FBI Special Agent George Piro spent 7 hours a day for 8 months with Saddam Hussein after his capture. The goal: to get him to confess to crimes and get information out of him.

He didn't use torture. He used friendship.

Instead of bright lights, loud music or waterboarding, the Beirut-born Arabic speaker - who immigrated to the U.S. as a teen - built a rapport with the dictator nabbed in a spider hole. He treated him with respect and took care of his every need.

And, he got results. Piro's account is contained in a new pro-Administration book, "The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack."

Until 9/11, Saddam thought UN sanctions would go away and he could make a nuclear bomb. His prewar weapons of mass destruction deceptions were a ruse to convince Iran - whom he feared - that he had an arsenal.

Other disclosures:

Charles Franklin of pollster.com, one of the better analysts of polls, demonstrates the limits of relying on both polls and pollsters. Franklin opines that there has been a significant uptick in how Americans feel the "military efforts" in Iraq are going:

So what to make of the upturn in positive views of how the war is going? Republicans (including the president) have made real progress in swaying opinion to their side, while 10 months of Democratic efforts have failed to persuade citizens that the war continues to be a disaster. The war of partisan persuasion has tilted towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats, at least in this particular aspect.

This is just wrong. Franklin takes a result, "the Surge is working," and turns it into support for the Iraq Debacle. As the most recent polling suggests, Americans seem to understand that whatever success Petraeus is perceived as having militarily (and I think not much of it personally, but that is another issue), the american People understand that the Iraq Debacle is and will be a Debacle irrespective of Petraeus' efforts. Think of it this way - the American People are blaming Bush AND the Iraqis now. Petraeus and the troops are heroic and blameless. Sometimes pollsters can't think past the questions they want to focus on. Franklin is guilty of that here. More.

Speaker Pelosi today announced:

House Democrats said Thursday they would send President Bush $50 billion for combat operations on the condition that he begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.

The proposal, similar to one Bush vetoed earlier this year, would identify a goal of ending combat entirely by December 2008. It would require that troops spend as much time at home as they do in combat, as well as effectively ban harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding.

In a private caucus meeting, Pelosi told rank-and-file Democrats that the bill was their best shot at challenging Bush on the war. And if Bush rejected it, she said, she did not intend on sending him another war spending bill for the rest of the year.

"This is not a blank check for the president," she said later at a Capitol Hill news conference. "This is providing funding for the troops limited to a particular purpose, for a short time frame.

As always, we know Bush will veto.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush would veto any bill that sets an "artificial timeline" for troop withdrawals.

As always, I applaud the Speaker's STATED stance today.

As always, the important point here is that the House Dems MUST stick to their guns and tell the President - if he vetoes then he is abandoning the troops in the field. I repeat, the President of the United States will be ABANDONING AMERICAN TROOPS IN THE FIELD!

President Bush is proposing to stab the troops in the back by vetoing funding for them.

A disgraceful man. The worst President in history.

Atrios points out that the fondest Beltway wish that the American People will turn around and start supporting the Iraq War, exemplified by Howie Kurtz and Michael Crowley of TNR, has been shattered:

Iraq war opposition at all-time high. New CNN poll released today finds:

Support for the war in Iraq has dropped to 31 percent and the 68 percent who oppose the war is a new record.

Despite the drop in violence in Iraq, only one quarter of Americans believes the U.S. is winning the war. There has been virtually no change in the past month in the number of Americans who believe that things are going badly for the U.S. in the war in Iraq.

Let the whining begin.

Reuters reports:

Six U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq on Monday, the U.S. military said, making 2007 the deadliest year for U.S. forces in the country.

The deaths took the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq this year to 852. The worst previous year was 2004, when 849 deaths were recorded.

In total, 3,855 U.S. soldiers have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

As for those who do make it home, so many are going to need mental health help. The Joshua Omvig suicide prevention bill was signed into law today:

More...

