So, is Gen. Petraeus part of the GOP caucus?

The BBQ Pit
1

Andrea Mitchell: ““Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, I will have real progress to you by August.”

How sweet of him. What did he say to the Democratic caucus?

Exactly when did the U.S. Army become an adjunct of the Republican Party?

Oh, that’s right: about the same time the Department of Justice did, and the GSA did, and the Department of Interior did, and…I’m sure I’m missing a few, but they’re making it extremely hard to keep up, these days.

Oh, and just for bonus points:

So, moderate GOP Senators don’t believe the surge will work, but they’re willing to send our troops back there to fight and die anyway, in what they believe is a lost cause. Send them back on short rest, with little time to fully train with the new recruits who’ve replaced their casualties, probably with less than their proper equipment - but you know, what’s a few good dead men when you’ve got to stand by your President?

There’s a story in the Bible about King David and Uriah the Hittite. David sacrifices Uriah in battle, for no reason other than to keep from looking bad. Not that I’m drawing any connections or anything.

2

Did the Democratic caucus invite him?

3

It just goes to what that great Democrat said about excessive government entanglement with the military-industrial complex.

Oh, wait a minute, that was a Republican. And a war hero to boot – back when we fought wars to make the world safe for democracy (as opposed to making it profitable for Haliburton).

Question, Mr Moto: Do you approve or disapprove of Gen. Douglas McArthur’s actions just before and after being relieved of command? Why? (It is relevant to the topic at hand.)

4

I swear, George Dubya or Deadeye Dick Cheney MUST have embarrassing photos of every Republican member of Congress. How else can we explain why they continue to attach themselves to the failing policies of a failed president, policies that THEY THEMSELVES ADMIT WON’T WORK?

5

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Question, Mr Moto: Do you approve or disapprove of Gen. Douglas McArthur’s actions just before and after being relieved of command? Why? (It is relevant to the topic at hand.)
[/QUOTE]

His name was Macarthur, and I disapproved both times. However, his crime was a failure to follow the direction of an elected president, so I really do not see the comparison, frankly.

When I learned my chain of command back in boot camp, it went all the way to Bill Clinton. It most certainly did not include Tom Foley.

That said, certainly Congress has their legitimate and vital role. And if a group of congressmen of one party, caucus, or interest want to speak to a general, it might be a good idea for him to answer that invitation. If the Democratic caucus were to offer a similar invitation, and they indeed should, he ought to go.

6

[QUOTE=Frostillicus]
How else can we explain why they continue to attach themselves to the failing policies of a failed president, policies that THEY THEMSELVES ADMIT WON’T WORK?
[/QUOTE]
Occam comes down on the side of batshit crazy.

7

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
That said, certainly Congress has their legitimate and vital role. And if a group of congressmen of one party, caucus, or interest want to speak to a general, it might be a good idea for him to answer that invitation. If the Democratic caucus were to offer a similar invitation, and they indeed should, he ought to go.
[/QUOTE]

I agree, assuming that he was there on the invitation of the Republican caucus, then I don’t think his giving his honest opinion of how the situation in Iraq will go was improper. After all, whether the WH likes it or not, Congresses opinion on whats going on in Iraq is likely to determine how long and in what manner we stay there, and they can and should ask military leaders thier opinions.

If, on the other hand, the Administration basically ordered him to go to the Capitol and campaign for support for the war, then I would feel it was crossing a line.

8

I can’t think someone just gets summoned one day and gets handed the Iraq gig “Hey, guess what, you’re being reasigned!”.

De facto, Iraq is a serious political appointment.
Taking the Iraq gig is only a limited gamble for Petraeus anyway; if it pays off and he does well to very well, he gets to run for senior political office in a short while, if he fails, well it was already beyond saving.

9

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
There’s a story in the Bible about King David and Uriah the Hittite. David sacrifices Uriah in battle, for no reason other than to keep from looking bad.
[/QUOTE]

I thought it was because David had knocked up Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, and thus wanted him out of the way: a dirty stunt to pull, even by Old Testament standards.

10

On *Le Show*, Harry Shearer frequently points out that Petraeus rhymes with “betray us.”

11

Is that what passes for deep thought from the ‘reality based community’?

I remember not too long ago when Patraeus was the darling of the Democrats. And I believe he was nominated with a unanimous vote. What’s changed? The fact that he’s not sputtering the doom and gloom lines the Democrats want?

12

Yeah, I’m not seeing the issue here.

Obviously, Petraeus is on board with the whole ‘surge’ concept. If he wasn’t he wouldn’t be in the position he’s in. Imagine that interview:

No, that’s not how it worked. It’s obvious that Petraeus is onboard with the concept and hearing of him pushing it to whomever will listen is a non-story. Worth mentioning in the press but not worth going to any length over.

