Enough About Iraq--Let's Talk About Me: Business As Usual In The Senate

[DaJudge]

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ssi/globalnav/wpdotcom_190x30.gif (http://www.washingtonpost.com/?nav=pf)
Enough About Iraq -- Let's Talk About Me

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, September 12, 2007; A02

Presidential politics are never far from the congressional debate on Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Iraq?tid=informline). As
Gen. David Petraeus (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/David+Petraeus?tid=informline) testified before the Senate Foreign Relations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Senate+Committee+on+Foreign+Relations?tid=informline)
Committee yesterday, the two merged into a seamless whole.

Sen. Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline) (D-Ill.), a presidential contender, took his seat on the
dais in the Hart Senate Office Building, popped a piece of Nicorette gum
into his mouth, opened a green folder and began reading a memo, partially
visible to reporters behind him. It said:

To: Barack

From: Ben & Denis

Date: September 11, 2007

Re: Iraq Speech -- Differences

As you get ready for press around your speech on Iraq, we wanted to
make sure you have on one piece of paper the principle [sic] differences
between your speech on Iraq and the most comprehensive on Iraq given
by Senator Clinton (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Hillary+Clinton?tid=informline).

It further reminded Obama that "you argue that by withdrawing 1-2 combat
brigades a month you can get all those units out by the end of next year
(2008)."

Obama, as it happens, is to deliver a major campaign speech about Iraq in
Iowa (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Iowa?tid=informline) today -- so it isn't entirely surprising that he would be preparing some
political barbs for the Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
(N.Y.). Still, Obama's juxtaposition -- contemplating the nakedly political as
he prepared to question the top U.S. general in Iraq and the U.S.
ambassador to Iraq -- was stark.

Not that Obama was the only senator with one foot on the campaign trail
yesterday as Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ryan+Crocker?tid=informline) spoke to the Foreign
Relations and Armed Services committees. With five current presidential
candidates on the two panels, not to mention four past presidential
candidates and three others who have recently contemplated presidential
runs, it could hardly be otherwise.

Clinton, herself a member of the Armed Services Committee, at first entered
the hearing room largely unnoticed; she then left and reentered moments
later as part of Petraeus's entourage -- basking in the clicks of hundreds of
camera shutters.

Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Joseph+Biden?tid=informline) (Del.), an also-ran in the presidential
race, displayed his disdain for the more popular Obama by conspicuously
reading a newspaper while the Illinois (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Illinois?tid=informline) senator questioned the witnesses.
Sen. John McCain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+McCain?tid=informline) (R-Ariz.) used his place as top Republican on the Armed
Services Committee to direct a zinger at Obama. Sen. Chris Dodd (D- (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Christopher+Dodd?tid=informline)
Conn.), a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee but a
presidential dark horse, wasted no time getting out a press release that
took a shot at both Obama and Clinton.

The senators had reason for their flagging interest in Petraeus. The House
stole the Senate's thunder by having Petraeus testify Monday. As if to rub
it in, Petraeus greeted both Senate committees yesterday by re-reading,
virtually word for word, the same testimony he read to the House.

But this dearth of new developments left senators free to do what they do
best: talk about themselves. Sen. Chuck Hagel (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Chuck+Hagel?tid=informline) (R-Neb.), who on Monday
abandoned his flirtation with a presidential run, used all seven of his allotted
minutes making a speech. So did Sen. Barbara Boxer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barbara+Boxer?tid=informline) (D-Calif.). So did
Obama.

Sen. John Sununu (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Sununu?tid=informline) (R-N.H.) rebuked his colleagues for their wordiness. "I will
take my question-and-answer time to ask questions, if it's all right with the
committee," he said primly. He then consumed a minute and 10 seconds to
ask his first question.

Some senators sounded as if they were forming a travel club. Boxer
displayed a blown-up photograph of her meeting in Iraq with the general. "I
will never forget it," she said. "We were sitting in an armored vehicle."

