Further muddying the waters is the fact that these things are organized quite loosely or tightly at times, depending on the purpose of the meeting.
It is common practice for caucus lunches on the House side to be open ones, with members being permitted to attend the other party’s if they wish to see the speaker addressing the gathering there.
OTOH, the weekly policy lunches of the Senate Republican and Democratic caucuses are always closed, as are other meetings of the House caucuses.
This is assuming the meeting even counts as a “partisan political meeting” which isn’t something to be assumed. Anyone who knows anything about rules and regulations, and laws, knows that they are clarified by their application. And the specific rules here to me, don’t clearly define what a partisan political meeting is in such a manner that I’m willing to admit that a group of GOP legislators is equated to a partisan political meeting. If there was some sort of clarifying background on these rules it would help, but I’ve not found any at the moment.
Personally I think it appears fairly obvious that partisan political meeting are things like party fundraisers and et cetera, I have trouble stretching the term to include a group of GOP congressmen. Congressmen have a vested interest in communicating with the military, and they are assumed to be congressmen first and Republicans or Democrats second.
The directive that was quoted here actually notes “Partisan Political Activity” to be this:
To me it seems like the war in Iraq isn’t an issue relating solely to the GOP, nor was he meeting with political candidates he was meeting with elected officials of the Federal government.
If he was meeting with a group of GOP Senators to discuss the capital gains tax I can see there being a problem, but to meet with them to talk about the current state in Iraq, not so much, that isn’t a “political” issue, it’s a military issue which he is more than free (and even expected) to talk with elected representatives about.
It’s certainly something to be assumed until contrary evidence comes in. I mean, how is a party’s Congressional caucus not supposed to be a “gathering that
promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause,” its own?
Yeah, I know: the obvious is too simple, straightforward, and you don’t like it. So you’re saying maybe the application of these rules isn’t so obvious.
Maybe it’s not - but given how straightforward the rule and its application to this situation is, I’d say the burden’s on you to come up with those applications if you think they’re out there.
Not when they’re gathering as the GOP Congressional caucus. In that context, they can be assumed to be partisans.
And how does it define a partisan political gathering, since we’re not talking about activity here?
Yeah, and coincidentally, everyone in this large gathering was a Republican?
From Andrea Mitchell’s report, a clear theme of the discussion amongst the participants was how the GOP should politically respond to developments in Iraq. While Petraeus might’ve given the exact same report to a gathering of the entire Congress, by speaking at a strictly GOP gathering, he was aiding their political deliberations, even if he wasn’t participating in them.
What if a single senator met with Petraeus and used what he learned to help draft his party’s policy?
Would that an improper use of the general’s time and resources, or would it be pretty much what these contacts are supposed to do?
that may be your question, but it isn’t the OP’s as he’s already indicated to you directly when you asked (another version) it before. edited to add: in post 32, in case you had forgotten
What wring said.
Should he have rejected the request for an update/meeting? Does he have the right/duty to reject such a summons?
In any event, your condemnation of the man on the basis of the wording of regulations is very thin. Both houses of Congress are controlled by the Democrats. Should he therefore be precluded from speaking before them because they are partisan bodies?
Clearly, that is not the intent of the rule. The intent is to prevent him from showing up at, say, a party fundraiser in uniform, and using his popularity/position to promote a cause. Speaking to a party caucus in his official capacity is certainly not the partisan activity you are alleging it to be.
was he summoned? link said “he went”.
this is a very stupid argument. Obviously, regardless of who controls congress, it’s not a “partisan political meeting” , it would be a legislative meeting.
I would agree that the rule is certainly meant to prevent the fundraiser in uniform. and that it’s not to prevent the dog and pony shows all presidents love to have w/folks in uniform standing behind them. However, I would want something a little more substantive than your statement of “clearly, that is not the intent of the rule”.
They’re not crazy, they’re worried about being labeled “unpatriotic” in the next election.
From RTF’s link:
August 2007 is too close to Nov 2008 for them to ‘end their support for the war’ and have much chance of making it look like anything other than a cynical election ploy. They’re crazy.
are you kidding? you think the average voter has a memory over a year?
