Howard Kurtz reveals in the Washington Post today that the paper delayed by a day its publication of Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal's Afghanistan assessment, at Obama administration behest. But for followers of the Post's financial fortunes, what may be most interesting is what Kurtz reveals about Woodward's current relationship with the newspaper: Woodward is now a contract writer, with a monthly retainer of $100. That's right, just 2 zeros.

A couple of weeks ago, the United States, without explanation, released five Iranian diplomats that the U.S. military had been holding in Iraq for more than two years. The official statement offered nothing about why. What U.S. officials would say privately is that the U.S. military really didn't want to let the Iranians go.

That leaves you with the suggestion that there was good reason to hold the Iranians in the first place, but the new Status of Forces Agreement required that we turn them over to the Iraqis, who let them go. Now, from an unexpected source, comes word that in fact there wasn't any good reason for holding them in the first place.

Barbara Slavin of The Washington Times, the capital's conservative news organ, reported last week that the U.S. actually had no evidence that the Iranians had been involved in attacks on U.S. forces. The Iranians were essentially hostages, she wrote, held as potential "leverage."

Slavin, who used to cover the State Department for USA Today and wrote a book on Iran (Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path to Confrontation), cited two unnamed sources in her report, one a current official and the other a former official. Slavin's report focused on the three Iranians who American officials had said were member the Quds Force. She quoted a current White House official as sticking up for the original version of why they were held but also acknowledging that he didn't know of any specific anti-U.S. actions the three had been involved in.

Actually, her story sounded a lot like what Iraqi officials were saying at the time. To quote then and now Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, the U.S. raids that led to the detentions were "very, very embarrassing."

But Slavin's account really ticked off Gen. David Petraeus, who was commander of U.S. forces in Iraq when the Iranians were arrested and happened to be in Washington the morning Slavin's piece appeared.

 Petraeus and Slavin were both at a conference on Iran sponsored by the U.S. Central Command, which Petraeus now heads, and the Brookings Institution. According to The Washington Post's Al Kamen, Petraeus was livid and gave Slavin a very public dressing down, even accusing her of "irresponsible journalism." Kamen described her as "unflappable."

Today, it was Slavin's turn. In a followup that the Times didn't exactly trumpet (Page A9 in print) Slavin quotes former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker as saying he knows of no evidence that links the three Iranian Quds Force officials to specific acts against U.S.forces. "I was not aware of any specific information linking (the three Iranians) to specific acts against coalition personnel," was the precise quote.

That is an amazing statement coming from Crocker. Petraeus and Crocker were the yin and yang of Bush administration Iraq policy, the Abbott and Costello, the Bogart and Bacall, or, for the younger set, Harold and Kumar, so tightly spooned that an assessment of embassy operations released today made a special point of noting that "the relationship between the embassy and the military is remarkably good. Ambassador Crocker and the military commanders insisted on 'one team, one mission,'and their subordinates followed suit." (Another part of that report was the finding that the huge U.S. embassy in Baghdad is way overstaffed.)

The two jogged together every Sunday, according to this story by McClatchy's Leila Fadel, and met at least five other times a week to mull over events in the country.

Such tight cooperation surely meant Crocker and Petraeus shared information on why the Iranians had been picked up — especially since Crocker actually met with the Iranian ambassador five months after the three had been seized.

But maybe there wasn't all that much to share. As Foreign Minister Zebari told Slavin for today's story: "Really, they were doing some consular work."

Vice President Joe Biden has landed in Baghdad on a surprise visit to Iraq.

The White House reports that Biden will meet with President Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Ayad al-Samarrai, Sspeaker of the Council of Reprsentatives.

Biden will stress anew the U.S. commitment to carry out President Obama's pledge to draw down U.S. troops.

His two-day trip is his second visit to Iraq this year, his first since taking office as vice president.

Could President Barack Obama soon issue an executive order barring release of the controversial detainee photos?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., strongly suggested that could be coming, though the White House would not discuss its conversations with him.

At his weekly news conference, Hoyer said, “I think the President has made his position pretty clear in terms of those photos.”

In the Senate, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham has said that unless Obama signals he’ll issue that order, or the Senate doesn’t’ vote for a ban, he’ll block as much Senate business as he can.

“I think that we will have to see specifically what the executive order says, assuming there is going to be an executive order on those,” Hoyer said. “But the administration hasn't changed its position. It made it very clear that they believe the release of these pictures is not appropriate.”

One question, he said, involved freedom of information laws. ““I think the Congress made it very clear, certainly over here,” Hoyer said. Congress does not include a ban in its emergency war spending legislation.

“We don't think that FOIA ought to be simply struck in this instance. If the President makes an exception to FOIA, that is one thing, but precluding FOIA in this instance was not acceptable to the House,” Hoyer said.

So, a reporter asked, “The White House told you that they plan to do that soon?”

“I think,”: he said, “I have reason to believe that they are looking to that as an option so that they can resolve this issue.”

