The Petraeus-Crocker Autocracy

So, your position is their expressing their informed opinion to Congress is an Constitutional violation by Bush, and dereliction of duty? That is beyond BDS, and almost parody. It is certainly the most ill-formed opinion I have read in some time.

And what happened to 'listen to the Generals who are there'? Oh right, only if they say what you want them to say.

This post is...well...wacked.

"Who empowered David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker to make the judgement that progress in Iraq was “fragile and reversible” and that consideration of any new withdrawals of American troops be delayed until the fall?"

They give their advice to the President as constitutional Commander-in-Chief. He makes the decision.

"If George W. Bush has delegated these powers to two unelected employees of the US government, he is in dereliction of his duty as President."

Are you mad? Eisenhower planned D-Day. Was FDR in dereliction of his duty as President to give Eisenhower this authority? Was Lincoln when he gave Grant authority over the conduct of the Civil War?

"Why isn't he answering the questions and being held to account for over 4000 lives and billions of dollars?"

Uhh...because the Presidency is the third EQUAL constitutional branch of government. Congress cannot demand the President answer its questions...just as the President cannot demand Congress do his will. The President reports to Congress once a year on the State of the Union.

Other than Ford appearing before Congress by his own choice, I can remember no another example. FDR spent hundreds of thousands of more lives, and umpteen billions more in WWII. Did he answer to a Congressional committee (which is...BTW...not a constitutional body, but an informal institution set up by Congress).

The answer is No.

Did LBJ answer Congress' questions on Vietnam? Did Truman on Korea? Did Wilson on WW I?
No. No. and No.

"And why is Congress acceding to his budget demands as if they had no choice..."

Speaker Pelosi and Reid can cut funding anytime they wish. They haven't because they haven't got the votes. So you are blaming Bush for the gutlessness of Democrats on the Hill?

"...but to do exactly what he wants when he is not doing what the Constitution requires him to do?"

Which is precisely what? Obey the orders of Congress? Obey the instructions of MoveOn.org? Bush is doing what the Constitution requires him to do.

"Where is the public outrage over this charade of how government should work?
Where are the protesters who should be filling the streets? Why are the Democrats who control the legislative branch deferring to this parody of how democracy should work?"

Woh Nellie....

"While these two factotums try to barter and bribe Iraqis into some semblance of civilized governance, why are they being allowed to make a mockery of our own?"

Unbelievable. I have to echo AustinRoth: "That is beyond BDS, and almost parody. "

Crocker and Petraeus are doing their job.
It's for the Prsident, Congress and the public to choose how much of their decisions should be based on the testimony of these two men.
I think they did a very good job of presenting their experience in Iraq and their recommend for the future. there.
. ,
Rumsfeld was appointed to streamline the military. to transform it from from big and bulky to small and fast. He did his job. The error was to keep on relying on his judgment, regardless of resutls. There was overliance for you,

It would be foolish, therefore, ,to rely solely on Petraeus and Crocker, ,regardless of the degree of their success at doing what they were assigned to do.

We can't base our decisions for the future in such narrow terms, i.e. the cmpletion of assigned tasks. The future of Iraq, the region, especially of the US iare so much broader than the latest development. We need all the input we can get, from a vaiety of sources. Especially, we need analists with a broad, holistic approach. That's simply not within the scope of what Petraeus can, or should, do.



Petraeus deserves a

Bush has already fired the generals who disagree with his occupation policy. So now that he has his "yes men" in place, Bush can push the responsibility for staying in Iraq on them.

It's a political move to put the spotlight on supposedly unassailable military men. If Bush or his policy were popular, you can bet your damn life he would be out there taking responsibility for the war.

Chris WWW nailed it!

They didn't exactly give glowing stories about how things are going swimmingly. I have no doubt whatsoever that whatever forward momentum we have had in Iraq is best described as "frail and reversible". Its shocking to me but I have to agree with AustinRoth and Marlo on this one. Part of their job is to report to Congress first hand how they see things going and thats what they did. And somehow they are at fault for doing so?