Won’t need memory with a problem ridden pullout running past the summer of 2008.
and all it would take is another ‘troop rotation’ ploy to convince the average twit that “they’re finally coming home”.
a) It wasn’t a subpoena, so sure, he’s got the right.
b) Like I said @28, what he should have done was say, “Sorry, but you’ll have to include the Dems. Then I can brief all of you at once.”
Dammit, Doors, I know you’re smarter than Mr. Moto. So stop trying to engage him in a race to the bottom here, OK?
The houses of Congress, and their committees and subcommittees, are the fucking legislative branch, a co-equal arm of government.
The House Democratic and Republican Caucuses aren’t. They are partisan subsets of the membership of the legislative branch, but in and of themselves don’t have any rights or powers beyond those that the individual members of Congress have.
My bolding.
There are rules against partisan activity. There are also rules limiting active-duty military’s associations with partisan groups, gatherings, and whatnot.
Those are two related but different sets of rules. Thought I’d already explained that. :headdesk:
Just one thing, Rufus: If this is improper, wouldn’t you expect a mid-to-high level Democrat to be raising a stink about its impropriety? Okay, maybe it’s a case of not wanting to rock the boat, on the chance that they might want to do something similar their own selves one day.
But when was the last time the Democratic caucus had that kind of discipline?
This really looks like one of those situations where you figure out the big picture on account of the dog not barking…
I dunno - we’re in an unusual environment these days.
I mean, the Dems haven’t had a chance to rake the Bushies over the coals yet over Katrina reconstruction - which will be a surefire winner when they get there, because it wraps up the callousness, cronyism, and fuckupitude of the Bushies into a single, quite verifiable ball of wax.
The Dems have a backlog of six years of bad shit that’s gone un-uncovered to get to, plus new stuff comes out all the time. Did the Dems do much with the FBI abuse of national security letters a couple weeks back? No - it just got squeezed right out of the action, between the war and PurgeGate.
The dog’s not always gonna bark at something in particular that it should these days, because there’s just too damned much for the dog to bark at.
Hmm. I notice that the Navy Band performed at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. That same convention used a uniformed color guard.
Horrors!
Nothing wrong with Petraeaus briefing Republican members of Congress. It would be helpful to the discussion if we knew why he was in Washington. Was he there for other business and got invited or was he there just for the purpose of the briefing? Did all the Congressional leadership know that he was in town, or just the Republicans? Questions like that immediately pop into mind.
You’re intentionally misreading the directive, the purpose of the activity has to be to advance a partisan idea. Just because all persons in the meeting are of one political party, that does not equate it to a partisan political meeting. The Republican Caucus is a legislative group designed to get legislation passed, whereas the directives are overwhelmingly applied to election and campaign issues.
I don’t think the rule is simple or straightforward, and no, I don’t like your reasoning but that has nothing to do with why I don’t accept it, I don’t accept it because it doesn’t make a damn bit of sense.
If there was really a violation of a DoD directive here why do you think that only the mighty and wise RTFirefly has noticed it, why hasn’t any number of people who have tons to gain from taking Petraeus down reported this as a violation of DoD directives, thius embarrassing Petraeus and advancing their own causes? Do you really believe of all the hundreds and thousands of people (many of them in positions to enforce the very directives you’re quote at me) who were aware that Petraeus met with the caucus failed to recognize a “clear and straightforward violation” that you somehow caught and they missed? I don’t think so. And I think you’re a fool if you think that many people recognized it and ignored it, there’s way too much politics within the military and way too many people involved who would have something to gain by taking down Petraeus for this to be ignored by everyone who knew about it if there was really a DoD directives violation.
Cite? Furthermore, even if they are partisans, it doesn’t mean the meeting itself would qualify as a “partisan political meeting.”
It doesn’t.
I’m starting to wonder, regardless of what the real answer is on whether or not meeting with a legislative caucus violates DoD directives (I’ll openly admit I’m working with assumptions of what makes sense to me, and could be totally wrong on the application), as to whether this meeting really took place.
All I’ve seen just suggests one woman, Andrea Mitchell as saying he met with the Republican caucus, Joe Klein refutes the meeting happened in the way/form Mitchell described it as, and to be honest her retelling of it all sounds pretty weak and not really what one expects from something a real journalist would put out.