In his interview with Alan Colmes, Gen. David Petraeus said:

[T]he attacks that have the most strategic significance, the -- again, the car-bombings, the suicide vest attacks and so forth that cause such significant damage to the psychological fabric of Iraqi society and as well as just sheer physical damage, those are conducted by al Qaeda Iraq. And they are very clearly linked to the so-called AQSL, the al Qaeda senior leadership, located in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border tribal areas, without question. I mean, we -- you have seen released on a number of occasions communications between them. And I can assure you that that does go on.

If this is so, is it not then essential to US interests in Iraq that the United States attack Al Qaida in Pakistan? Barack Obama has stated, and was criticized by Mitt Romney for it, that as President, he would attack Al Qaida in Pakistan, hopefully with the cooperation of the Pakistani government, but if necessary, without it. If Petraeus is correct that Al Qaida leadership in Pakistan is controlling Al Qaida in Iraq, then why isn't Petraeus urging stronger measures against Al Qaida leadership in Pakistan to help the effort in Iraq?

Via Instapundit and Hugh Hewitt, Gen. Petraeus is interviewed by Alan Colmes, who no kidding, does a great job. A very sincere thanks to Hewitt for providing it. The most interesting parts, based on the unofficial transcript provided by a Hewitt reader:

COLMES: The surge strategy has been referred to by some as the Petraeus Doctrine and when you and Ambassador Ryan Crocker report to Congress on September 15, it would be unlikely for you to report that your own strategy isn't working, right?

PETRAEUS: Well, I have vowed that I will provide a forthright and comprehensive assessment and I'm not going to pull punches, and I have all along, frankly, reported setbacks as well as successes and we intend to do that when we go back and it will not be an unblemished report.

The interim benchmark report was not an unblemished report. It's more of a mixed bag. There has been progress in certain areas. Certainly there has been tactical progress. There has been progress again in this sort of local reconciliation but there has not been comparable progress at the national political level here in Iraq. . . .MORE

The notion of Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell as the "honest broker" regarding the Bush FISA amendment was always nuts. Spencer Ackerman writes about it:

[A]fter last week's rapid, controversial revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, in which McConnell played chief Congressional negotiator, lawmakers are wondering: Was McConnell set up by the Bush administration? Or is he a willing flunky?

He was neither. He was doing his job, serving the Bush Administration. This notion of allowing the Bush Administration to determine what the Congress decides is the problem. Senator Russ Feingold made this point in response to Sen. Lieberman's shameful performance in the senate FISA debate, when Lieberman called for the Senate abdicating its responsibility and instead just blindly doing what McConnell said. And we are in for a repeat in September when General Petraeus reports on Iraq. More. See also General Wes Clark's discussion of Petraeus and Iraq

Ezra Klein and Ady Barkan wonder why Dem Senate Leader Reid does not go to the mattresses for Sen. Webb's amendment for resting troops:

Harry Reid should bring the amendment up for consideration in September, and he should make clear that he's not going to table it. If he demands that the bill get an up-or-down vote and sticks to his guns, Reid will almost surely emerge victorious. Why? First off, the Webb amendment is exceptionally popular. Republicans can't seriously oppose more rest and recuperation time for soldiers and marines. They'll say that Congress shouldn't micro-manage the war, but with many troops on their third tour in Iraq, that argument doesn't carry much weight. Second, because the vote was so close last time, at the outset of this debate the outcome would be in sincere doubt. Add to that the fact that such Very Serious Republicans as John Warner and Dick Lugar have long billed September as the moment of truth regarding Bush's surge, they may finally (with some pushing) feel the need to vote against the president, and the Webb amendment offers the perfect "non-defeat" bill on which to do it. All of this adds real uncertainty -- which constitutes exactly the drama that the press loves. If Reid can keep the floor debate going for 3 or 4 days, the excitement will only build -- if the Senate is deadlocked over the fate of thousands of U.S. soldiers, America will tune in.

Assuming each of these very dubious assumptions is true, I think each and every one is NOT true, then what? Why the least suspenseful veto in history will occur. I have to ask this question - is anyone interested in ACTUALLY getting the troops out of the Iraq Debacle? Because if they do they need to come to grips with the fact that there is only one way to do it - by not funding it after a date certain. More.

Jesse Spielman, a 23 year old Army private, was sentenced to 110 years yesterday for his part in the rape and murder of an Iraqi teenager and killing of her family members.

