Why did every Dem Senator on the SFRC praise Petraeus and Crocker?

[ProSense]

Aren't they liars and dishonorable men? Didn't Petreaus "betray us"?

Some of their opening remarks were especially full of praise and thanks.

[babylonsister]

1. Manners, I'm thinking, nothing more or less. nt

[WCGreen]

19. It's just the way they always have treated people...

Unless you're a democrat hauled up in front of a GOP controlled panel..

[Adelante]

2. Because they're holding Bush responsible for the report

As they should.

[ginnyinWI]

8. agree--the buck stops at the Oval Office. n/t

[jmp]

11. The traitor with the chest full of ribbons ...

Is providing political cover for the President. As long as wanker keeps spinning happily ever afters to Bush's fairytales, Bush can keep this war going through the end of his term.

[FormerDittoHead]

26. Exactly. As long as he's stepping up to provide the flack, there's no reason to kiss his ass.

If I was being cross examined on the witness stand, I don't think the other side's attorney would spend 5 minutes telling me what a great person I was.

The only thing he deserves is "Good morning General, now what is the P*L*A*N?"

I just heard him going on about how we can't abruptly pull out all of our troops, as if anyone has suggested doing that.

If he wants to disrespect us by tying up our time in politically framed, straw man arguments, then I say shut the fuck up, and tell us what the PLAN is - ie: get everything to hold over until the next administration can be pinned with the blame).

[JDPriestly]

3. The Senate Dems are obsequious, completely cowed after

all the years of Republican domination. And the Republicans are "dominators" a la the book The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[jmp]

4. Political cowardice. (nm)

...

[obama_girl]

10. amen

this

[ProSense]

13. Obama's was the most full of praise and thanks, followed only

by Feingold.

[ShortnFiery]

21. I used to work in Protocol for a Brigade Sized unit. As such, I've met dozens of General Officers.

With three excellent exceptions, General Officers are not much different than disgustingly CORRUPT Politicians: As a Group, General Officers are highly intelligent Con-Men who will say whatever it takes to serve the political goals of their immediate superiors.

Why people allow themselves to be blinded by all those stars and pretty ribbons - blows my mind! They're no better than the homeless people that I'm acquainted with through my local shelter. Hell, at least many of the homeless are emotionally challenged or have a great deal more personal moral character than these "Errand boys" for The Military Industrial Complex.

Gawd, I despised the political games within the Officer Corps. It should come as no surprise that I resigned my Regular Army commission *the minute* my required Active Duty time was met. It's a miracle that I was able to honorably gut-out four years active duty in the US Military, i.e. PLUS one throbbing duodenal ulcer. :blush:

[ProSense]

25. That's some generalization.

Were you that way when you were on active duty? Also, if that's they all are as you say, "highly intelligent Con-Men," why so surprised by Petraeus?

[ShortnFiery]

37. That's my personal experience. Yes, I've always resented unbridled authority.

Why do you think I resigned my Regular Army Commission? My husband was saddened although he went on to complete a career in the Marine Corps. I have not seen combat but I've seen a great deal of corruption.

With regard to Generals that we all know, I hold the greatest respect for General (ret.) Anthony Zinni. Zinni warned the neo-cons, but they wouldn't listen. :(

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/zinni-iraq-conditions-pr.cfm

October 30, 2002

General Zinni: I'm not convinced we need to do this now. I am convinced that we need to deal with Saddam down the road, but I think that the time is difficult because of the conditions in the region and all the other events that are going on. I believe that he can be deterred and is containable at this moment. As a matter of fact, I think the containment can be ratcheted up in a way that is acceptable to everybody.

I do think eventually Saddam has to be dealt with. That could happen in many ways. It could happen that he just withers on the vine, he passes on to the afterlife, something happens within Iraq that changes things, he becomes less powerful, or the inspectors that go in actually accomplish something and eliminate potential weapons of mass destruction but I doubt this that might be there.

The question becomes not one of whether there are other options at this moment, because I think there are. The question becomes how to sort out your priorities and deal with them in a smart way that you get things done that need to be done first before you move on to things that are second and third. My favorite analogy in this light is to shoot the wolf on the sled, and don't be popping the one in the wood line. He's not the one that's going to eat you right away. I think this wolf can be left for another shot. There are plenty of wolves on the sled.

If I were to give you my priority of things that can change for the better in this region, it is first and foremost the Middle East peace process and getting it back on track. Second, it is ensuring that Iran's reformation or moderation continues on track and trying to help and support the people who are trying to make that change in the best way we can. That's going to take a lot of intelligence and careful work. The third is to make sure those countries to which we have now committed ourselves to change, like Afghanistan and those in central Asia, we invest what we need to in the way of resources there to make that change happen. Fourth is to patch up these relationships that have become strained, and fifth is to reconnect to the people. We are talking past each other. The dialogue is heated. We have based this in things that are tough to compromise on, like religion and politics, and we need to reconnect in a different way. I would take those priorities before this one. My personal view, and this is just personal, is that I think this isn't number one. It's maybe six or seven, and the affordability line may be drawn around five.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

[obama_girl]

38. damn

:(

[Totally Committed]

5. Why start doing anything even remotely courageous now?

The shock could kill those of us paying attention.

