Democrats Skipping Briefings on Iraq and a House Divided
Are the Democrats skipping briefings on Iraq? It seems so.
Michael Barone at RealClearPolitics:
What’s curious is that congressional Democrats don’t seem much interested in what’s actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi’s office said “scheduling conflicts” prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.
How long this fight will go on is unclear. Some Democrats predict that it will continue for months. But their dilemma remains the same. They want to be seen as acting to end the war. But they dare not be seen as not funding the troops.
There is quite some outrage over this, coming from the Right side of the blogosphere, and, to a degree, I can understand that. However, I also consider it to be, as usual, political / partisan posturing. However, Petraeus’ briefings should be absolute top priority. Leading Democrats should be forcing Petraeus to inform them about what is going on in Iraq, they should not try to duck his brievings. This is quite worrisome (and politically stupid may I add: once again the Democrats portray themselves as the party that’s more focused on losing than winning, or, they at least make themselves vulnerable for such attacks, which is equally stupid).
Also, perhaps even more so, interesting about the Barone article at RealClearPolitics is that the Democrats seem to be divided on the issue of Iraq. Pelosi has to try to bring both sides together.
H/t to Jules Crittenden.
Cross posted at my own blog.
24 Responses to “Democrats Skipping Briefings on Iraq and a House Divided”
What pompous ASSES.
We are in Iraq fighting a war. LIke it or not WE have sons and daughters, Husbands and Wives, Mothers and Fathers in harms way.
I think they should be impeached. In fact thats a good Idea. Think Ill check into it.
This is a particularly interesting story, as the Democrats have been emphasizing their right of “oversight”.
Yet, they are significantly avoiding “oversight” of the Iraq War, and being informed by commanders of what is going on. Petraeus volunteered to do so in hearings on the Hill, and he is carrying out his promise.
The Democrats, in response, are avoiding being informed or playing any role on Iraq that is not oriented towards domestic political advantage.
As I have said before, the Democratic mantra: “With great power comes no responsibility.”
Mmmm fake outrage from a nobody.
Faux outrage. The coin of the realm.
Um, there’s probably a more innocent explanation. After all, if the Democrats wanted to exploit this event for political advantage, they’d hold hearings on Iraq every day. Smart as Petraeus is, there’s little chance that he’d be able to convince anybody to change their vote on Iraq. In fact, Petraeus is unusally honest in refusing to assert “progress” before it exists. My bet is that Barone, as usual, is acting the GOP partisan and is deliberately misleading his readers.
Well, my post was quite reasonable I think but the defense of the two you is not exactly convincing.
Elrod, ok – so what is the entire story?
There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress. There is no progress.
After all these years, at what point do “Briefings” become irelevent?. I’d say a long time ago.
Bring the tropps home NOW!
I’m not sure what the problem is here. There was a scheduling conlict and they rescheduled it (isn’t that what was meant when it said “t]wo days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled”). And so some Democrats weren’t able to make a video conference on March 8th. Did others attend in their place or not? Note that the post does not mention that.
As for the comment that Democrats are divided on Iraq; of course they are. Being able to have differing opinions on issues is one of the things that differenciates Democrats from Republicans. Democrats are allowed to think for themselves and not parrot the party line. And I believe that Democrats are united in their desire to get out of Iraq, they just have differences in how to go about doing it.
Looks like a fake scandal to me. Even through Barone’s sinister implications, it’s pretty easy to read between the lines. A meeting had to be rescheduled! Shock! Horror!
“Elrod, ok – so what is the entire story?”
MvdG, the article you posted didn’t have the whole story either. I’m not looking to pick a fight but I do think we got the whole story yet.
Here are my unanswered questions I had when reading the articles:
1- How far in advance were these meetings scheduled? I assume that congress members are scheduled a few weeks in advance. If this “videoconference with Petraeus on March 8″ was scheduled on March 5th or 6th, maybe some couldn’t attend.
2- What was this “member’s only meeting” two days later? Was it a replay of the videoconference? I assume it was recorded.
3- How many Republicans were able to attend this meeting?
4- Historically, how many Republicans and Democrats miss meetings?
I don’t know what the answers are and it may indeed show that the Dems are skipping meetings. If so BOO on them, but I’ll wait for the facts before blowing more “hot air”.