Senator Barack Obama has run a campaign criticizing what he calls the Politics of the Moment all the while campaigning for his moments. Well, if this is true, an Obama Moment can emerge:

Despite their rhetoric about not wanting to hand President Bush another "blank check" for the Iraq War, Democrats appear poised to give him exactly that -- enough cash to keep the war going full steam for as long as six months, no strings attached. . . .Democrats are quietly preparing to give the president enough spending flexibility to keep the war going anyway. . . . Democrats began approving billions in extra funding, starting with the first stopgap spending resolution [I have no idea what Roll Call is talking about here. I kow of no additional funding measrues that have been passed since the Iraq Supplelemental that was passed prior to Petraeus's testimony. Frankly, I think Roll Call is wrong.] Next up will be the regular Defense spending bill, expected to go to conference committee Tuesday. Although the bill is not expected to include funding specifically targeted to Iraq, Democrats plan to allow much of the funding to be diverted from regular Defense accounts to the war. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) The House can not pass such funding without the Senate. Senator Obama, just say no. Put a hold on such a bill. Lead a filibuster against it. This is your moment. Prove you are more than just pretty words.

"The Justice Department and the FBI cannot discuss the facts of the Blackwater case, which is under active investigation. However, any suggestion that the Blackwater employees in question have been given immunity from federal criminal prosecution is inaccurate. The Justice Department and the FBI continue the criminal investigation of this matter knowing that this investigation involves a number of complex issues. We are unable to comment further at this time."

*****
Original Post
Wording of Blackwater Immunity Deals

ABC News has obtained the text of the use immunity provided Blackwater guards by the State Department.

More....

The Washington Post has a long feature article on a unit of soldiers preparing to leave Iraq. In a nutshell, as one of them says,

I don't think this place is worth another soldier's life."

Brian Beutler has a terrific run down of what went wrong tactically with the Democratic Congress last week (S-CHIP, FISA, etc.) But Beutler still is looking at the tactical picture and looking at a Congress that he wants to do something. The problem is that, and this is true, they do not have the votes to do something in contested areas like S-CHIP, Iraq funding and FISA. This mistaken focus is exemplified here:

There is no hypothetical package of enticements the Democrats can offer a Republican that outweigh the price that that Republican will pay within his own party. He'll only be treated leniently when his party bosses realize that, if they don't let him vote with the opposition, he might lose his seat. At some point the Republicans realized something crucial: That, for now anyhow, upholding the veto is politically neutral. . . .

What does this mean? It means that even on issues as politically popular as S-CHIP, Bush can stop all Democratic initiatives. The question is then what can the Democrats do? Simply this, END all the Bush travesties. Iraq, FISA, etc. By using the power of the purse and NOT funding them. More.

is the reality that Democrats can end the Debacle by not funding it. The power of doing nothing is lost on them. Instead, we see the Republican Party responding to its base (h/t Josh Marshall):

Despite months of pressure, no more than eight Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have backed any measure that mandates a troop withdrawal. And GOP strategists predict that is unlikely to change. "Republicans have to be cognizant of where their base is," said pollster Bob Wickers, whose company has worked with Republican candidates in a dozen states in recent years.

Here's my question, why don't Democrats have to be cognizant of where THE COUNTRY is? Josh's post is really missing this point - that Democrats won in 2006 on Iraq. That THEIR base and the country want out of Iraq. And that they have the power to stop the war. By doing nothing. It is the central insight and is missing from much of the Iraq coverage, Media and blogs alike.

In a sense, we should be gratified that David Ignatius, in this column, the mouthpiece of Admiral William Fallon, is now writing of declaring victory and getting out of Iraq:

Let's assume that the numbers from Iraq are right and that there has been a significant reduction in violence there. Let's even agree that the Bush administration's strategy is finally showing some success. Isn't that an argument for accelerating the transfer of security to the Iraqis -- and speeding up the withdrawal of some U.S. support troops?

If that becomes the BushCo cover story for getting out of Iraq, so much the better. But Ignatius' "analysis" is bereft of reason and intelligence so one doubts whether he actually has good sources. For example:

The Pentagon is calling up 8 national guard troops, telling them to prepare for departure to Iraq and Afghanistan in July. Seven troops will go to Iraq and one to Afghanistan. Two of the units will be "full combat brigades."

July? We should be out of Iraq by then, not sending more troops.