TC

[polichick]

6. They're playing by the rules...

...in spite of that fact they're being played by thugs and liars.

[SteppingRazor]

7. It's the United States Senate, not a dogfight

They were also fairly kind to Alberto Gonzales in their opening statements. Hell, RFK was somewhat nice to suspected commies in opening statements. That's just the way the Senate operates.

[ShortnFiery]

17. Hello! There are many examples of fisticuffs in the early days of our Country.

There are a few notable exceptions, but the lion's share of our *GUTLESS* Democratic Senators need to realize that they serve their constituents NOT their personal careers and corporate pay-offs. :grr:

[SteppingRazor]

23. I can't think of a single example other than Charles Sumner getting beat down...

And in that case, Sumner was a courageous, decent fellow who spoke out against slavery and advocated against compromises such as the Fugitive Slave Act. Brooks, his assailant, was a cowardly pissant who beat Sumner senseless while the man was seated at his desk, not even giving him time to stand, while one of his fellow Southerners pointed a gun at anyone who tried to help.

Is that your model for bravery? For doing the right thing? Not me.


I'm actually completely in agreement that the Senate could take a stronger stand on things. But I'm not sold that such a stance is best carried out through viciously -- either physically or verbally -- attacking the opposition. We don't need to do that. Like Charles Sumner, we've got the truth and decency on our side. Canings and sucker punches are for cowards, not heroes.

[ShortnFiery]

28. Then it's time to check US Congressional History: Here's a start -

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly39.asp

Yes, unfortunately from time to time the passion which arises in debate over differing views on policy issues transfers to hostile personal feelings between Members. It doesn't happen often, but when an exchange becomes physical, the incident gets a lot of attention precisely because such episodes are rare in this century. In the 19th century, dueling was a widespread solution for personal disputes, as were fists, knives, canes, and fire tongs. Leading citizens carried loaded pistols, and that included Members of Congress! We can all be relieved that in our time, occasional shoving and tie-pulling matches have replaced more lethal weapons.

IMO, we need to *recapture the PASSION* not the violence.

Dammit, the Senate is NOT a Fraternity where a bunch of millionaires talk smack and decide how to WASTE the people's hard earned tax dollars. These men and women need to remember that WE THE PEOPLE are who they represent NOT the Executive Branch nor The Military-Industrial Complex.

THE PEOPLE WANT THIS OCCUPATION TO END. PERIOD. Hello? Senators? Are you listening to your constituents OR the sound of your own arrogant voices?

[mdmc]

9. You are either a terrorist or a good German

[GeorgeGist]

12. I guess they still believe ...

that lipstick can make a pig fly.

[kenny blankenship]

14. They don't want to be portrayed as sabotaging the General's effort, hostile to him

and his mission at every turn.

And they would surely be portrayed that way if they failed to sniff his butt. They are going to be portrayed that way anyhow in RW fever swamps, so best not to give the other side actual ammunition to use against you by scorning an officer in uniform. (Don't forget that the RepoNazis are at the same moment trying to force the Democrats to publicly denounce Moveon.org's "Betray-Us" ad) It's a way of trying to make your criticism of an opponent's case, charts, and numbers appear as fair minded criticism, not implacably hostile criticism. Everyone understands that once a disagreement becomes personal the perceived rationality of the arguments is bound to take a hit. Well OK, not everyone understands--people with deep personal problems don't get this. To preserve the rational credentials of your criticism, it's best not to appear emotionally overwrought and personally hostile to the object of your criticisms or to your opponent in debate. (And it doesn't help your rational cred any when there are demonstrators present, attempting to speak for and speak overtop of your side of the debate, whose starting position is being emotionally overwrought and personally hostile.) If you know it will be claimed by the other side's media cheerleaders that you are overwrought and hostile even if you aren't you can (try to) inoculate yourself against this charge by pretending to be the opposite: you can't be hostile to your critical target if you praise him and appreciate him. Then you can proceed to doubt the honesty of his numbers and the validity of his conclusions.

There's a reason they call what these people do for a living politics.

[sandnsea]

15. focus on Bush's Endless War

These men are pawns. They are not the fight. Bush is the Commander in Chief and sets the war strategy. HE is where the focus needs to be. His plan is to continue the death and destruction.

[ShortnFiery]

16. IMO, they praised General Peaches because the Senate has morphed into a Fraternity.

What else can one surmise when an LIBERAL Senator such as Barbara Boxer helps campaign for Joe Lieberman? In fairness to Boxer, she backed away when Lamont won the Democratic Primary. However, The GOOD Democratic Senators must take the gloves off and serve the PEOPLE via The USA Constitution.

