DEJA VU: and testified before Congress this week and it was a joke that wasn’t funny! More of the same dribble, lies and rhetoric, always emphasizing that this was their own “words” devoid of influence from the Bush Crime Family. The Congress played their part with several half–hearted challenges with no emotional expressions of outrage which would have not only been appropriate for the circumstance but a welcome alternative from a bunch of predictable politicians

Ambassador Marc Ginsberg has spent the great part of  his life working in government beginning with a stint with Senator Edward Kennedy as a foreign affairs advisor, then a White House Liaison for Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, graduating to President Carter’s White House staff as his Deputy Senior Advisor for Middle East Policy. In 1994, he was appointed by President Clinton as the U.S. Ambassador to Morocco making him the first American of Jewish heritage to be appointed to an Arab nation.

The Lang Report is reprinting from the Huffington Post a slightly edited version of Ambassador Ginsberg’s 10 questions that he said the Democrats should ask to ideally position themselves through the hearings to achieve the following goals:

• Debunk the fiction that the military surge has achieved sustainable military or political objectives.

• Undermine Sen. McCain’s argument that staying the course is a patriotic duty.

• Demonstrate to the American people that the recent Iraqi government defeat by the Mahdi Army was indeed the "defining moment" that Bush claimed it was.

• Offer a credible Democratic approach to stay the course that logically will achieve more in the long run for American security in the Middle East than what more of the same can possibly achieve.

Here is the list of questions I would be proposing to our Democratic inquisitors:

1. Prime Minister Maliki launched an offensive to defeat the Mahdi Army in Basra. He was forced, despite U.S. logistical and air support, to sue for a ceasefire. President Bush declared during the fighting that this was a "defining moment" for Iraq. Why shouldn’t the American people view this "defining moment" as exactly what it was: a defeat for us, the Iraqi government and a victory for radical Shiite militias?

2. If the U.S. military cannot adequately defend the Green Zone from missile attack from Shiite militias, why should the American people believe that the surge has achieved tangible, and not momentary lulls in violence?

3. General Petraeus, you are proposing that the current level of military forces remain static longer than planned. Isn’t this proof that the amount of troops in Iraq will never be enough to adequately reduce the level of violence against U.S. and Iraqi forces?

CLICK HERE to Read More

4. Define "victory" within the context of the current Iraqi political and military environment? Why should this not be a recipe for disaster given the inability of the Iraqi military to meet its training goals and objectives?

5. America has now suffered the loss of over 4,000 soldiers and tens of thousands wounded. How willing, General Petraeus, are you prepared to stretch the military’s capability to sustain troop levels at even the 100,000 level beyond the summer and what are your specific goals and objectives?

6. If the next American president planned a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops within 16 months of assuming office and within the context of such a withdrawal, was able to negotiate a responsible regional initiative to pacify Iraq, why wouldn’t this approach achieve "victory" by creating an environment on which the future was not dependent on either U.S. troops or intra-Shiite reconciliation?

7. Incubating Iraqi political reconciliation was supposed to be one of the byproducts of the surge. Yet, the Iraqi government is as dysfunctional and disunited as ever — and our forces are now caught not just between Sunni and Shiite, but between one radical Shiite faction and another. If we are not fighting principally Al Qaeda, but one Shiite faction against another, isn’t this just "mission creep" with no end in sight?

8. How much will this war cost the American taxpayer in 2008? Has the Iraqi government contributed any oil revenue to offset the cost of this war to the American taxpayer? Please explain where Iraq’s oil revenue is going?

8. The Iraqi government continues to embrace anti U.S. policies and U.S. adversaries. Isn’t it an insult to those killed and injured in Iraq that Prime Minister Maliki rolls out a red carpet to Iranian President Ahmadenijad whose Revolutionary Guards, by your own account, is sending arms and funds into Iraq to kill and injure U.S. troops?

9. Admiral Fallon, the former head of Central Command - CENTCOM) recently resigned (actually was forced to resign). Please explain what was Admiral Fallon’s assessment of your recommendations with respect to troop levels and the overall goals and objectives that the strategy was designed to achieve in Iraq?

10. If Al Qaeda’s threat has been substantially reduced, why shouldn’t we more expeditiously draw down our forces in Iraq to facilitate a transfer of American forces to Afghanistan where the real struggle against Al Qaeda must be waged?

So it appears that we will all have to stay tuned to the next installment of “As Our Stomach Turns” when we will find out what other bullshit General Petraeus will try to sell to Congress as our American Sons & Daughters give themselves to an unwinnable war. But hey…. I here that Haliburton stock is going vertical with no end in sight!