I concur EndAllWars! And the most frightening aspect for me is seeing this country we call home loosing its moral compass. And while the average citizens, like you and me, are lamenting this sad state of affairs, in the politico-military-industrial complex business goes on as usual, and while the more things change (for worse) the more they stay the same.

And you/we expected what exactly? A white horse to ride in and save the day? Jimmy Stewart to make the great American plea? This was a farce, and one does not become frustrated with, or create expectations based on, a farce.

Business as usual in DC.

One or two years after Clinton or Obama take office and we are still in Iraq, then you can be frustrated.

I’m posting this in empathy/understanding with those of you who are so pissed off with Clinton and Obama, (or any other democratic Senator perceived as saying less than they should have in today’s ‘hearings’ if ya wanna call them that.)

I do feel the frustration myself, but I also viewed the proceedings differently, based on pragmatism and the reality of how much could actually ‘be accomplished’ in that setting, and at this time. This is just the first part of the article. The link to the remainder is at the bottom.

I’ve also posted the same on another thread.

General Entrap-Us or General Entrapped?
By Ira Chernus
TomDispatch.com
Sunday 06 April 2008
Democrats should treat Petraeus and his surge as irrelevant.

It was supposed to be a “cakewalk.” General Petraeus would come to Congress, armed with his favorite charts showing that the “surge” had dramatically reduced violence in Iraq. He would earn universal acclaim for his plan to “pause” troop reductions from July until after the election in November - the same plan that John McCain counts on to help him win that election.

When it comes to Iraq, though, the Bush administration’s cakewalks never seem to turn out as planned. The renewed violence of these last weeks in Iraq, and the prospect of more to come, gives war critics ample ammunition for a counterattack. The Democrats, including Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, may find it irresistible to assault the general, and the President, with every argument they can muster in the hearings this week. However, a recent report suggests they may resist that impulse and treat the impact of the surge as an irrelevant issue.

Let’s hope that report is right, because a debate focused on military success or failure is a trap, with Petraeus’s testimony as the bait. After all, no debate in Congress will really be about the level of violence in Iraq. “Has the surge worked?” is just a symbolic way of asking: “Would you rather believe that America is a winner or a loser?” And in any battle over patriotic symbolism, the Republicans always seem to have the bigger guns.

So the Democrats would be smart to refuse the bait and insist that this is not an old-fashioned World War II- style conflict, where force can produce a clear-cut winner. Then they could refocus the debate on two crucial truths: We have no right to be in Iraq; the sooner we get out, the sooner we can begin to heal the terrible damage the war has done to us here at home.

Decoding the Battle over Iraq
It should have been obvious all along that the Republicans do not mean it literally when they claim that reducing violence in Iraq is their highest priority. It’s not likely that too many of them care a whole lot about the killing and maiming of Iraqis. So when they speak so urgently about lower levels of violence, it’s a coded way of saying something else; in fact, a lot of things.

For starters, “reduced violence” is a way to conjure up an image of American “success” in a war in which no real success (forget about “victory") is possible. The level of violence is the only concrete yardstick the administration has come up with to gauge the success of the surge- no small matter when a successful surge has become the prime symbol of achievement for U.S. troops and so for the President’s (and John McCain’s) war policies. Because the Bush administration still hopes to sell its failing war to the public by turning it into a gripping story of winners and losers, “violence” has been its currency, its coin of the realm.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040708E.shtml

Also, there is more ‘testimony’ today.

There were only a handful in that room Who should Keep their jobs and avoid Prosecution.
Do we need to have a National Vote on the Orders which we given loud and Clear in ‘06? fine Up or down Vote to the People. Get out of Iraq (let them settle their own internal Strifes andthus build their own country) or Stay and continue to place our Service Personnel in harms Way as Referees, while further invoking retribution by numerous Factions in the Region?
That Stage Production of “Saving Private” Inc’ was nothing more than when the boss comes around the corner- slackers act like they are working. Obviously Graham, Mac, ‘Liar’man et al are the worst offenders- but so are 99% of the supposed Dems. I watched it as a informative piece to determine Who should be Fired and Who should be Prosecuted. Only a handful have shown they deserve to remain on the Job. What A Charade at Both Tables!