13

If he wanted to update Congress he could have testified in committee or addressed the entire body on the floor of the House. Perhaps he would have accepted a similar invitation from the Democratic caucus, but I believe he would have done well to reject invitations from either caucus. People who hold non-partisan positions should not be speaking to groups that are by definition partisan. I’m sure no rules were broken, but it fails the smell test.

14

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I’m sure no rules were broken, but it fails the smell test.
[/QUOTE]

Not much to add, here, except my agreement with this sentiment. Thank you for being able to articulate just what I was thinking when I first read this thread.

15

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I’m sure no rules were broken, but it fails the smell test.
[/QUOTE]

So what, when John Kerry or Hillary Clinton head over to Iraq to check things over, the generals and other officers should just tell them to look around as much as they like, but they’ll only get the dog and pony show when they come back to testify before a committee?

Your position makes no sense at all. Congress has an oversight role here, and that includes the Republicans elected to it as well.

If the Democrats want to hear what General Petraeus wants to say, they have ample opportunity to ask him similar questions. If they don’t do so, it doesn’t speak well of them.

16

Individual congressmen are of course free to go over and see how things are going and get shown around. When the generals come to Washington and talk to one party only, that isn’t exactly building the bipartisanship that Bush promised back in 2000.

17

BTW, as a veteran of many of these little shows, I can state clearly that generals, admirals, colonels, Navy captains and other officers are always prepared to brief congressional representatives on ongoing operations and unit mission capabilities. This is an unpleasant part of their job (military members generally don’t like politicians) but it is essential.

They do this whether in agreement with or opposition to the stated political positions or goals of the politician in question. It wouldn’t be professional for them to make the discussion partisan. The only political agenda discussed is generally of a geopolitical nature.

This is in keeping with long American military traditions and practices, and I’m sure we’re all happy that this is the case.

18

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
BTW, as a veteran of many of these little shows, I can state clearly that generals, admirals, colonels, Navy captains and other officers are always prepared to brief congressional representatives on ongoing operations and unit mission capabilities. This is an unpleasant part of their job (military members generally don’t like politicians) but it is essential.
[/quote]
Maybe, given your experience, you can give us some specific for-instances of high-ranking military officers meeting with partisan groups to brief them.

I’m aware that such officers often have to brief Congressional committees here in Washington, but that is a matter of a coequal branch of government exercising its oversight responsibilities. And I’m aware that when individual Congresspersons, or groups of Congresspersons, travel to where those officers are engaged in their duties to get a better idea of the challenges those officers face, the officers brief all members of Congress that take the trouble without respect to party.

But when a general comes back to Washington, and briefs just those Congresspersons of one party…no, I haven’t heard of that happening. But maybe you have, and can provide specifics.

Did the Dems know he was going to be here, rather than in Iraq? Did they know he was going to be making himself available to whoever wanted to meet with him here in Washington? Because if they didn’t know he was available, but the GOP did, that’s a problem right there.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Is that what passes for deep thought from the ‘reality based community’?

I remember not too long ago when Patraeus was the darling of the Democrats. And I believe he was nominated with a unanimous vote. What’s changed? The fact that he’s not sputtering the doom and gloom lines the Democrats want?
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s that he seems to have crossed the line into domestic politics, by meeting with the representatives of just one party.

You see, Sam, Democrats realize that people aren’t all good, and aren’t all bad. Petraeus is simultaneously a very knowledgeable guy with respect to counterinsurgency, and a guy who’s apparently gone where he shouldn’t have gone.

You notice I’m not calling for his dismissal, or making any comments with respect to his job performance in Iraq. What I expect is for him to play between the lines with respect to domestic politics.

19

Mr Moto: Thanks for your answer. Amazingly, we agree on the relevant points, now that you’ve spelled them out (which I appreciate).

I’m less than comfortable that Gen. Petraeus spoke only to the Republican caucus, but I think you may have a point. If the Congressional Women’s Caucus or the Congressional Black Caucus (to name two bipartisan groups I know exist) had invited him, yes, he should have spoken with them in their oversight role. Agreed that the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress both have a responsibility to provide oversight. This does look partisan, but we don’t have all the facts.

20

[QUOTE=Scissorjack]
I thought it was because David had knocked up Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, and thus wanted him out of the way: a dirty stunt to pull, even by Old Testament standards.
[/QUOTE]
Old Testament standards fluctuate wildly - consider what got God pissed off at King Saul.

But yeah, that’s the specifics: if David didn’t kill Uriah, he was going to have to look bad by its becoming known that he’d knocked up Uriah’s wife.