Dog N Pony
The nice thing about having two full days of Dog N Pony show is that you can keep it on in the background, like Muzak, and still feel like you participated. I’ve seen some–but not all–of today’s testimony.
The weird thing about the Dog N Pony is the way the upcoming elections really challenge the message discipline of the Republicans. Susan Collins sounded almost sane. John Cornyn sounded like he’s gonna get beat by Rick Noriega. And Joe Lieberman–safe from any upcoming challenge–sounded like the biggest Republican. John McCain even sounded stern and concerned and managed to avoid mentioning his 100 year plan. Republicans and Democrats alike rightly asked why, with $105/barrel oil, we’re still funding Iraq’s redevlopment–a question Petraeus and Crocker were unable to answer satisfactorily.
Kudos to Hillary for promoting herself to honorary co-Chair in order to give (as Thomas Ricks dubs it) the third opening statement of the hearing; presumably Obama will do the same this afternoon.
The other thing about these hearings (and the Iraq war generally) is you never know who will really shine. I liked Claire McCaskill’s line of questioning (she was incredulous when Petraeus declared Maliki the victor in his recent debacle in Basra), but I would have liked to see her press Petraeus some more. My prize for the best questioner–at least for the morning–is a tie going to Evan Bayh (whom I saw) and Jim Webb (whom I missed, but whose questioning Spencer Ackerman captured nicely). Both pointed out that Petraeus’ take on the overall value of staying in Iraq really didn’t account for our commitments elsewhere, most importantly on the border of Paksitan, where the guys who hit us on 9/11 still run free. Here’s Spencer’s description of Webb’s question:
Webb’s concerned about overstretch and the strain of the war’s required deployments on military readiness. He was incredulous: there’ll be 10,000 more troops in Iraq after the surge than there were there before? Quickly he moved to the wages of decreased readiness, noting that Al Qaeda continues to rebuild itself in Pakistan, implying that we won’t be able to meet needed challenges there. "The concern I have with keeping that level force in iraq, looking at these other situations, particularly Afghanistan… I’m curious at the level of agreement in [your] plan [comes from] the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?"
Petraeus didn’t want to touch that. All he said was that Admiral Fallon, the former head of Central Command, and Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were "fully informed." Webb and Petraeus gave each other what looked to me like thousand-yard stares. Webb promised that next week he’d ask Mullen that question.
Other than that, I’d like to highly recommend the liveblog of Thomas Ricks, my favorite "real" journalist to pick up the art of liveblogging. Ricks caught the thick tension between Joementum and the Democrats:
I don’t know if it is visible on television, but it looked liked there was a lot of teeth-gritting going on just now among the five Democrats sitting on the left side of the hearings as their erstwhile colleague (and vice presidential nominee)–Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) –lectured them on how much better the war in Iraq is going. Why wouldn’t they just be "honest," he asked?
[snip]
I’m not a political reporter, but I had to think that part of [Hillary’s statement on the irresponsibility of not considering withdrawal] was aimed at Sen. Joe Lieberman. Didn’t the Clintons help him in his recent re-election effort? I forget.
I suspect Sen. Clinton just hates being called irresponsible. If she got elected president, that might replace "inappropriate" as Washington’s favorite word.
And he has what (thus far, though it’s still early) the most astute observation of the day:
Also, where does a senator from Mississippi [Roger Wicker] get off invoking President Lincoln’s perseverance in the Civil War?
I guess Wicker isn’t as deftly thinking of his November election as Susan Collins.
Markets don’t seem to be impressed with the Petraeus God:
Dow industrials
-64.08 at 12548.35
Nasdaq
-22.27 at 2342.56
S&P 500
-9.82 at 1362.72
I know we already have a war czar, but maybe Bush can appoint a “Surge Czar” to coordinate, you know, all the success we don’t seem to be feeling.
It would be “Pause Czar”. Get with the program.
I liked the juxtaposition of the parts where Petraeus said the U.S.-trained Iraqis were not yet able to fight by themselves, and later (in response to Lieberman?) when he said that most of the Shiite militia capabilities were coming from the Iranians, in particular the ability to accurately target 170mm missiles (”only the Iranians have the capabilitiy to fire missiles that accurately” or something to that effect).
