« New Ads Targeting War Supporters McConnell, English, Drake, And Upton | Home | GOPer Drake: Iraqi Parliament Has "Better Track Record" Than Dem Congress »

Reid Blasts White House Over Petraeus Testimony

Harry Reid opens fire on the White House in a new statement, faulting the administration over the report in the Washington Post today saying that the White House is proposing that General Petraeus' September testimony on Iraq be conducted in a private briefing:

"The White House's effort to prevent General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker from testifying openly and candidly before Congress about the situation in Iraq is unacceptable. Not only does it contradict the law President Bush himself signed in May, but it appears to be yet another politically driven attempt to avoid giving Congress and the American people an honest and open assessment of a war we can all see is headed in the wrong direction.

"From the very beginning of this war, the Bush Administration has refused to level with the American people about its flawed policy. It has instead done everything in its power to escape accountability and mislead us about the reality on the ground. The result: an open-ended civil war that has taken nearly 4,000 American soldiers' lives and an Iraqi government that refuses to take responsibility for its own country.

"If the President is going to continue to ask American soldiers to fight in this civil war, ask taxpayers to spend $10 billion each month to fund this war and ask the American people for patience as he conducts this war, then those closest to the situation on the ground must give Congress and the American people a frank and honest account of this war free of White House political spin."

Look, the White House's game plan here seems obvious. The idea seems to be to control the actual "Petraeus report" by, well, writing it, while simultaneously trying to prevent Petraeus' testimony under Congressional questioning from being public, because it's unpredictable and can't be controlled.

Relatedly, is it just me, or have Dem Congressional leaders been less vocal than you'd expect, given that there's an intense public opinion war going on right now in advance of Petraeus' reevaluation of the war? The White House and its allies certainly haven't been quiet about it, aggressively arguing in every conceivable forum that the surge is starting to succeed and that "even war critics" agree with this. One hopes that this Reid effort signals an aggressive Dem effort going forward to link the administration's lack of credibility on Iraq to current White House efforts to control the message we'll be hearing in September -- and hence, to cast doubt on the September report itself.


26 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

If the dang surge is going so swell, why all the fear about Petraeus testifying in public???

user-pic

right, exactly...I think the worry is that petraeus could be unexpectedly candid. can't control public testimony...

user-pic

The Dem Congressional leadership is on vacation. We know how important that is, since they caved on the the wiretapping issue so that they could get out of town.

user-pic

Right. And the last impression of Democrats as a result? Spineless, and invisible.

Way to work the public relations, people.

user-pic

The Dems don't give a god damn what Petraeus has to say. In fact, they should be relieved that he isn't the one telling the story because he appears to be far more credible than the WH's political mouthpieces. They want the president's talking heads to present a glowing progress reports (a) as a means of protecting their own impotence on the issue in, presently and in the past, and (b) as a means of having more ammunition against war supporters in '08.

They think that more and more statements about how well things are going, set against the fact that everyone knows it ain't true, will help them next year. It's cynical and cowardly. They don't have the nuts to end the war because they don't want to be painted as pussies. Instead they let it continue on and try to paint it as Bush's problem, and thus the problem of everyone who supports the war.

user-pic

I'm afraid Petraeus knows all too well what he's doing. I don't think he will say anything to "weaken the American Public's will."

user-pic

Hey guys this isn't the Nader rally. That's somewhere else.

user-pic

I love people who troll comments that they disagree with. It adds a lot. Requires a lot of thought.

user-pic

Huh? Commenting on the terrible job Democrats are doing in the face of a concerted effort by the Administration to mislead the country is somehow equated with being a supporter of Ralph Nader??

You think the Democratic party is handling this PR campaign appropriately? Or do you think PR campaigns are beneath the Democrats?

And thanks for the troll rating--It's my first one.

user-pic

You will be receiving your second "trolling" shortly.

user-pic

My lucky day!

user-pic

I responded with all thoughtfulness you deserved.

user-pic

Are the Dems not commenting? or is the media still not printing their comments?

user-pic

Apparently all the thoughtfulness you could muster.

Or, why don't you try explaining why you think that the leadership has done such a good job with this PR campaign and its decision to drop its defense of civil liberties so that it could get out of town and join their colleagues in the Iraqi parliament on vacation.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin

user-pic

Um, fellas? I'm the one who troll rated you. Ripping Dems for not ending the war, for not cutting off funding makes as much sense as ripping passengers on the jet George Bush has hijacked for
not cutting off fuel to the engines. Even if they could it sure wouldn't make for a landing anybody'd be happy with.

Dems are the only game in town right now for sane people. What say we try to give them the tools (the votes) they need to get us out of Iraq, land the plane instead of bitching?

user-pic

If you would take the time to click on the about link for TPM Cafe, you'd see that this site is supposed to be

. . .a public meeting place to read about and discuss politics, culture and public life in the United States.

The last time I checked, a discussion involved "an exchange of views",  "consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation".  If you don't want to participate in a discussion, why are you on this site?  

