3 senators, 1 General and an ambassador

[Don Allen]

Just wondering if any of you got a chance to see more than a sound bite of the hearings today. While sitting on my couch drinking beer (contemplating Haskins Kidney Stones) I flipped on c-span and took in General Petraeus' and Ambassador Crocker's testimony about the status of Iraq.
I took a couple of things away today: The first is that Crocker is an outstanding Ambassador with a unreal grasp of the conflict and the other is that Obama, more so than Hillary and McCain, seemed really at ease with himself while asking a hypothetical question that while disarming on the surface, actually proposed the first concrete measure for ending or at least reducing troop levels in the region.

I'm sure there is a link somewhere to what he said, but just to parapharse in case you didn't see it, he asked "if we could maintain the messed up status quote in Iraq of today with a reduction of troops down to say 30,000, would that be considered a success" At first I thought -what the hell is he saying, then I got it,, If the surge of 157,000 troops has succeeded, according to McCain, and this is the best we can hope to achieve, can't we achieve an organized chaos with 120,000 less troops... I'm not sure we could but it was a hell of a question. Any thoughts...

[rugcat]

I actually thought Hillary made the best showing -- serious and informed.

Petraous shouldn't be answering these questions anyway -- a general's job is to report on the situation and discuss how he will implement policy decisions, not discuss their merits. His personal take on what would constitute success is not the issue. I'd rather see Bush or Cheney in that seat.

[William Haskins]

i think obama overreached with the "talk to iran" stuff.

my opinion only, of course.

[Don Allen]

The non-answers bother me the most, I think, you know what I mean? They were asked several times what do we consider a success? I wonder if anyone in the administration actually has a goal in mind, becaus e you just can't keep this thing openended like it is..

[Miguelito]

You're all missing the point.

The most impressive thing is that the three candidates actually showed up to do the job they're getting paid to do.

[William Haskins]

it was just free campaign ads.

[Don Allen]

Isn't it like a casino where you get comped for participation?

[SpookyWriter]

I worked a ten hour shift with no outside (internet) and missed what?

[mscelina]

The thing of it is that Petraeus doesn't have to answer to McCain, Clinton, or Obama. He has to answer to the Secretaries of Defense and State and to the Commander-in-Chief. Period. Nonanswers in this situation on the Hill today would arise naturally: these Senators are not 'entitled' to hear the full story from the general, especially when campaign vultures are flooding the room with internet access. They were only entitled to hear exactly what all the rest of us are entitled to hear. Petraeus' opinions and conjectures are not among those things. His assessment of the war, within security boundaries, are all they could reasonably expect to hear. Period.

His opinions and conjectures will be stated behind closed doors with the people who make the decisions about the military options our country faces. These are all glorified campaign ads--another opprotunity (as we saw) for candidates to take shots at each other and muck up the most of their campaign time with useless questions designed to bring them the greatest amount of exposure or blurbs for ads. This 'report' was nothing more than bull-hookey. It meant absolutely nothing and accomplished even less.

Which, in the long run, is probably exactly what our Senators get paid to do.

[InfinityGoddess]

The thing of it is that Petraeus doesn't have to answer to McCain, Clinton, or Obama. He has to answer to the Secretaries of Defense and State and to the Commander-in-Chief. Period. Nonanswers in this situation on the Hill today would arise naturally: these Senators are not 'entitled' to hear the full story from the general, especially when campaign vultures are flooding the room with internet access. They were only entitled to hear exactly what all the rest of us are entitled to hear. Petraeus' opinions and conjectures are not among those things. His assessment of the war, within security boundaries, are all they could reasonably expect to hear. Period.


They are very much entitled, seeing that a) they hold the purse-strings to keep this thing going, and b) they are entitled to oversee the Executive branch because that is their job, and c) they represent the American people and as such the American people have the right to know how their taxpayer money is being spent on monitoring a civil war.

We couldn't be a free country if we weren't entitled to answers. A secretive government is a very dangerous road to take.