if you've been following this, O'Hanlon is the Brookings Institute guy who wrote a NYTimes (or WashPost?) editorial yesterday saying, basically, we are winning the war in Iraq we just need to give General Pet. a little more time.
I saw him on Hardball yesterday and he looked like a deer in the headlights when the guy on "the other side" said O'Hanlon's piece was propaganda.
Matt has been blogging the hearing this afternoon and said:
Totally backed down. Said the progress has only been against aqi, that sectarian violence and the civil war is as bad as ever, and that the current strategy will probably fail. He thinks we should partition the country. Why the turnabout from the optimistic op-ed? He didn't say.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/ohanlon.phpHe also said the dems on the committee (I didn't see where he said which committee) are VERY conservative and the dems should get some progressives on the committee to get better witnesses etc.
Anyway, I'm not surprised O'Hanlon backed down after his TV appearance yesterday. He almost looked frightened by how pissed everyone was with his opinion. He was also unable to defend it, only himself.