On the September 13 edition of CNN's Situation Room, as part of CNN's “special coverage” before President Bush's Iraq speech, CNN chief national correspondent John King asserted: “For the first time, the American people will hear from their president, and he will say we can begin to bring troops home because of successes in Iraq.” King earlier asserted that “critics say ... that the president is only doing this because he has to do it” since “the Pentagon doesn't have the troops to sustain the surge.” In fact, it is not only “critics” who say this, but also reportedly top officials at the Pentagon, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force-Iraq, as Media Matters for America has documented.

As Media Matters noted, during his September 11 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,* Petraeus testified that “active brigade combat teams were going to come out of” Iraq anyway. Additionally, during his later testimony the same day before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus also said that “the strain on the force ... was very much one that informed the recommendations” to draw down U.S. troops from Iraq.

From the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing:

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): General Petraeus, have you ever recommended or requested the extension of tours to 18 months or the accelerated deployment of Guard or Reserve forces?

PETRAEUS: I've certainly never recommended extension beyond 15 months. In fact, [Lt.] General [Raymond] Odierno [then-commanding general of Multi-National Force-Iraq] and I put out a letter that said, I mean, unless things got completely out of control, that we would not even think of extending beyond 15 months.

REED: Having done that, doesn't that virtually lock you into a recommendation of reducing troops by 30,000 beginning in April and extending through the summer -- regardless of what's happening on the ground?

PETRAEUS: Depending -- except -- depending on what can be taken out of the Reserves. Again, I don't know what is available in the National Guard and the Reserves. I do know that the active Army in particular, that the string does run out for the Army to meet the year-back criteria. Now what we have done, of course, as I mentioned, Senator, is actually, in fact, to take some elements out short of their 15-month mark because of our assessment of the situation.

REED: I understand that, and I think basically my sense is that the overriding constraint you face is not what is happening on the ground in Iraq, but the reality that unless you did recommend, request, and succeed, that unless tours were extended, 30,000 troops were coming out of there beginning in April next year, regardless of the situation on the ground.

PETRAEUS: Again, certainly the active brigade combat teams were going to come out of there. Again, I am not aware of what is available in terms of battalions, brigades, or what have you.

As Media Matters also noted, Petraeus' testimony echoed statements he and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have made in the past about the need to draw down U.S. troops from Iraq regardless of the situation on the ground. For instance, the Associated Press reported in an August 15 article that, during an interview, Petraeus stated: “We know that the surge has to come to an end. There's no question about that.” He continued: “I think everyone understands that by about a year or so from now we've got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now. The question is how do you do that ... so that you can retain the gains we have fought so hard to achieve and so you can keep going.”

Moreover, USA Today reported on September 4 that “Pentagon officials have said they cannot sustain this year's buildup of about 28,000 additional troops past next spring because of the stretched personnel demands on the U.S. military.” The Los Angeles Times also reported in an August 24 article that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half.” The article continued: “Administration and military officials say ... Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military.”

From the September 13 edition of CNN's Situation Room:

WOLF BLITZER (host): Let's begin our special coverage of the president's address to the nation with our chief national correspondent, John King. He's here in the Situation Room. You know a lot of people have suggested, John, that this troop withdrawal, some 30,000 troops between now and next summer, is a sign that this president is -- start to bring this war down, but there are critics who are already suggesting that he has another reason for bringing those troops home.

KING: Well, the critics say this is a charade, Wolf, that the president is only doing this because he has to do it. That the Pentagon doesn't have the troops to sustain the surge and they will jump on those terms -- “enduring relationship” -- to say he wants an open-ended commitment in Iraq. If you talk to people in both parties who are not locked into the rigid partisanship of the Iraq debate, they do see tonight as a very significant turning point.

For the first time, the American people will hear from their president, and he will say we can begin to bring troops home because of successes in Iraq. The challenge then is to capture that political momentum and reframe the debate. There are many who say if you can get a bipartisan consensus in Congress, you can force the president to take the next step. You get to 130,000 by next summer, by pulling out the surge troops.

Can you then get to, say, 130,000 by the time the president leaves office? The Democrats, especially those running for president, will say no, all of the troops out by the end 2008, but most people in both parties, the pragmatists, would say you are never going to get that. The challenge is can you seize on this new political opening to make sure that once the 30,000 come out, you can get the president to then do 30- or 40,000 more.

BLITZER: These troops are tired after, what, four-plus years of war. And that was underlined by General Petraeus himself.

KING: The biggest headline of this week, we all got caught up in the numbers, him saying he could bring some troops home, but to have the general leading the charge in Iraq say in so many interviews, look, I have been deployed year after year after year. I'm tired. My family is tired.

That was a very clear signal that the commanding general in Iraq knows that the Army and its families are tired. And we now know from our sources that General Petraeus is not only planning to bring these 30,000 troops home, they are working on contingencies to do another 30- or 40,000 next year. They are contingencies.

The president can say no if the conditions on the ground turn more sour, but they do have the plans in place. The question is can you get a bipartisan agreement in Congress to settle for incremental withdrawal. If so, some believe we could be down to about 100,000 by the time the president leaves office.

BLITZER: Which is a significant reduction, but it is still a whole lot more than almost all of the Democrats would like to see.

KING: That's one of the biggest problems. The Democrats running for president say more, more, and more, so they are the face of the party. It makes it harder for the other Democrats to compromise.