The only one point of view thing has worked so well the last 6 1/2 years. 

user-pic

delete dupe post.

user-pic

I wasn't "ripping Dems" for not ending the war, etc, in any event--I was commenting on the sorry public relations job they've done--and you never answered the question that was asked: are you pleased with the fact that the only side we've heard from is the Administrations, now that Congress is in recess?

user-pic

For the record, I WAS ripping the Dems for failing to end the war, and for failing to take any meaningful action toward givig this country back to the people, and away from the Bush Crime Family. They've simply decided that they'll let Bush run out the clock and let his supporters hang on and drown themselves. They are taking for granted that the public will be repulsed LESS by them in '08 than the GOPers. It's a more passive-aggressive Rovian strategy. Instead of actively driving apart the GOP by appealing to the public, they are just betting on being able to tread water longer.

user-pic
The White House's effort to prevent General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker from testifying openly and candidly before Congress about the situation in Iraq is unacceptable.

Translation: We will squeal a little at first, then we will cave in, allowing General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to not only testify behind closed doors and without being sworn in, but we will also let Alberto Gonzales, Tom Delay and Karl Rove each vet the testimony before making any statements and sending whatever nasty letters we and Karl, Tom and Al feel appropriate.

And Bob Schrum, the DLC, 57 yellow-bellied blue-dogs and Joe Lieberman will rejoice.

P.S. I (heart) troll ratings........

user-pic

I think Harry Reid just did and Emanuel responded yesterday. In any event most senators and house reps are back in their districts where you can arrange meetings with them and tell them what you want to say to their faces.

Call their offices and insist on a meeting. Get the name of the person you're talking to. Don't take no for an answer, be polite but insistent. If she says she'll call back ask when you can expect that call. If she doesn't call back you call her back. Again be polite but insistent.

Put together a group of 4 to 6 people who will go with you. Six is about the max your average congressional office can handle. Download newspaper articles, preferably from mainstream/rigthtwing rags they trust, the more local the better, that show just how badly the war is going. They can't duck wire service stories printed in papers that endorsed them. Everybody should have a separate piece to say, there's enough disastrous tales to tell, overlap is an unnecessary waste of time. Your most effective advocates will be Iraq war vets who have learned the hard way, relatives of Iraq war soldiers, Vietnam vets, etc.

Dress nice, again be polite but insistent. If you can't get in for a meeting, check their website. This is the season for picnics, townhalls, Labor Day he or she will be somewhere meeting and greeting. Show up, again dress nicely, pretend you're a goddam Republican if you have to but get in that receiving line or just approach him with a big smile on your face like you're gonna thank him for that earmark, shake his hand, look him straight in the eye and tell him "you've got to get us out of Iraq. Occupying that country isn't the solution to the problem, it IS the problem." Enough people do that during this recess and Repubs will give us that vetoproof majority.

If your rep or senators are doing the right thing then in the next district over there's a wingnut that needs educating. Call the local county Dem party over there and see if they need any help doing the above.

This is how we end this war. Dems can't convince Repubs. They don't listen to them, they're the opposing team. We are the refs, the paying public and the owners up in the skyboxes rolled into one. Put the fear of the electorate into them and they will respond.

user-pic

Lemme ask you a question. With McConnnell warning there's a high likelihood of another big terrorist attack this summer on US soil what do you think were the chances that Cheney would take the opportunity that Dems might have presented by stonewalling the FISA bill to hire a few contractors to blow up big honkin truck bombs in the middle of downtown Portland OR, San Franciso and/or Las Vegas?

That may be tinfoil hat territory but would you put that past Cheney if he thought it'd turn their political fortunes around?

user-pic

It also has a troll rating. I used it. This isn't Kos, you don't lose anything by being troll rated
here. Get over it.

user-pic

In his confirmation hearing, ISTR Petraeus committed to brief Congress directly. Anyone remember a reference?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

user-pic

If you believe that, then I'm sure you expect him to rig something like this just before the election so that Bush can raise the terror threat to Red, close all government offices except for "essential" operations, declare marshal law and postpone the election indefinitely. That would make this whole conversation, website and Democratic primary (and the Repug) process irrelevant, so why bother.

Even paranoids have real enemies, but please.

user-pic

Nope, that'd backfire on them big time, might even start a revolution or a military coup. Think it thru. A massive attack as an excuse to postpone an election 70% of the country wants desperately when the only shred of support Bush still musters is because "we haven't been attacked since 9/11"? He'd lose the last of his support from the attack alone. Besides I think Bush and Cheney do want out. But they'd like to leave as something other than pariahs and without having what they consider their "good works" immediately dismantled by a Dem.

Blowing up a chunk of Portland, SF or Vegas in the middle of a standoff this summer with Reid and Pelosi OTH would have served Dick's purposes perfectly. It'd be the "I told you so" moment Repubs like that columnist from Philly have been dreaming of. "We could have stopped it if only Reid had passsed the bill!" would have been the cry. It would have flipped the odds in next year's election on it's head.

Maybe you think that's nuts. Maybe it is. But I still wouldn't put it past Cheney.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address