"I was in Ramadi (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ramadi?tid=informline), about nine days ago," boasted Sen. Norm Coleman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Norm+Coleman?tid=informline) (R-
Minn.). "When I was in Iraq and had a sit-down with General Odierno,"
offered Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

Sen. Jim Inhofe (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jim+Inhofe?tid=informline) (R-Okla.), a frequent Iraq traveler, played tourism
promoter: "I would suggest that both Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd go
over there."

As usual, nobody could outdo Biden. "The helicopter was grounded because
of a windstorm," began his dramatic account.

The senators, more than their counterparts in the House on Monday, had
the confidence to challenge the popular general. Some challenges came
from the usual suspects, such as Boxer, who requested that Petraeus "take
off your rosy glasses." But tough words came from Republicans, too. Sen. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Dick+Lugar?tid=informline)
Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) argued that "it is not enough for the
administration to counsel patience until the next milestone or the next
report." Hagel scolded the general: "Where is this going? Come on."

Sen. John Warner (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Warner?tid=informline) (R-Va.) produced the most striking admission of the day
when, taking off his reading glasses and staring down gravely, he asked: "If
we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do
you feel that that is making America safer?"

"Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our
objectives in Iraq," Petraeus replied.

"Does that make America safer?" Warner pressed.

"Sir," the general said. "I don't know." But Warner got nothing near the
attention of the presidential candidates. When Obama entered the hearing
room, midway through Lugar's opening statement, the cameras turned
immediately to him . He posed thoughtfully, stroking his temple with his
index finger and his chin with his pen. After a while, Sen. John Kerry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Kerry?tid=informline) (D-
Mass.) grabbed an empty seat next to Obama and struck up a conversation
-- scoring a mother lode of photographs.

In his seven minutes of questioning time, Obama seemed to be practicing
for today's speech. "This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy
mistake," he said. "And we are now confronted with the question: How do
we clean up the mess and make the best out of a situation in which there
are no good options?"

He then ridiculed President Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informline) for "suggesting somehow that we are . . .
kicking A-S-S. How can we have a president making that assessment?"

Stump speech over, Obama observed that he was left with "very little time
to ask questions."

"That's true, Senator," Biden agreed without sympathy.

Obama got off only one question -- about future "benchmarks" -- and it
turned out to be a repeat.

"Senator," Crocker replied. "I described [them] for Senator Sununu a little
bit ago."

This was news to Obama. "Can you repeat those?" he asked.
Must have been busy reading the campaign memorandum.

[scottycards]

I don't blame him a bit. Petraeus is going to tell us exactly what Dubya tells him to tell us, so Obama is focusing on something he may have some control over- the future of this country and the next presidential election.

Big thumbs up to Barack. IMO, the whole Petraeus thing is just a dog and pony show to get the surge (and subsequent flushing of billions down the toilet) to continue for another few months.........

Glad to see someone like Obama is focused on the future, and change for the better in this country, and not focusing on scripted responses from an administration that is bound and determined to continue this war, despite the will of the majority of the American public.

[Gags]

I don't blame him a bit. Petraeus is going to tell us exactly what Dubya tells him to tell us, so Obama is focusing on something he may have some control over- the future of this country and the next presidential election.

Big thumbs up to Barack. IMO, the whole Petraeus thing is just a dog and pony show to get the surge (and subsequent flushing of billions down the toilet) to continue for another few months.........

Glad to see someone like Obama is focused on the future, and change for the better in this country, and not focusing on scripted responses from an administration that is bound and determined to continue this war, despite the will of the majority of the American public.

X2

[Budman]

:blah: :bs: :troll: :feedtroll: :headbang: :deadhorse:

I don't blame him a bit. Petraeus is going to tell us exactly what Dubya tells him to tell us, so Obama is focusing on something he may have some control over- the future of this country and the next presidential election.