My takeaway: Petraeus believes the Iraqis themselves are inherently incompetent as a fighters/warriors without external help on either side.
So is this a proxy war?
Yes, this is a proxy war. Pity no one asked him that this morning. But this PM offers more hopes for some fireworks: Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, and Boxer, as well as Obama.
Plus, there are two genuinely sane Republicans: Lugar and Hagel. And we get to see if Smiling Norm is as concerned about re-election as Susan Colllins.
Hate I missed the D&P show, work sue does interfere with politics. Thanks EW for the blog ur great to do this. Hope u get to see Obama’s turn. I’m interested in see what he has to say.
I have butterflies about this, as the media (and Clinton) will want to paint him as wet behind those big ears, especially in this marquee confrontation with pool boy Petraeus. He hasn’t disappointed thus far, though.
The “Weekly Security Incidents” (nice euphemism) excel chart Ricks shows there looks a lot like my diversified portfolio.
Petraeus also said (to Lieberman?) that if Al Qaida in Iraq fails in Baghdad, then they are out of the picture. So if we are fighting Al Qaida (I think it was some branch/franchise of that organization that we are at war with) then why don’t we facilitate their expulsion from Baghdad? Then our mission would be over, n’est pas?
“n’est-ce pas”
Wow, the Iraqi economy sounds a lot better than ours.
All the factions were able to agree on a single flag? That’s progress!
I don’t mean to be rude or insensitive or anything, but your Ambassador Crocker is one of the most boring people I have ever listened to. I feel very sorry for your senators, trying to stay awake through this.
Are these guys ever going to grasp that this frame is totally outdated, does not work any more, and that no one believes them?
Nope. It is a requirement of the Village that one must always maintain the Potemkin Village illusion (Note: Original copyright by Catherine “The Great”. Further copyrighted by Walt Disney and now of course, licensed to the Repug Party).
Regardless of reality, regardless of consequences, regardless of even appearances, one must “endeavour to persevere”.
When does Obama speak? What’s going on with the hearings now?
Petraeus is still giving his opening statement. It can’t possibly go on much longer…..I think……
trying to get cspan to work from behind this firewall
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01139.html
Can you get the WaPo’s link? Very good quality picture, better than cspan’s site.
Obama is likely to be the 11th questioner–and Biden just started, so tune back in in about 45 minutes, though it’s likely to be closer to an hour.
i am doing cspan radio. seems to work, except that most of the talk sounds like BS, but that’s neither the firewall’s nor cspan’s fault.
So, now what exactly is the difference between the “The Pause” and “The Surge”?
I think the proper usage is “decelerated escalation.”
That was good!
Listening to The General squirm in front of Dodd.
I hope you don’t mind if I use that in future. I shall credit you.
If George Orwell were still alive, this would kill him all over again.
I was just reflecting on whatever happened with the use of the word “escalation.” So I’m going to do my part–and I welcome you to do your part too–to bring it back into common usage.
The “Pause” is an effort to forestall the “Climax” a “Surge” might prematurely induce. Bush explains:
The Pause is like a condom then, stretches out the action.
It’s going to be a long, hard slog.
LOL.
More scintiallating liveblogging from Ricks:
I believe Kerry is up next.
Should be, though sometimes the order gets shifted because of some other commitment.
Gotta say, Hagel spoke so long, you’d almost think he was running for President.
I think Hagel’s running for Veep. On an Obama ticket.
Ah. Good point.
I’m sure Jake Tapper will let us all know soon enough, because we need to “make sure our leaders are telling us the truth, and leading the country down a path we’re confident is the right one.”
Heh.
At least Hagel is whacking on Crocker. Where’s Condi?
I should say something nice here, as a bit of an illegal camper. You guys have some good senators. I admire what they do. Have I missed Feingold, who I admire especially? (Why isn’t he running for prezzie?)
Oops. “whom.” Gah.
Feingold comes second person after Kerry, if they go in order.
And the reason Feingold is not running for prezzy is because he’s a hardass and therefore not well loved in the caucus.
