If the President said 95 times our threat in Iraq is al Qaeda, why wouldn't we be repositioning and transitioning as soon as possible?

Will it be temporary or will it be permanent?

I believe you have the depth of knowledge and experience to lead us through these very difficult times to some conclusion on our mission and our transition to a new mission in Iraq.

But I think that the 2007 act was designed to solve the question of whether or not they could be held accountable.

We understand the problem that any democracy or attempted democracy has with militias involved in their military or in their government.

But have we not already been denied access to certain political leaders?

Over the last 2 years I have been advocating benchmarks, measurable goals, to measure progress in Iraq.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If these benchmarks all end up with a failing grade do we just change the plan or do we begin to say, these are conditions now for leaving.

If we measure against these benchmarks that you just identified and we are not succeeding, are there consequences?

I am, to say the least, skeptical about the Prime Minister's desire to take on Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army.

obviously, a drop in violence is a benchmark, but that can be temporary as we have seen in Iraq.

What confidence do you have in the capacity of these troops to both 'clear' and 'hold'?

We want to see an Iraq in which the government, through its established and regulated police and army, maintains a monopoly on the possession and use of organized armed force.

Do you believe the Iraqis have accepted this plan as their own and not simply an American plan?

Iraq will not long survive as a nation with armed militias roaming the streets of Baghdad.

Only through unity of effort of all--coalition and Iraqi, military and civilian--can we bring the full weight of our effort to bear on the difficult situation in Iraq.

You have my commitment that I will work closely with the Ambassador to fully coordinate our actions in Iraq.