If not him it would have been another trained soldier who is following orders. They gave the prez who he wanted. They really had to. He was nominated because some other generals actually questioned the war and how rosily it was going along.
Here is where the dividing line is for me.
If General Petraeus had appeared on the Capitol steps with the Republican caucus, this would have been a gathering intended to generate public partisan advantage. He would have been prohibited from appearing at such an event by military regulations.
Behind closed doors, it is a meeting with congressional representatives, which he is permitted to attend given his requirement to keep the legislative branch up to date.
There is nothing keeping him from meeting one representative for a talk, so there is similarly nothing preventing him from talking to a group. However, appearing at a campaign rally for just one representative would be ethically questionable, as would a public gathering of the nature I described above.
Essentially all the members of one party and none of the other is a funny definition of “the legislative branch.”
Accordingly, he’s only keeping the Congressional Pubbies up to date.
Did a little Googling, and came across this summary of what active-duty military can and cannot do:
The GOP Congressional caucus is a partisan political gathering. Period. And Petraeus was speaking before it.
Is my source interpreting the rules correctly? If so, that’s game.
Did a little Googling, and came across DoD Directive 1344.10, “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty”, August 2, 2004, which might have some relevance:
The GOP Congressional Caucus is unquestionably a “gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.” Petraeus was speaking before it.
Any further discussion?
Hadn’t even realized I’d posted #23 - must’ve hit the button by accident. #24 is better sourced; forget about #23.
Bolding mine.
Now, it seems to me that there is a conflict here between General Petraeus’ responsibility to meet with members of Congress and his obligation not to address partisan gatherings. This isn’t surprising, ethical conflicts happen sometimes, and become more hard to deal with when rank increases.
I submit that keeping the meeting private and thus not associating the military with the Republicans in a public rally satisfied the general’s conflicting obligations.
Let me help you out a bit, Sam. You’ve got that “hive mind” delusion operating again, the notion that the Left is somehow uniform of opinion, in such a way that a “unanimous vote” is possible. It isn’t, not even close.
I sympathize with your plight, charges of hypocrisy being about all you’ve got left. So lets just do it, shall we? The left is rife with hypocrisy. Loaded with it, up to the gunwales, great hulking gobs of the stuff. Goes with being human, part of the deal. Pretty sure I’m guilty of it myself, and if I hadn’t so many memory issues, I might even be able to pinpoint an example. I will rely upon your generosity to accept my statement at face value.
And, of course, “our” hypocricy isn’t getting a bunch of folks killed, we haven’t a lot to apologize for. We were right about this crap festival four years ago, been right all along, what have we to regret?
What’s the conflict?
All he had to do was tell the GOP Caucus, “Sorry, but you’ll have to include the Dems. Then I can brief all of you at once.”
That ‘conflict’ took me, what, five seconds to resolve?
How do you see that?
They have a list of prohibited activities. They’re supposed to NOT do 3.3.1 AND 3.3.2 AND 3.3.3 AND … AND 3.3.17 AND 3.3.18.
They can neither make public speeches in political campaigns, NOR speak before partisan gatherings. A private speech means he’s not violating 3.3.3, but it doesn’t change the fact that he’s violating 3.3.8.
There are laws against running red lights, and there are speed limit laws. But obeying the speed limit law doesn’t mean I can run a red light while doing so.
I have a comment:
Now that Garry Trudeau has forever associated Shrubya with Imperial Rome, with that well-worn Imperator’s helmet icon, I think it’s a hoot that Bush chose as his theater commander a man who’s name calls to mind ancient texts such as Caesar’s Commentaries on the Punic Wars.
That is all.
When does it cease to be a partisan gathering? Would two congressmen of the same party together constitute an assembly a general could not brief?
Was he in uniform when he appeared there?
If so, I imagine that before going to the caucus he had approval from a superior and that he covered his ass, the Army is as political as anything else and one who rises to the position Gen. Petraeus has would be very adept at inter-service politics and I doubt he’d attend the caucus without reason to be very sure it was kosher.
Important issues would also be where the meeting took place, and what the meeting was billed as, officially.
Who cares? There’s no doubt that a meeting of the Congressional GOP Caucus is a partisan gathering. We aren’t talking about some situation where Petraeus dropped in on Orrin Hatch, and John Cornyn happened to be visiting too. We’re talking about the whole freakin’ caucus, meeting in that capacity.
OK then, under your scenario Petraeus’ superior violated the rules insulating the military from partisan politics.
That’s even worse. Fortunately, it’s just a hypothetical.
You think that the GOP Congressional Caucus just kinda met by accident? Duuuuuuude.
Sorry, I can’t get worked up over this. And I wouldn’t get worked up if the Democrats were involved, frankly.
The members of Congress has a right to ask about how things are going. If the Democrats want to know the same information, they only need to ask General Petraeus. From what I’ve heard about the man, he’s quite forthcoming with his thoughts on doctrine and doesn’t sugarcoat conditions on the ground.
No, not necessarily. The reading of the rules doesn’t instantly mean you have to assume that any gathering of GOP Congressmen = a partisan political meeting. Even if it did, members of the military are allowed to visit a partisan political meeting while not wearing uniform (do we know how the General was dressed for the meeting?) Like I said, if he was in uniform he’s probably been assured by someone knowledgeable on how those regulations are enforced in common practice that he was in the clear.
Is there any Democrat not prowling around message boards that is going to make an issue over this?
I don’t see it, myself. Especially considering that General Petraeus reportedly has good working relationships with quite a few Democrats.
You are not alone in your lack of outrage here.
Yeah, dude. In your eighth post in this thread, you say it isn’t that big a deal.
It’s a big deal because the Bush Administration is politicizing vast tracts of the Executive Branch that are supposed to execute the laws in a nonpartisan manner. The one branch that absolutely must not let itself be used for partisan gain is the military. We haven’t had a coup in the United States, and we don’t want to let it ever be a possibility.
Have you verified with his office that he’s willing to find time to meet with the Democratic Caucus? Or are you just making shit up?
No matter. He’s not supposed to. That’s what the rules say.
As a spectator.
Which he was not.
I think perhaps some definition of terms is in order. A bit of wiki research has led me to the conclusion that there is no Congressional Republican caucus. There is a Congressional Democratic caucus, but the Republican counterpart is known as the Republican Conference of the U. S. House of Representatives. We’re probably not well-served by a lot of quibbling over a colloquial reference to the Republican Conference as a “caucus”, so let’s let that slide…
House rules allow Members to form Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs) to pursue common legislative objectives. Among the items of information that each CMO must submit to the Committee on House Administration upon registration is the CMO’s Statement of Purpose.
The Republican Conference website is not particularly forthcoming about their statement of purpose. I will note that their website is not identical to the Committee on House Administration, and as such the Conference has no obligation to post its statement of purpose there. By contrast, the Democratic Caucus website provides this statement that seems to serve the same function as a statement of purpose:
.
It is pretty clear, from context, that the Republican Conference appears to be a functional mirror image of the Democratic Caucus.
I guess what is left to be argued over is whether “common legislative objectives” in this context must needs be considered “partisan purposes” as proscribed in DODD 1344.10, August 2, 2004 11 ENCLOSURE 3 E3.3.8 (cf. Mr. Moto’s list in post #26, above). In preparation for that argument, I will note that a partisan legislative agenda is not necessarily the same as a partisan electoral agenda. Whether the intent of the DoD Directive is to prohibit one and allow the other, or to prohibit both will be crucial to the outcome of the argument (IMHO).