The goal, I think, is to ensure that the war is seen as a failure, but to make sure that Democrats don’t get blamed.
Yep we all know this. Thats a no brainer.
Nobody- Why the hell should the Democrats be blamed for a war that bush started and is failing to win?
The war IS A FAILURE and the republicans are EXACTLY WHY IT IS FAILING.
From CNN:
Who you gonna believe? Me, or your….
You would think that lawmakers would adjust their schedules to address the most important foreign policy question since the end of the Cold War. It does make the Democrats look unserious about Iraq.
Not that this guy is in any better position to comment on things than the bloggers here, but FWIW……..
http://op-for.com/2007/04/what_is_happening_over_here.html
I just wanted to let you know what is happening where I am in Iraq. I don’t want to say this is in response to Harry Reid, but his comments the other day are not in line with what we’re seeing.
We are winning over here in Al Anbar province. I don’t know about Baghdad, but Ramadi was considered THE hotspot in Al Anbar, the worse province, and it has been very quiet. The city is calm, the kids are playing in the streets, the local shops are open, the power is on at night, and daily commerce is the norm rather than the exception. There have been no complex attacks since March. That is HUGE progress. This quiet time is allowing the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police to establish themselves in the eyes of the people. The Iraqi people also want IA’s and IP’s in their areas. The Sunni Sheiks are behind us and giving us full support. This means that almost all Sunnis in Al Anbar are now committed to supporting the US and Iraqi forces. It also means that almost all insurgents left out here are AQ. FYI, the surge is just beginning. Gen Petraeus’ strategy is just getting started and we’re seeing huge gains here.
However, you don’t see Harry Reid talking about this. When I saw what he said, it really pissed me off. That guy does not know what is going on over here because he hasn’t bothered to come and find out. The truth on the
ground in Al Anbar is not politically convenient for him, so he completely ignored it.
This war can be won. We just need the time to get the IA and IP operating on their own. Gen Petraeus is treating the war like a counter-insurgency rather than a stability operation. For non-military personnel, there is a HUGE difference between the two. What we’ve been doing in Iraq since Petraeus took over is completely different than what we were doing under Gen Casey. However, you don’t hear the press or the democrats say that. Most of them
are too committed to saying we’ve lost to further their own political agendas that they cannot acknowledge we’re doing something totally different and it is working.
Well WA if I have to spain it to ya, then I’m afraid you missed politics 101 in College.
secondly thats a quote from the ops article he linked too.
Wasting your breathe CASUAL OBSERVER!!!
They will go find some Al Queida run web blogs that say its hell over here and cling to it with passionate fury and claim its the real truth.
Okay Mike, you’ve linked to posts on three conservative blogs, which link to posts on other conservative blogs, all of which proclaim outrage that the Democrats are ignoring General Petraeus.
What I’m unable to find anywhere on these sites is a link to an actual news story that states “General Petraeus was rebuffed by Congressional Democrats” or, in fact, anything at all that confirms the story.
These blogs exist to attack Democrats. Do you have anything else that supports your allegation? If so, it would be nice to see it.
I sure wish someone could track Casual Observer and see if he’s really where he claims to be, because he is in the wrong province (conviently) to know whats actually going on. Anbar is virtually Sunni so it makes it much easier to control, has a lower population to control, and they hate al Qaeda foriegners in Iraq anyways making terrorist attacks a bit tough to pull of in a sparser poplated area like Anbar.
Now Baghdad, thats another story, and the one that actually matters. Got any news about Baghdad? Yeah it’s nasty, and seems our folks, and the IP/IA are getting hit pretty damn good last I checked. Oh and don’t forget the murders there are going along at a good clip as well.
Anbar is like South Dakaota to Baghdad being Chicago. A single city larger in poplation than a whole province.
His assertions do blow holes in one theory, Syria’s government apparently ain’t doin such a good job of supplying terrorists in Iraq, of course I never quite bought that line either.
Mikef,
How about this one?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3075560
Thanks, Entropy. But Pelosi doesn’t look so bad reading that account:
The posts mvdg links too make it sound like Democrats are refusing to speak to Petraeus, or listen to anything he’s got to say about Iraq. That’s not what the ABC story says.
Harry declared Iraq lost, why bother meeting with Petraeus.
Thanks for the post Casualobserver!