Big thumbs up to Barack. IMO, the whole Petraeus thing is just a dog and pony show to get the surge (and subsequent flushing of billions down the toilet) to continue for another few months.........

Glad to see someone like Obama is focused on the future, and change for the better in this country, and not focusing on scripted responses from an administration that is bound and determined to continue this war, despite the will of the majority of the American public.

[Gags]

:blah: :bs: :troll: :feedtroll: :headbang: :deadhorse:

Too funny.

[scottycards]

We need a "head in the sand" smilie.........

If we say it enough, it might just happen:
"the surge is working"
"the surge is working"

"the surge is working"

"the surge is working"

"the surge is working"

"the surge is working"

"the surge is working"

[Waifer2112]

We need a "head in the sand" smilie.........

If we say it enough, it might just happen:
"the surge is working"
"the surge is working"

"the surge is working"

"the surge is working"

"the surge is working"

"the surge is working"

"the surge is working"

And...

"If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here"


"If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here"


"If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here"


"If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here"

:D

[scottycards]

Maybe it's that he spoke his mind on the topic of the Iraq war 5 years ago.....
From Barack Obama's 2002 speech files:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don?t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That?s what I?m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He?s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I?m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let?s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let?s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let?s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let?s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn?t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

[Sound_Man]

And...

"If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here"


"If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here"


"If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here"


"If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here"

:D

X2

It would be nice for some people to wake up and see what the world is like outside the fence in their yards.

[Budman]

X2

It would be nice for some people to wake up and see what the world is like outside the fence in their yards.

SM, don't feed them. THey are spoiling for a fight. I refuse.

http://oldamericancentury.org/sailor.jpg

:flipoff2:

[Yota]

I watched the entire hearings in both the House and the Senate. The House hearings were actually rational but not one of the Senators was really there to get informed - including Republicans. They all had their minds made up before going into those hearings. These are our elected officials! We (collectively) put these senators in place only for them to sit there and grandstand and bloviate ad nauseum when they should have been trying to learn something.

Everything Petraeus and Crocker said exuded credibility and they had plenty of numbers and on-the-ground experience to back it all up. There's no way someone can sit before a committee like that and provide calm sensible answer after sensible answer - and be lying. They never tripped up. Not once. A liar could not have performed the way they did.

If anyone is ignoring the results of the surge, it's just willful ignorance - and willful ignorance is stupidity. They did NOT go in there and paint an artificially rosy picture of Iraq. They portrayed the good and the bad and told us their opinions. And that is what I find so ridiculous. These Senators do not have better information than Petraeus and Crocker yet they want to sit around and discount what those men had to say because the senators might be embarrassed and be forced to change their tune a bit. But that is exactly what Bush had to do in changing course in Iraq so these Senators need to rethink their positions in light of clear evidence as well.

Petraeus and Crocker did not "cherry pick" their data as Boxer claimed. They presented it all and not all of it was pretty. I was listening to all of it and I heard them say it. The Senators were selectively listening - especiall Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Feingold, Hagel, Kennedy, Kerry and Obama. They were just speechmaking. :thumbsdown:

[scottycards]

You decide between Liberal chick and Conservative chick-

Liberal chick:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u47/scottycards/schoolgirl.jpg

Conservative chick:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u47/scottycards/plainjanebibledoll.jpg

[Yota]

Yeah but the liberal chick has VD.

[Budman]

You decide between Liberal chick and Conservative chick-

Liberal chick:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u47/scottycards/schoolgirl.jpg

Conservative chick:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u47/scottycards/plainjanebibledoll.jpg

Too bad they are blocked...

[scottycards]

Too bad they are blocked...

You can probably guess, Bud- it's a Scottycards post, after all. Smokin' hot schoolgirl slut, vs. some girl who looks like she's on her way to youth group at the church- you get the idea.