Spielman will be eligible for parole in ten years. The case was filed as a capital murder case, making the death penalty possible. Private Steven Green, believed to be the ringleader, will be tried in federal court where the Government is likely to seek the death penalty.

Spielman was convicted Friday of rape, conspiracy to commit rape, housebreaking with intent to rape and four counts of felony murder.

Military prosecutors did not say Spielman took part in the rape or murders but alleged that he went to the house knowing what the others intended to do and served as a lookout.

This was the ugliest singular atrocity I can remember coming out of the Iraq War. LNILR wrote it should have been considered a war crime.

The AP reported that the Army knew that Green had homicidal tendencies. The killings may have been the reason for the the June, 2006 kidnappings and beheadings of U.S. soldiers in Yousifiya. Shorter version of the crime:

More....

While O'Hanlon and Pollack ignore their consistently erroneous track record on assessing the Iraq War, their big claim is that they were "on the ground." But, Michael Ware has been on the ground in Iraq the whole time and he vehemently disagrees with their conclusions. And he has a better track record on the Iraq War:

h/t Think Progress.

C-Span 3 is airing the Pat Tillman hearing live. Go here to watch.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld decided to show after all.

Today, the Oversight and Govt. Reform Cmte. holds a hearing on Army Crpl. Pat Tillman's death by fratricide. Senior Defense Dept. officials describe what they knew about the incident. Witnesses include; Gen. Richard Myers (Ret.), Gen. John Abizaid (Ret.), Gen. Bryan Douglas Brown (Ret.), and fmr. Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld.

Feel free to live-blog in the comments if you're watching.

As an "Evil Democrat", wishing us defeat in Iraq, let me further undermine the troops by pointing to posts that demonstrate why Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack have lost all credibility on Iraq:

Glenn Greenwald

Think Progress

Greg Sargent and . . . .

Joe Klein. Yep, that Joe Klein.

See also Robert Farley:

Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack write:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

As two analysts who have been cheering this war on for 4 years, who the heck do you think you are kidding? Consider this from CSM, via Sully:

Frank Rich writes an important column on the reality behind the myth of General Petraeus. Some key execerpts:

As always with this White House’s propaganda offensives, the message in Mr. Bush’s relentless repetitions never varies. General Petraeus is the “main man.” He is the man who gives “candid advice.” Come September, he will be the man who will give the president and the country their orders about the war.

. . . Actually, we don’t have to wait. We already know what David will say. He gave it away to The Times of London last month, when he said that September “is a deadline for a report, not a deadline for a change in policy.” In other words: Damn the report (and that irrelevant Congress that will read it) — full speed ahead. There will be no change in policy.

More...

There are so many amputations required in Iraq that a limb shortage is feared:

Iraq is facing a hidden healthcare and social crisis over the soaring number of amputations, largely of lower limbs, necessitated by the daily explosions and violence gripping the country.

In the north of Iraq, the Red Crescent Society and the director general for health services in Mosul have told US forces, there is a requirement for up to 3,000 replacement limbs a year. If that estimate is applied across the country, it suggests an acute and looming long-term health challenge that has been largely ignored by the world.

[Hat tip Newshoggers.]

Maliki Asks For Petraeus' Removal:

Relations between the top United States general in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, the country's prime minister, are so bad that the Iraqi leader made a direct appeal for his removal to President George W Bush. Although the call was rejected, aides to both men admit that Mr Maliki and Gen David Petraeus engage in frequent stand-up shouting matches, differing particularly over the US general's moves to arm Sunni tribesmen to fight al-Qa'eda. One Iraqi source said Mr Maliki used a video conference with Mr Bush to call for the general's signature strategy to be scrapped. "He told Bush that if Petraeus continues, he would arm Shia militias," said the official. "Bush told Maliki to calm down." At another meeting with Gen Petraeus, Mr Maliki said: "I can't deal with you any more. I will ask for someone else to replace you."

Of course, in order to avoid escalating the ongoing sectarian conflict, Gen. Petraeus is right to try and coopt the Sunni. But Maliki DOES NOT WANT THAT. It is why he truned down all of the request from the largest Sunni contigent in the Iraqi Parliament. The feud with the Saudis, who are supporting the Sunni insurgents, and the feud with Maliki, who is an ally of Iran, demonstrates there is no winning for the United States in Iraq. There is no magical strategy. There is no plan that will work. Will Senators ask General Petraeus about THAT come September?