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

As Squink pointed out, there was a bit of political strategery mixed into the discussion. So there you go.

It sure reads simply and straightforwardly, with an unequivocal meaning.

Other people have noticed it, want some cites?

But like I said, there’s a six-year backlog of stuff spilling out for the dogs to bark at these days. This one is less of a big deal than plenty of stuff that Congress just plain hasn’t had time to hold hearings on.

And could you be clear who has “tons to gain from taking Petraeus down”? At least a name or two, please. Because I can’t think of anyone. We libruls don’t want to take him down; if there’s a remote chance that he might make a positive difference in Baghdad, we’d like to see him make it. It just strikes us as improbable. The GOP is behind him, since he’s Bush’s choice. And while maybe top generals are fighting one another to get this particular command, it’s hard to see it.

If it was as straightforward as you claim, what are those military bands and color guards doing at the Republican and Democratic conventions?

I have no idea. The marching bands might for obvious reasons be governed by their own regulations.

There might be another reason the Democrats outside the blogs are laying low right now.

John Boehner apparently is quoted in the March 8th Roll Call blasting Democrats for not attending a teleconference with General Petraeus to which Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike had been invited. I say apparently because Roll Call is subscriber only, so I’m getting the quotes from Jennifer Yachnin’s article secondhand.

Now, I have no idea if this is the “closed door meeting” Andrea Mitchell refers to. And I don’t know how this will play out in the end. I suspect we’ll see soon, since this is getting to be a big bubbling mess.

But if it is, then nobody can claim that it was a partisan meeting if it was made a Republican-only event because of Democratic inattention.

From John Boehner’s website.

We have an assertion by John Boehner that the Democrats did not show.

Do we have an assertion that that is the meeting to which Mitchell referred?

Mr Motos link talks about a video conference for ‘congressional leaders’ held March 8; Andrea talks about a Republican caucus meeting 'very very recent"
I doubt that:
a. It would be common for a Democrat to be invited to and/or attend a “republican caucus meeting”
b. That Andrea Mitchell, a career reporter with much credibility to loose, would refer to a meeting called for ‘congressional leaders’ as a ‘republican caucus’ meeting.
c. In this context, the term “very very recent” IMHO, would not refer to a meeting nearly a month ago.

Well, apparently Andrea Mitchell has changed her story.

So much for that. My apologies.

The bonus points feature from the OP is still in play, though.

ok, then my comment about Andrea and loosing credibility is, well, now - what’s less than moot? ok. I was wrong.

She didn’t have much credibility to begin with, frankly. She continued to report on the Lewis Libby matter without disclosing to her audience during the stories her role in the affair.

but but but, she’s like married to Alan Greenspan and stuff.

As for the bonus feature, I have little doubt that some Republicans are losing patience. However, I refer you to my comments about Andrea Mitchell’s credibility.

Hell, that applies to half the political reporters in Washington! :slight_smile:

Frankly, I’m a bit disturbed by this report that nobody in the Democratic leadership attended the teleconference that Boehner mentioned.

I’m going to hold off on ranting about it until more facts are in. Given how this thread went, that seems a good idea. :wink:

I’ll be paying attention to this, though.