See also, failed but noble prezzy campaign of Chris Dodd.
Kerry: We have rented the allegiance of the Sunni leaders in the Sunni Awakening.
Kerry still makes me want to cry. What could this man have done if only he could overcome his addiction to blather?
What could this man have done if only he hadn’t voted for the war.
The vote for the war was merely a symptom.
A bit OT, but I think Tom Ricks owes EW some flowers. I wouldn’t have looked at his blog if not for the link here, and must say that if I were a teevee station, what WaPo has done with the video links from Ricks’ liveblog would scare the sh*t out of me.
Nice for me – I don’t have time to see it all, but I’m really glad to be able to just watch Levin, and Webb, and a few of the others. (BTW: Is it just me, or are Crocker and Petraeus aging rapidly…? Maybe they’re eating whatever it is that GWBush is eating…. ick!!)
Pardon the intrusion, but didn’t Webb question this a.m.? I thought he’d be at the WaPo site, but don’t find a clip there. Was he questioning this a.m.?
Smiling Norm coming up. Will he pick the Susan Collins route or the John Cornyn route? Is he ready to face Franken?
We need to get out and let the “Iraqis” solve their problems. One problem… we need their oil!
Norm Coleman quoting a David Brooks column?!? Real original thoughts there.
Poor David Ignatius. The guy never gets quoted.
Can we drink every time someone says synergy?
Hey I just realized something. Diaper Dave is on SFRC, too. Suppose he’ll be a little more focused than he or his driver was yesterday?
Senator Huggies?!
Where did Coleman pick up that Boston accent?
Brooklyn. He was born in Brooklyn.
Coleman is originally from Brookly, IIRC, and I believe he did his undergrad at Brandeis. During the Vietnam war he was an active draft protester. Burning cards, the whole bit.
Fascinating tidbit.
Oh Goody, Russ is up!
Yes, Webb was this morning.
Technically, he could double dip, since he’s also on SFRC. As could Bill Nelson.
Thx!
Damn. Russ Feingold is operating at the Genius Level of Senatorial Bullshit Calling; given the financial bailouts on Wall Street, one might wonder about the ‘patriotism’ of the Bear Stearns execs, given their assistance to (Osama Bin Laden’s hopes of) bankrupting the U.S.
I’d vote for Russ (no one will let me do that, of course). He spoke to the regional war, whose centre is in Pakistan. Predictably, he got no answer at all from Crocker and absurdity from Petraeus. But that was well done.
Oh, I’d ALWAYS vote for Russ. It’s the surprises (people like Evan Bayh) that I find make these things worthwhile.
If that is the highlight, it is time for another vacation…. Jeebus.
We need a streaker to liven up this hearing.
Obama MAY be next up after the next Republican. It’s Bill Nelson’s turn. But since he already had a turn this morning, he may not use his this round.
Boxer reminds me of my mother when I was 15. “After everything I’ve done for you!”
Are you saying Obama will be more captivating than a streaker?
Oops. I honestly thought you said speaker.
Why are they letting them get away with claiming that (a) al Maliki “won” and/or al Sadr asked for the ceasefire, and (b) that the recent fighting was against Iranian-backed militias?
Biden:
Where’d Dick get kissed when he was in Iraq?
Voiny
We’ve got to pull out because we’re out of money.
Damn. Even the Republicans are finally making sense now.
Jeebus, Voiny just said Obama may be next POTUS.
He sounds like a dirty fucking hippie, and is basically advocating for phased withdrawal.
Did he say Obama? How do we know he wasn’t referring to Clinton or McCain?
Obama’s on SFRC. Hillary isn’t, nor is McCain. He was pointing to the other side of the dais.
Oh yeah. Getting my committees confused.
Wow. Isn’t that kind of unusual? He sounds upset.
Voiny occasionally can be quite sane. Remember, he was the one who sunk the BOlton nomination.
I think Crocker just realized he has failed to accomplish what Bush asked him to. He has failed to even keep the Republicans aboard.
