Democrats unpersuaded by Petraeus testimony

US Features

Apr 9, 2008, 8:32 GMT

Washington - The top US commander and diplomat in Iraq were unable to persuade congressional Democrats that US troops should remain there longer to capitalize on the year-old troop surge, which has seen improved security conditions. Army Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq speaks at a hearing held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. USA on 08 April 2008. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testified about the war in Iraq. EPA/STEFAN ZAKLIN

Army Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq speaks at a hearing held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. USA on 08 April 2008. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testified about the war in Iraq. EPA/STEFAN ZAKLINDuring the first of two days of congressional testimony, Democratic senators acknowledged that the troop surge - ordered by President George W Bush last year - had succeeded in reducing violence but pointed out that the Iraqi government had not made adequate progress despite gaining 'breathing room' under the buildup. The centre-left Democrats hammered at Petraeus for recommending that no further withdrawals of US forces should take place after the surge ends in July. Instead, the general told them that a 45-day withdrawal pause was needed before a decision can be made on further troop cuts. 'That is a clear, open-ended pause,' Carl Levin, chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee, told Petraeus. 'It seems to me that what you've given to your chain of command is a plan which has no end to it.' Petraeus refused to say whether there could be additional withdrawals after the proposed 45-day troop freeze ends in September, signalling that 140,000 soldiers could remain in Iraq indefinitely and could still be there when Bush leaves office in January. 'At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground, and over time determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions,' he said. Senator Joseph Biden, the former presidential candidate who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed frustrations over the Iraqi government's slow pace at overcoming ethnic and sectarian tensions. 'The purpose of the surge was to bring violence down so that Iraq leaders could come together politically,' Biden said. 'Violence has come down. But the Iraqis have not come together, at least not in the fashion that was anticipated. Iraq is still incredibly dangerous. And despite what the president said last week, it is very, very, very far from normal.' Bush has said that he will follow Petraeus' advice on troop reductions but is not expected to address his general's testimony until he gives a speech on Thursday, White House spokesman Dana Perino said. 'I wouldn't purport to report to you what the president agreed with or disagreed with, but you'll hear from the president on Thursday as to all the information he's gotten, how he's digested it and how he decides to proceed,' Perino said. Petraeus and Crocker said Tuesday that the progress in Iraq was 'fragile' and 'reversible,' and they warned that early troop pullouts would surrender Iraq to al-Qaeda terrorists and the neighbouring Iranian regime, risking a wider regional conflict. 'External actors, like Iran, could stoke violence within Iraq, and actions by other neighbours could undermine the security situation as well,' Petraeus said. The four-star general said that the troop surge has 'dealt serious blows' to al-Qaeda and other militant groups since violence and sectarian killings peaked toward the end of 2006 and into 2007. 'We have our teeth into their jugular, and we need to keep it there,' Petraeus said. Petraeus and Crocker spoke Tuesday amid a presidential campaign to elect Bush's successor. The US public remains deeply opposed to the war in Iraq, and surveys show voters want a speedy end to the US role in the Iraq conflict. The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates offered their views during hearings, with Hillary Clinton firing the first shot by declaring Bush's policy 'irresponsible.' 'It could be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised,' said Clinton, the New York senator and former first lady, who has pledged to initiate withdrawals within 60 days of taking office as president. The presumptive Republican nominee for the November 4 election, John McCain, strongly backed Bush's troop surge and has argued on the campaign trail that the United States has a moral obligation to stay with the mission and not abandon the Iraqi people. McCain, the Arizona senator, said the Bush administration in the four years after toppling Saddam Hussein's regime had 'mismanaged the war' but adopted the right strategy by deploying more troops a year ago. 'We're no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success,' McCain said. Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, said that a timetable for troop reductions should be enacted to pressure the Iraqi government into taking responsibility for the country. 'I believe that we are more likely to resolve (the conflict) if we are applying increased pressure in a measured way,' Obama said.

Your Talkback on this Story

Note posts made on our older Talkback system will still show below. However, new posts can only be made via the new system (above). We will export the old comments to the new shortly. You can still comment as a guest on the new system but it also allows you to login using various social network and other accounts.

Other features coming soon.

Talkback

page: 1

SP4: The Spoiled ChildrenApr 9th, 2008 - 12:42:42

This speaks volumes to the democratic philosophy of 'bring us only the news we want to hear'. They wanted Petreaus to tell them it's OK to greenlight reductions and he told them they'd risk giving up progress. Petreaus, correctly, told them they risk setbacks.

Notice that most of the talk about Iraq from a year ago is gone. None of the candidates are advocating total withdrawl anymore. Their mouthpieces are mouthing 'limited forces' and 'indefinite' deployments.

The dems banked on Bush rolling over, for political reasons, so they'd be able to blame him for leaving in failure and he didn't flinch. Now, they have this looming as their responsibility, and they are sh-tting their pants. Heck, I might just vote democratic just to see what happens.

Report this comment

SP4:' Good Morning General'Apr 9th, 2008 - 13:43:26

Sentor Biden: 'General, we have some pressing questions for you.'
Petreaus: '..oh, I understand Senator, go right ahead'
Biden: 'actually sir, I didn't write these sir, Move On dot Org did'
Petreaus: oh...well that's OK sir...'
Biden: 'uh...I didn't actually, get them off the Internet, I don't know how...but a staff member did...'

Petreaus: 'go right ahead Senator...'

Obama:'while Senator Einstein is preparing General, I thought I might proceed?'
Petreaus: uh...sure senator...'
Obama: as you know general, I'm running for president, and this Iraq thing is just a case of Herpes to me. Your job, as I see it, is to accomodate my efforts to be the first black President'
Petreaus: 'well sir, congradulations...let me see what I can do.'
Obama:'fine sir. Now General, how do you pull out, and make me look like Abe Lincoln, all at the same time?'
Petreaus: well sir, it would require some extensive staff analysis forst, but we could always just drop a fat boy on their asses, then send you to Michael Jackson's doctors!'
Obama:'...uh...gee...I never thought of that one...?'
Petreaus:'..benefits of a West Point education senator!'
Obama'...uh...let me get back to you on that sir...'

Hillary:'General, as you know, I'm running for President too, and I have the same issue before me! General, we need something to help us both win this war, exit by Jan 20 2009, and put me in office at the same time.'
Petreaus: Well, Ma'am..we could either go with the fatboy like senator lincoln over there, and send you to Demi Moore's doctors, I mean, the outcome is less sure than for senator Obama...well. those hips, ma'am....or...'

Hillary: 'Or what...general?'
Petreaus: 'well....I was thinking invade Iran, senator'
Hillary: General! Of all the hairbrained, half-assed, evil.......just how would that work, by the way...?'

Petreaus: Oh...it's a war you could love, Senator! Just like your husbands...bomb em from the air...few friendly casualties...limited success....send someone else's troops in to clean up...you know, a real politicians war senator!'
Hillary: 'Hmmmm...what would we tell the public?'

Petreaus: WMD's ma'am...guarenteed results...
Hillary: oh yeah...I forgot...works everytime...'

Senator McCain: 'Good morning general. Once again, like the others, I'm stuck with the same lemon general, and anything you can do to put a shine on this sh-t would be appreciated.'

Petreaus: 'oh..absolutely sir, after all, that's what were here for!'

McCain: Now genral, I don't really give a good goddamn what happens to those...'
Petreaus' 'towelheads sir?'
Mccain: 'I was going to say sandnig-rs, but towelhead will do...anyways I could care less, but my being president is all that matters.
Petreaus: oh..I understand sir...'
McCain: 'I doubt it general...unlike these other f--keads up here, I'm so tired of doing 20 years of the senate sh-twork, I just thought it'd be nice to do it from the Oval Office instead. Heck, blow jobs under the desk, full time help, more money...I mean heck!'
Petreaus: I understand perfectly sir. No use going back to Hanoi day after day...right?'
McCain: 'Right General!'
Petreaus: 'well, let me see what I can do folks, after all, I love my job...low pay..high risk...and at the end, folks like you who will declare me a failure, and give up our gains! By the way, senator McCain...do you have a phone number I can call in Hanoi?...I need a vacation...'

Report this comment

JerrodApr 9th, 2008 - 14:56:26

So McCain says Bush's administration mismanaged the war? Like everything else has been mismanaged -so what else is new? McCain approves of what is going on now and would continue the ungodly mess. He also says we shouldn't abandon the Iraqi people, but it sounds like they would hope the U.S. would do just that - get out. Among so many other problems, the so-called war in Iraq and all the blunders will definitely go down as Bush's most crowning legacy - one that he won't be able to escape no matter how many trips he makes overseas now thinking he will bring about world peace.........or whatever!

Report this comment

PperfectApr 10th, 2008 - 14:49:57

McCain is just Bush III. Nothing new, nothing as promised.

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumApr 10th, 2008 - 22:46:30

As usual not a word on this simple truth from SP4
70 percent of the US population thinks the policy of Bush in Iraq failed.70 percent of the Iraqi want the US troops to leave immediately,60 percent even support the insurgents .And SP4 continues to hallucinate as i these facts meant nothing .The uncalculable cost of the invasion and occupation in terms of human lives,refugees,financial abyss simply are not relevant to him .

Report this comment

SP4: Very Simple, Tonny...as usual...Apr 10th, 2008 - 23:30:44

..this is why Hillary and Obama have subordinates mouthing 'limited presence' and 'indefinite pullout times'. Sounds a lot like Bush, but then again...

The fact is, these chuckleheads don't want to be the one's who gave away the gains we have produced, and they know it. This is a real conundrum for the dems, for if they take office, the first demand they will have to address is how to explain this little betrayal to their sheeplike constituents.

Once again, as in free trade, the Republicans are being straight up with America and the war, saying they will do exactly what the dems are saying, but not saying.

On this, Hillary is the gold standard: she actually had her number one guy, the intrepid Mr. Penn, advocating a free trade deal with Columbia while she was campaigning AGAINST it.

Now visualize this:

Mr. Penn - paid lobbyist for Columbia....

Mr. Penn - also paid worker for Clinton....(a hard worker, pity HE's not running...) AND Clinton owes him money...(how will she pay THAT back???)

Penn lobbies Columbia FOR the deal....

while Hillary...

speaks AGAINST it!

Conclusion: Influence peddling, plain and simple. No biggie, Sandy Berglar was the last prick to do this for the Clintons and they seem to be very astute at this i.e. votes for money.

I guess they'll vote FOR a pullout before voting AGAINST it, too...!

Report this comment

page: 1

US

Democrats unpersuaded by Petraeus testimony

US Features

Your Talkback on this Story

Talkback

Similar articles

Latest Headlines in US

From Sites We Like

Latest PopEater News

Latest Cinema Blend News

Latest Tech Herald News

In Monsters and Critics

Corporate

The Fine Print