Yesterday, the Congress gathered for Petraeus Day in Washington, to take part in what House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton called "the most important hearing of the year." The reviews for this important hearing? In the immediate offing, they were mixed. The Washington Post yesterday declared "Petraeus Says Objectives in Iraq Are Largely Being Met," whereas the New York Times was more skeptical, announcing "Slow Progress Being Made in Iraq, Petraeus Tells Congress." The Times of London was much more rah-rah: "We Are Winning in Iraq, General Petraeus Says"--though that headline, likely written a week ago, has since been replaced by "Turning Point for America In Iraq."

Contradictions abounded as news organizations attempted to get a handle on the testimony offered by Petraeus and Crocker. In the wake of the testimony, CNN's story ran with a hopeful headline, "Petraeus: Troop withdrawals by year's end." But the story's lede immediately undercut this contention: "The 30,000 additional troops deployed to Iraq in January could come home by next July, but further American withdrawals would be 'premature,' the U.S. commander there told a fractious congressional hearing Monday."

Naturally, the one place that Petraeus and Crocker found a safe haven was lovingly ensconced within the downy soft bosom of Fox News' Brit Hume. That's where the two men fled after the hearings, to give what Fox referred to as an interview, but Salon more accurately captures as an "advertisement." There, Petraeus and Crocker were allowed to recap wide swaths of their testimony without being troubled by any nagging questions. As ThinkProgress reports, Petraeus opened the hour with "an uninterrupted 16 minute soliloquy," accompanied by a helpful chyron reading "A Briefing for America"--as if the testimony proffered before America's representative were somehow something else. It was an extraordinary nadir for the Fox News Network--a solid hour in which no attempt at anything approaching journalism was made.

Nevertheless, as time wore on, criticism of Petraeus and Crocker grew less muted. And while it may have been paced by statements from Democratic leaders (Pelosi: "The president's strategy in Iraq has failed." Reid: "Our enemies around the globe gain great advantage by having the United States mired in an Iraqi civil war.") it was by no means confined to their side of the aisle. Republican Senator Richard Lugar, took his misgivings to the hearing, saying, "In my judgment, some type of success in Iraq is possible, but as policymakers, we should acknowledge that we are facing extraordinarily narrow margins for achieving our goals." Lugar, who'd like to see a more "sizable drawdown...that runs counter to...Petraeus' recommendation," was joined in his skepticism by Republican Representative Ray LaHood, who, while reportedly "not keen on forcing a timetable on the war," nevertheless would "like to see Bush call for new elections in Iraq and possibly a more drastic drawdown of troops than suggested by Petraeus."

Criticism also ran high in the press. The New York Times noted some key contradictions in Crocker's testimony which "glossed over some of the most troubling developments of the past nine months." Editor and Publisher described this morning's editorial reaction as "negative" and, on balance, "not convinced by Petraeus." The most visceral blast came from the Philadelphia Inquirer, who tied Petraeus Day and 9/11 together in a single poison valentine to the President: "President Bush was a strong and poignant leader in the days just after 9/11. But since then, he has used the attack to pursue objectives that had little or nothing to do with that Tuesday six years ago...Six years after 9/11, it is a shame that Bush's misguided invasion of Iraq is upstaging the discussion the nation ought to have and the actions the nation's leaders ought to be taking."

Comments for this post are now closed