunnis have expressed reservations about various provisions of the constitution, and that's their right as free individuals living in a free society. There are strong beliefs among other Sunnis that this constitution is good for all Iraqis and that it adequately reflects compromises suitable to all groups.
It's important that all Iraqis now actively engage in the constitutional process by debating the merits of this important document and making an informed decision on October the 15th."
The entire press announcement is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/print/20050828-1.html
Labor Day must be just around the corner. I wish he would have started this offensive a little earlier, but I suspect that he was waiting for the submission of the draft constitution to the Iraqi Assembly for consideration.
exact same response to Russert's diatribe -- total shock. I've always given Russert the benefit of the doubt that he at tleast attempts to be objective. The 0rush and severity of his response to Downing, however, revealed his true colors. Very sad.
Gen. Meigs and Gen. McCaffrey, excluding Gen Clark, were for the most part in sync with Gen. Myers, and it seems, the position most of the senior officers on the ground in Iraq and our bases around the world are taking.
Gen. Myers just finished touring the troops before he retires next month. During Friday's Pentagon press conference, he laid to rest the democrat/media meme that our troops lack the resolve to see this mission through, or that an early troop reduction in Iraq without stabilization in the region is given serious consideration by anyone at the senior level.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050826-3782.html
Since profanity is not tolerated...there isn't much else to say.
GWB has made choices that have resulted in the deaths of many people, especially the American military people.
I support winning in Iraq. I don't support GWB and his choice of sycophant generals.
What the F***?
What is his policy?
Why do our people continue to die?
What an insult to the troops that fight the war.
Where are the Iraqi flowers?
Where is the Iraqi cooperation?
Where is the Iraqi money?
Where is the next Admin lie?
Where is Wolfowitz?
Think of the history books.
You better start re-writing now with Rove.
THE FUTURE:
Donald Rumsfeld, after tucking his tail between his legs, founded a new society...PWUE.
I know it doesn't fit with DoD principles, which is aOKay w Rummy....
...but just to get the info out...PWUE...stand for:
People With Underdeveloped Egos.
This is not a general discussion board. It is a Republican site. We invite honest criticism, but all I see above is so many talking points. Please do better in the future. This is your One Bite.
You're right about the dems wanting us out of Iraq in 2008.
If I had to guess, I'd say that we'll probably be in Iraq at least until after the elections of 2008, but perhaps much longer.
Having troops in Iraq forces the dems to run candidates like George McGovern, Howard Dean, and John Kerry. They're usually Massachusetts liberals whom the pacifist base of the democratic party can trust to be anti-war.
Not having troops in Iraq allows the dems to run candidates like Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton--guys who focus on domestic policy.
If Bush wants to help Billary get back into the White House, all he has to do is to pull all of the troops out of Iraq and declare the war "over".
I found the generals' roundtable on MTP particularly interesting. Clark (whom I'm not a particular fan of from a political perspective) was for once balanced out pretty well by the other Generals. I'd note that MTP launched a Podcast last week and that today's episode is already available for download. A few things stand out in my mind from this discussion:
1) The "general" consensus that things need to progress very rapidly from now until next summer; if the Iraqis are not largely self-sufficient (from a security perspective) by this time next year--thereby allowing for a moderate pull down of troops--all seemed to agree (or at least did not vocally object to the notion) that it would be difficult to maintain the mission in its current state, particularly given the mid-term elections next November.
2) One subtle thing of interest was the following exchange. Is this slip indicative of an unspoken perception of this operation within the military? (from MTP transcript):
Gen. Meigs: ......So the frustration I have as a former soldier is I will talk to people who've just returned from Vietnam. And you saw Chris Matthew's "Hardball" program. There are commanders...
Gen. McCaffrey: Iraq.
Gen. Meigs: ...Iraq--there are commanders who believe very strongly that their soldiers have made tremendous progress on the ground in their sectors.....
It wasn't a particularly rosy, but perhaps realistic discussion. Well worth listening to the Poscast if you missed it.