My latest column at PJ Media is about the Petreaus hearings. A sample:
There are few things in Washington that get the political juices flowing more quickly than an important Congressional hearing. Part heavyweight title bout, part high school musical, when the gavel comes down and the kleig lights click on, America’s leaders paste on their most serious faces and prepare for their five minutes of notoriety with all the care and solemnity of a bride getting ready for her walk down the aisle.
The Petreaus-Crocker vs. The Congress tag team title match was, if nothing else, a marvelous illustration of the dysfunctional nature of our politics. Lawmakers were not there to get information; they either knew what was going to be said or, more rarely, didn’t care. Neither were most of our legislators seriously going to weigh all the testimony given and then make a careful, studied decision on what to do about Iraq. There are far more important determining factors in making that decision; like whether or not the folks back home will give the them the heave-ho for voting against their wishes come election day in 2008.
This is why rather than asking the witnesses questions, members generally gave speeches about why they support/oppose the surge, usually concluding by asking some rhetorical question along the lines of “How many times did you beat your wife today, General?†or “Why do puppies find you so irresistible, sir?â€
7:40 am
oh, and dont forget Biden and others telling the kind General and Ambassador to SHORTEN their answers!!! Being from Cal. the Boxer spew really ticked me off.
11:27 pm
What did you expect Rick? It never occured to the democrats when they agreed to send Gen. Petreaus to Iraq that his strategy would be so successful. If he continues to be successful it will probably cost them the 2008 elections and it looks like the outcome is slipping out of their control.
3:11 pm
The former mayor said his ad “will obviously take the opposite view†from MoveOn.org, which argued in its ad that Gen. David Petraeus is “cooking the books†on Iraq and cherry-picking facts that support his recommendation to keep a large number of troops in Iraq for some time.
-Rightwing Nuthouse
Move On, I will agree, chose a silly play on words that was inappropriate, and inaccurate as well.
However, they are absolutley correct that General Petraeus, generally speaking, did cherry-pick his examples and did paint a deceptive picture of the situation in Iraq. I don’t think he lied. I think Petraeus is an honest man. But it is an easy thing to point to Sunnis fighting against al Qaeda in Anbar, but it is easier still to fail to point out that the Sunni tribes fighting against al Qaeda are just that, and nothing more. It does not mean things are better in Iraq, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the surge has improved things in Iraq, or that the same Sunni tribes will support al-Malaki’s government! (And, insofar as these tribes are effective, their leader was blown to bits the day after the President’s speech!)
In his testimony, Petraeus declined under questioning to say that the war in Iraq is doing anything to make America more secure; that is, he failed to endorse Bush’s fantasy. He is an honest man.
Guiliani, on the other hand is a proven liar. He lied to Chris Wallace, of FOX News (you like THEM, don’t you?), as this video plainly demonstrates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0E0wfShJ58
You’re just wrong about the “stupidity” of Move On, except for their choice of a bad headline for one advertisement), and if you think Guilliani is NOT stupid (for putting his Emergency Command Center in the WTC) or if you believe he is not a liar, you’re just plain wrong, mister.