Congressional negotiators agreed last night not to ban the release of photos of terrorist detainees, after President Barack Obama wrote a five-paragraph letter promising to fight to prevent disclosure.

Many House Democrats wanted the right to release the photos. Senate Republicans and Democrats had voted unanimously to keep them secret.

In his letter, Obama wrote the appropriations commttee chairmen that while he opposed a legislative ban, he could “assure you that I will continue to take every legal and administrative remedy available to me to ensure the DoD (Defense Department) detainee photographs are not released.

“Should a legislative solution prove necessary,” he wrote, “I am committed to working with the Congress to enact legislation that achieves the objectives we share.”

He said, though, he would oppose a legislative ban at the moment so that the bill could move through Congress. Passage of the ban, he said, “would unnecessarily complicate the essential objective of supporting the troops and would accomplish no substantive purpose.” Read the letter.

Another controversy was also resolved with a compromise: for four months, Congress is unlikely to block Obama from ordering detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp into the United States for trial.

By then, Congress hopes Obama will come up with a plan for closing the detention facility.

The crux of the bill is $79.9 billion for the Pentagon to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another $10.4 billion would go to the State Department and other “international affairs and stabilization” efforts in Pakistan.

And $7.7 billion would go to helping ease the flu pandemic, while another $1 billion would be used for the “cash for clunkers” program that will allow consumers to trade in old gas guzzling vehicles for more fuel efficient ones.

President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama are out on the town Saturday, making an unscheduled and unannounced trip to New York for dinner and a Broadway show.

The First Couple flew up to New York Saturday afternoon – using a small Gulfstream 500 and wisely forgoing the big 747 that set off such a brouhaha in Manhattan when it flew low over the island a few weeks ago with a fighter jet on its tail, all for an Air Force One publicity photo.

"I am taking my wife to New York City because I promised her during the campaign that I would take her to a Broadway show after it was all finished,” Obama said in a statement.

They headed first toward the Blue Hill restaurant on Washington Place, then were planning to catch “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone” at the Belasco Theater.

As they did, the Republican National Committee went on the attack, ripping them for going to a play while crises loom.

“As President Obama prepares to wing into Manhattan’s theater district on Air Force One to take in a Broadway show, GM is preparing to file bankruptcy and families across America continue to struggle to pay their bills,” RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said.

Another release noted the nation’s unemployment rate is expected to hit 9.2 percent when new figures are released next week.

The RNC went on to compare the Obama’s trip to New York to the tale about former President Bill Clinton allegedly tying up air traffic in Los Angeles while getting a haircut on Air Force One. “Americans Have Seen This Show Before,” the RNC headlined.

Finally, the Republican Party noted that Obama made a joke at the recent White House Correspondents Association dinner about the Manhattan flyover of the 747 often used as Air Force One. “Obama May Joke About Air Force One Joyrides,” the RNC said.

(It did not mention former President George W. Bush’s joke at the Radio and Television  Correspondents Association dinner several years ago about the fact that there weren’t weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as he had said when he invaded the country.)

The RNC attack came just weeks after RNC Chairman Michael Steele vowed not to get personal in party criticisms of Obama.

“This is not about personalities,” he said in a speech on May 19 in suburban Washington.

“We're going to challenge those policies that we believe are wrong, and we're going to do so without apology and without a second thought.

“But there's a very important distinction I want to make here. We are going to take this president on with class. We're going to take this president on with dignity. This will be a very sharp and, I think, marked contrast to the shabby and classes way that the Democrats on the far left spoke of and treated President Bush over the last eight years.”

President Obama will visit wounded GIs and their families at Landstuhl Regional Medical Facility in Germany next week, the White House announced.

The stop could be a makeup for Obama’s decision last year as a candidate not to visit Landstuhl when he went to Germany as a candidate.

The stop on June 5 will come during an already scheduled trip next week to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Germany and France.

Landstuhl, the White House notes, “supports our service men and women stationed in Europe, and serves a leading and vital role in the care and recovery of personnel medically evacuated from Afghanistan, Iraq, and other forward-deployed posts within the U.S. European Command, Central Command and Africa Command areas of responsibility.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a surprise visit to Baghdad this weekend, saying the United States and Iraq should encourage intelligence sharing as the U.S. military mission winds down, according to wire service reports from Baghdad.

Pelosi, D-Calif., travelled to Iraq on the eve of a scheduled House of Representatives debate on emergency funding of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The $96.7 billion bill, which also contains some funding to deal with domestic flu preparations, is expeceted win House passage later this week.

While little resistance to the bill is expected, some House progressives want timelines for the Afghanistan mission. President Barack Obama has said the U.S. combat mission in Iraq will end August 31, 2010, with other troops likely to leave by the end of 2011.

Pelosi has embraced Iraq timelines in the past, but now is counseling patience and trust in Obama. 

According to Associated Press, Pelosi Sunday stressed the intelligence mission. "If we are going to have a diminished physical military presence, we are have to have a strong intelligence presence," Pelosi said without elaborating.