I thought that Voinovich was very close to tears, which I approve of, for sure, and I think it’s important that someone should finally confront utter bores and time-servers like Crocker and Petraeus with human tears, especially effective if it’s a male Republican senator who does it.
Very nice to watch Obama being polite and civilized, but what I will remember is Voinovich.
I love it when the Senators confess what books are on their bedside tables.
Go Voinovich – (sort of like this) “Do you realize that that is where we are today? We are bankrupt and the gravy train to Iraq is coming to an end. Is anyone over there telling the Iraqis this?”
Biden asks Voiny to stop saying that Obama will be POTUS, bc he doesn’t want to throw people out for cheering Obama.
Obama up now.
Barry’s up now.
Ha ha. The people over at the WaPo livechat are all, “SHHH! Obama speaks!”
I do believe Obama is impressing Bill Nelson. Look at that smarmy astronaut smile.
Is that what that is?
Gotta say I am SOOOOO grateful that Obama is asking qusetions, rather than giving a campaign speech. This is good.
Too bad his questions, well, suck.
I don’t think the purpose is the kind of gotcha qusetions. It’s actually pinning them down. Not a good sound bite, but I believe it will become useful going forward.
In other words, he’s doing his job, not running for President.
Okay, now he’s running for President.
With the camera on him how could he not?!
Yeah, but he’s undercutting BushCo’s witnesses–trying to get them to commit to some endpoint. He’s got Bill Nelson nodding. And they’re genuinely puzzled.
It makes for shitty teevee. But it is really really important to do.
You see that; others could easily see something else. With excerpts of a cold transcript, or video snippets, the entire Obama time allotment could be played any way you want to frame it, including supporting Crocker and Petraeus. I don’t disagree with your overall take on it in the least; I just wish it had been less open ended and rambling on the questions and permitted answers. More direct, critical and pointed so as to really make a clear case. Like the Biden snippets where he backed them in a corner of no escape.
I wasn’t looking for gotchas. I was merely hoping for prefaces to questions that don’t grant so many pro-war talking points as given.
Yeah, well, up until this closing soliloquy maybe. This is lame
If I am interpreting jive correctly today, The Man Called Petraeus just claimed that what it will take for success is for us to knock off some more Number 3’s of AQ. I am impressed, but wonder exactly how many he has in mind….
Voinovich is a weeper.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Nope, just making note of the past history of his tear ducts.
Well, I’m a naïve alien, but I was very moved by V’s frustration, and I was glad he did that.
I am a lot more uncomfortable with the more sophisticated questions coming from supposedly more liberal senators. However liberal they are, they obviously feel that they have to prove themselves tough on the national-security front, and as a naïve alien, I gotta tell you, that never makes me feel good.
I would rather see someone having a good cry, since that’s what I do, and I assume it’s what most other people are doing if they aren’t members of the Bush administration.
Seven minutes seems longer these days….
Does anyone know if this is Crocker’s daughter?
http://www.csis.org/component/…..ew/id,272/
I just zipped thru you guys’ commentary in about 5 minutes. I have a big grin on my face and here’s my takeaway:
Voinovich is a weeper. Norm Coleman is from Brooklyn. Hagel is running for VP on the Demo ticket. Biden doesn’t like the cheering for Obama, who isn’t running for President today. Diaper Dave hasn’t spoken yet.
Oh yeah, and if Orwell was alive we’d kill him again and the term “decelerated escalation” is about to make a comeback.
You forgot Nelson has a smarmy astronaut smile.
(And not to be too crude or anything, but he sounds like he’s got something wedged up his booty.)
Is that what causes that Chester the Molester smiles of Nelson’s?
Not sure….maybe he just needs a change of padded undergarments? Where’s Vitter’s diaper bag when you need it….
Gee, I thought that real live Astonaughts had some special super-duper diapers that allowed superhuman things.
Hate to be all serious and everything, particularly with Sparkles standing up for Nelson’s astronaut smile, but I started a new thread here.
The problem with this “taking our hand off the bicycle seat” analogy is that the bike rider is now an adolescent and has been trying to learn to ride for 5 years…..if you’re this kid’s parent you just say, “Fuck it, this kid ain’t never gonna learn” and push him down the hill.