VD? BAH! Not to worry, if you're a "Trojan Man"! :D

Political threads are much more fun when they're not serious. We all have our beliefs, they are all valid, and that's the beauty of this country. :beer: :thumbsup:

[Budman]

Political threads are much more fun when they're not serious. We all have our beliefs, they are all valid, and that's the beauty of this country. :beer: :thumbsup:

Which is why you got the liberal VD pic.

:beer: :flipoff2:

[scottycards]

Wait till you get home and see that chick. If all the lib chicks looked like that, you'd be running on a Democratic platform for sure.

She's definitely enough to sway my politics.

[Yota]

Damn. I'll take the VD in this case. That's why god made antibiotics.

[sames]

Who cares what her politics is as she moaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnns

MORE MORE MORE, YES YES YES YES

Talk dirty to me your conservative pri*k

:flipoff2:

[Steve]

You decide between Liberal chick and Conservative chick-

I dunno, Conservative chick can't talk - a potentially decision-making difference IMO. ;)

Political threads are much more fun when they're not serious. We all have our beliefs, they are all valid, and that's the beauty of this country. :beer: :thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

[Budman]

You got to pick your liberal chick, I think we should get to pick our rep as well

My vote http://www.wideworldofwomen.net/samples/2.jpg

[SMiTTY]

I don't blame him a bit. Petraeus is going to tell us exactly what Dubya tells him to tell us, so Obama is focusing on something he may have some control over- the future of this country and the next presidential election.

Big thumbs up to Barack. IMO, the whole Petraeus thing is just a dog and pony show to get the surge (and subsequent flushing of billions down the toilet) to continue for another few months.........

Glad to see someone like Obama is focused on the future, and change for the better in this country, and not focusing on scripted responses from an administration that is bound and determined to continue this war, despite the will of the majority of the American public.

:flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2:

Are you ****ing serious? Get your head outta the sand and pay attention to what is happening in the world. Think back 6 years fawker and what this world would be like if Gore was in office. Just about everyone voted for this war, and those fake ass Dems that flip flop are trying to blame shit on Bush! They had the SAME intel on this shit as Bush....But I guess you blame this shit on Bush too eh ?

:flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2:

[Gags]

The problem is that Iraq was not positioned properly. Would the people get behind and Congress vote for this war if they knew that we would eventually be in the middle of a civil war and chaos with the probability of turning Iraq into a becon of freedom being a nearly impossible goal to reach.

Dick Cheney knew what the situation was going to be like in 92' and 94'. He was right then. So, should the gov have tried to prepare the American people for this and tell them the negative possible outcome? I think so. Our goals in Iraq were unrealistic given the situation and history of the region.

[Budman]

I thought we has allowed this thread to degenerate to finger pointing, picture posting, and Silly name calling. Why are you guys being all serious again.

[Gags]

I thought we has allowed this thread to degenerate to finger pointing, picture posting, and Silly name calling. Why are you guys being all serious again.

Thuper therial...My bad.

[scottycards]

I thought we has allowed this thread to degenerate to finger pointing, picture posting, and Silly name calling. Why are you guys being all serious again.

Nothing serious here. I took my silly pills today. :shrug:

[Budman]

Me too I have been researching Chinese Executions all afernoon trying to find a credible source they they actually charged the families for the bullets.


Want to know what I have learned???

[ttim]

tell us!

[Budman]

Well you can see my mobile death van thread. Also, the state harvests the organs of the people they execute. All things concerning execution is considered a state secret. It also looks like in the old day the family had to pay for the bullet.

[Snotty]

Thuper therial...My bad.

Yeah Fawker! Where were you on beer brewing day? Bi-OTCH! :flipoff2:

[Gags]

Yeah Fawker! Where were you on beer brewing day? Bi-OTCH! :flipoff2:

Recovering from the night before...

[Snotty]

You can be hung over and still brew! Geez, Pete!

[ibscas]

X2

It would be nice for some people to wake up and see what the world is like outside the fence in their yards.

X3