I don't know how many minds, if any, were changed among senators and the public by the testimony of Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker Tuesday. Their immediate message, nicely trimmed  to three words by Stars and Stripes' headline: "No definite timeline," was probably welcome news to no one. But there were clearly differences in assessing the necessity of that conclusion: Many opponents of the U.S' continuing involvement thought it was more stalling by the administration in getting more troops out of Iraq. Others saw it as a necessary strategy now that some progress has been achieved, but Iraq still remains shaky.

I've taken a quick look at some comments in the media and thought I'd pass them on as a way of framing the reactions to the Senate testimony. (The general and the ambassador are meeting with the House committees Wednesday.)

In USA TODAY's opinion, the policy in Iraq lacks accountability and the paper lauds two questions posed by Senators Warner and Obama. A blog comment on the paper's view: "Baloney."

At the Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne asks whether Petraeus and Crocker weren't inadvertently making the case for withdrawal, rather than steadfastness.Bloggers had things to say about that too.

Meanwhile, the Post's editorial board came down in support of the general and the ambassador. It said a suspension of troop reduction after the surge elements return home in July was the right thing to do.

Another columnist at the Post, David Ignatius, looked beyond the troop strength question to a broader one: What's the long-range strategy in regard to Iran?

Finally, the New York Times' "The Lede" blog wraps up several dissimilar Web comments on the Senate hearings.

While agreement among big and little commentators was hard to find, there were plenty of opinions to ponder.

Oh, and to read what Petraeus and Crocker actually said, go to www.stripes.com and judge for yourself.