Damn! Also, IMO, we need term limits and to gut the lobbying in order to stop all the political schmoozing and "ass grabbing" for personal gain and corporate profit. :(

[ProSense]

18. How will that change behavior?

Webb is a freshman Senator who was elected to end the war and couldn't find it in himself to vote to cut funding in May.

Two other new Senators voted to for Bush's FISA bill.

Are these Senators part of the "political schmoozing and 'ass grabbing' for personal gain and corporate profit" crowd?

[ShortnFiery]

34. Then we are going to have to clean house. I have faith that Webb will catch on.

He's my Senator and he does RESPECT and do HIS BEST to support the troops through legislation.

Webb will come around - he's bright and not ideologically insane. ;)

[TwilightGardener]

20. Um, I don't think the general attitude is that Petraeus and Crocker

are dishonorable liars--maybe by DU, but obviously not in the Senate. It would be discourteous, off-putting, and bad PR to attack them personally. They're not being brought up on charges today--just stating what they know about Iraq.

[hayu_lol]

22. The Repugnants have nevef backed off from any of their crap...

Our people have turned into GD fools. We should remind them of that at every opportunity.

Smart enough to cash their paychecks but dumb enough to try and be polite. This is no longer a time to be polite.

[TwilightGardener]

27. Petraeus and Crocker do not represent Republicans, at least not in their professional

capacities (well, they shouldn't be, LOL)--they are public servants--to personally attack them in a partisan fashion will only make us look bad. I think our Senators know how to be diplomatic and still get the Dem position on the war heard. I thought the Senate FRC did great today. No complaints.

[ShortnFiery]

30. No these two stooges represent their masters within The Military Industrial Complex.

War = Good

Perpetual War = Ambrosia (war profiteering galore) :grr:

[TwilightGardener]

32. Perhaps, but you surely understand that the Senate Democrats

can't really treat them like poo on the TeeVee. A whole lot of America probably respects these two at least a little--would look bad to attack them personally. You wouldn't even expect Feingold to say, "Hey you MIC warmongers! How many kids did you kill today?" Ain't gonna happen--bad PR. There's nothing wrong with treating people with the respect their positions command, anyway, as long as they don't go soft on questioning.

[ShortnFiery]

33. True, but they don't need to slobber all over them - they need to realize that The People ...

aren't buying those "delicious shit-sandwiches" (permanent occupation of Iraq) that General Peaches and Crock-er are trying to sell to the public. :puke: :thumbsdown:

No, they need to realize the This is America. We broke off from England because we didn't ADORE unbridled authority. :shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

35. My teeth do hurt when I hear the sugar being poured on, but in a way

it's a political necessity--the Repubs have framed any hard questioning of GenP as attacking the troops and being unpatriotic, so Dems have to prove they're pro-troop. Hagel said it best in his opening remarks today: To question strategy is NOT unpatriotic--wish a Dem had said that.

[ShortnFiery]

36. No, with respect, it's not necessary. We have no support - no forth estate.

therefore, as democrats, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather go down fighting because the Military Industrial Complex RUNS the Main Stream Corporate Media.

Truth is, we will NOT EVER get fair press coverage as long as these large media corporations call the shots.

In other words, let's fight the good fight because "the media" will spin anything our representatives say to the negative.

IMO, Pull no punches Congress! :thumbsup:

[ShortnFiery]

24. Then, with respect, The Senate needs to WTF up to REALITY - these are Con-Men.

The truly honorable Field Grade and General Officers have long since been purged by Rumsfeld, et. al., or have retired, in protest. All we are left with now are Spring-Butt Con Men who only choose to serve the interests of The Military Industrial Complex.

I'm fully behind MoveOn.Org in their efforts to weed out war-mongering congress-critters who have that "I love authority" crush on these morally bankrupt General Officers. :thumbsdown:

[TwilightGardener]

29. Aside from basic courtesy and gratitude for their service (which IS

dangerous and a separation from their families), I don't think most of the GOOD Senators from either party showed an excess of awe over the medals, or an excess of kow-towing. There were some hard-hitting speeches and questions today.

[ShortnFiery]

31. Oh Stop, General Peaches didn't see any combat action until 2003.

My father was battlefield commissioned in Italy during WWII. He was one of the few men who was able to maintain his Commission and later taught "demolitions" at West Point. My brother almost didn't return from Vietnam.

My father and brother experienced combat action, often and repetitive.

Before he succumbed to Alzheimer's effect, my father told me that he did NOT want to kill the German Soldiers in that machine gun nest but he had to do so to survive. He also shared with me that he cried before the rest of the company caught up to him. He looked down at the 17 year old German boy who he had shot through the chest and cried out, "You never did anything to me."

My dad NEVER bragged about military campaigns - he despised WAR. As do all truly honorable SOLDIERS.

General David Petraeus is NOT an honorable soldier - he's a con artist for the political elite. :thumbsdown: