Open Thread

11 Comments

1. 

   BooMan on September 11, 2007 at 3:04 pm

   Paging Joe Klein.  Amb. Crocker says he has no memory of telling you ‘when the Maliki government falls, it might be a good thing.’  

2. 

   Brendan Skwire on September 11, 2007 at 3:11 pm

   Why bother watching? It’s not like anything he says is true.

   • 

     BooMan on September 11, 2007 at 3:23 pm

     to see if any senators have any principles…

     • 

       Brendan Skwire on September 11, 2007 at 3:36 pm

       oh, c’mon, you know the answer to THAT one already.

3. 

   michaelmt on September 11, 2007 at 3:27 pm

   I do think we’ve all–and especially MoveOn–fallen into a trap. In a total flip of the structure established by the constitution, Bush has put the onus for the conduct of the war on the military and we’ve bought it. George has never accepted responsibility for anything in his life, and doesn’t intend to do it now.

   By featuring Petraeus in an ad, MoveOn has put the blame on the military. Despite Bush’s tendency toward an imperial presidency, he’s quite happy with that. Why do we fall for it? Cute rhyme, no constitutional sense!

   • 

     DaveW on September 11, 2007 at 3:31 pm

     I agree. Much as I love MoveOn, this ad was totally counterproductive. Bush has decided to make Petraeus his face, and the ad just helps him succeed.

     • 

       skippybkroo on September 11, 2007 at 6:44 pm

       moveon is not run by very far-thinking people.

       i was put off by them a couple of years ago when they sent out a mass email extolling progressives to buy their book, which was at #2 on the best sellar lists, so it could become #1.

       the problem i had was that the #1 book was the richard clarke book against all enemies.

       it seemed to me to be counter-productive to try to knock a fellow progressive’s book out of the #1 spot for their own ego (and i said so here).

       as for the current brou-ha-ha, all i can say in moveon’s defense is, it’s a good thing the guy wasn’t named gen. buckhew.

4. 

   DaveW on September 11, 2007 at 3:30 pm

   I’ve been listening on and off, but my responses are too contradictory at the moment to be called thoughts. Petraeus comes off as the classic “good soldier” image, like Oliver North before him. Like all top generals, he’s a PR whiz, making sure to say “al Qaida in Iraq” and “Iranian-backed” as often as possible. And of course playing the sacrifices and dedication of the troops to the hilt.

   He’s also pontificating extensively on the geopolitical aspects of the occupation, which seems to me to be beyond his authority or responsibility. This makes him look like a dedicated mouthpiece for Bush, but I’m sure the media and the Dems will choose to ignore that.

   Questioning has been sometimes sharp, including from Obama, who I think comes off well. And I have to say that Lugar was as merciless in his questions and statements as any Dem.

   But I mostly go away just feeling the hopelessness of it all. I listened to Nir Rosen and Juan Cole over the weekend and came to believe that Iraq no longer exists — the US destroyed it irreparably. So all these hearings just seem like an irrelevant show. It probably no longer makes much difference what’s decided now — we and the world will not escape paying the terrible price for our foolish arrogance.

   • 

     on September 11, 2007 at 4:16 pm

     I agree with everything you say except for your final point: “It probably no longer makes much difference what’s decided now”.

     Yes, what’s decided now—namely, whether the US begins a real withdrawal as soon as possible, and definitely before Bush’s term is out—does make a difference, for two main reasons:

     1. The longer we stay, the more people will die for a lost cause. (Stories appearing over the weekend according  to which we can’t leave, because to do so would produce a bloodbath, are just propaganda.)

     2. If a withdrawal, which would amount to an official acceptance that the US has lost the war, is not begun before Bush leaves the White House, Republicans will be able to say that the Democrats lost the war (assuming the Dem nominee is not Hillary, so that the Dems capture the White House in 2008). If Dems are able to end the war (if not finish the withdrawal) before Bush’s regime ends, that could well finish off the Rethug Party. But if Bush is able to keep the war going, the Party will survive.

5. 

   Zandar1 on September 11, 2007 at 4:07 pm

   CNN is reporting that “30,000 troop cut” Petraeus mentioned is going to be announced by the Preznit later this week in his “We’re winning and I’m bringing the troops home!” speech.

   Mission Accomplished, indeed.

6. 

   billjpa on September 12, 2007 at 8:44 am

   Listened- not watched. Am angry as hell but much angrier at the Senators than at the stooges. That is where the problem lies. These pigs are so afraid of losing their access to the money trough that there isn’t one of them that is willing to call the stooges -Stooges_ or whatever.
    And to claim that they asked the “tough” questions is an insult. What tough questions?
    Why is shooting someone in a spefic point in the head different from another point?
    How does holding is excess of 20, 000 Iraqis in detention pens make for better relations with our new mideast friends?
    Why is there been no mention whatsoever of fact that there is still less than 6 hours a day of electrical service in Baghdad every day?
    How many cities are noy being forced to try and survive with vehicule bans in place?
     Just a smattering of the real questions that should have been asked.
    So stop the Bullshit folks.
     And here is the kicker that is ripping me now- Why are we continuing to say-“thankyou for your…..” every time anyone speaks to or about the troops!
    If anyone really cares and does not understand where I am going– just ask me!