Democrats don't have time to fit Iraq military briefings into their schedule

[JaJae]

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Funding the Troops

On March 8th they skipped the military briefing with the general on the ground. This was shortly after Pelosi's infamous visit to the middle east where she pretending to be the queen of peace between Israel and Syria.

These are people who claim to know what is going on in Iraq, yet refuse to go there and skip military briefings. Why should we as a country listen to what they have to say? When Reid says we've lost in Iraq, then changes his mind and says we haven't lost yet, we can only win if we pull out soon, ec... why should we as a country listen to what they have to say?

As far as I'm concerned if the Democrats can't be bothered to communicate with the people running Iraq they shouldn't bother attempting to legislate war plans from the states.

[JaJae]

Hotair just picked up this story as well with a little more info.

On April 9th only ONE Democratic Senator attended a briefing by Gen. Petraeus. How can we trust their votes and their legislation on Iraq if they make meetings with Code Pink a priority over Gen. Petraeus? The Democrats voted unanimously for this guy and now they won't even listen to what he has to say. What gives?

[JaJae]

Townhall.com::Madame Speaker, Meet General Petraeus::By John Boehner

Earlier this year, top Democrats in both houses of Congress refused to attend a bipartisan briefing offered by General David Petraeus to discuss the challenges in Iraq. Next week they’ll have another chance when the General comes to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers in the House and Senate on our progress in the Global War on Terror.

General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be the U.S. commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. He has a clear track record as a straight-shooter and as someone who gets things done. So one has to wonder why next week’s important briefing almost didn’t happen. According to Roll Call, when the Pentagon tried to schedule the briefing through House Democrats they were declined – twice – because Democrats were originally “too busy” to schedule anything.

Too busy? The only thing that could be more important than hearing from the top general in a war effort that is critical to America’s long-term national security would be providing our troops the resources they need to succeed. But Democrats certainly haven’t been busy doing that.

[motivez]

That Townhall article is a lot of , but little substance or truth.

They've funded the war effort and given the troops what they need to succeed in their spending bills, and it's up to the Republicans to convince President Bush that keeping the troops funded and compromising is more important than taking a political stand for his failed policies..

While I agree they should receive status updates on the goings on in the war, considering this guy is simply going to tout Bush's line about hard work and time and blah blah blah, I don't know that they should be as concerned as the article makes it out to be.. there's plenty of other ways to get information about what's happening on the ground.

[DosEquis]

The scariest part is that I think the president is so stubborn and arrogant, he would rather let it run out of funding and have the forced withdrawl based on that rather than compromise and alter the strategy in Iraq. Then he can try to politically shift the blame for everything to the democrats.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

there's plenty of other ways to get information about what's happening on the ground.

They could go there and talk to the troops and the people running the show. Most don't do that. Or they could talk to the people running the show. They're not doing that. The only other means to know what's happening on the ground is to pretend to know. I think that's what the majority are banking on. This is the guy they wanted there and the guy they wanted to communicate with on Iraq.

Now that he's there doing the job they sent him there to do, they don't want to hear from him because they would rather ignorantly legislate the war from DC.

[kinggovernor]

why attend a briefing when you have already made your mind up from thousands of miles away from the situation

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

......considering this guy is simply going to tout Bush's line about hard work and time and blah blah blah, I don't know that they should be as concerned as the article makes it out to be.. there's plenty of other ways to get information about what's happening on the ground.

So "don't go because he's just going to lie anyway"?

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

why attend a briefing when you have already made your mind up from thousands of miles away from the situation

Exactly.

[motivez]

This guy isn't the only source of information on Iraq, so lets not pretend that he is.. that charade doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.

He's going to spit out the Bush Administration's talking points on Iraq and talk about progress and everything else when one only need look at the statistics of violence (Which place this month to be the deadliest since December) to know that this round of their idiotic "surge" strategy isn't going to work any more than it has any of the other times they've increased the number of troops in country...

..So why not actually spend time governing instead of attending a PR event for the Bush Administration?

The idea that they're ignorant about the goings on is so laughable that I'm not gonna spend any time refuting it, it's simply wrong.

[motivez]

And I'm not saying they shouldn't meet with him, they should, but the idea that it should be their number one priority is a joke.. they have plenty of other things I'd rather them do than listen to talking points from a Bush lackey..

I'd much rather them sit down with the President and talk about spending bills and see if they can come to a compromise (if Bush actually knows what that means... somehow I doubt it), or work on passing legislation that's going to help the country.

[grembert]

Am I reading this article right? Did the Democrats not meet with Patraeus on one day because of a conflict but met with him two days later? If that is correct, what is the big deal?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The scariest part is that I think the president is so stubborn and arrogant, he would rather let it run out of funding and have the forced withdrawl based on that rather than compromise and alter the strategy in Iraq. Then he can try to politically shift the blame for everything to the democrats.

There is some part of the constitution about Congress having the funding authority. They are 100% responcible for it any provisions they try to make in policy attached to it. Bush is responcible for his Veto power. He stands behind it. He repeats his intention almost daily. So please spare me this chicken shit about how he is trying to blame democrats.

When will they have any responcibility other than to constantly complain. Since the 2006 election I am waiting?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

And I'm not saying they shouldn't meet with him, they should, but the idea that it should be their number one priority is a joke.. they have plenty of other things I'd rather them do than listen to talking points from a Bush lackey..

Well I guess they really don't need to then?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

And I'm not saying they shouldn't meet with him, they should, but the idea that it should be their number one priority is a joke.. they have plenty of other things I'd rather them do than listen to talking points from a Bush lackey..

I'd much rather them sit down with the President and talk about spending bills and see if they can come to a compromise (if Bush actually knows what that means... somehow I doubt it), or work on passing legislation that's going to help the country.

So because he was in favor of the surge and might have something good to say about the war he's a lackey?

I agree with you they should go, there's no doubt they should go, hearing opposing view points is the only way to find the truth and a rational view point, merely looking at statistics wont get us there either. I wouldn't necessarily dismiss him as a lackey because he may say something similar to the president.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by grembert

Am I reading this article right? Did the Democrats not meet with Patraeus on one day because of a conflict but met with him two days later? If that is correct, what is the big deal?

If they rescheduled and attended the meeting I agree, case closed.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

There is some part of the constitution about Congress having the funding authority. They are 100% responcible for it any provisions they try to make in policy attached to it. Bush is responcible for his Veto power. He stands behind it. He repeats his intention almost daily. So please spare me this chicken shit about how he is trying to blame democrats.

When will they have any responcibility other than to constantly complain. Since the 2006 election I am waiting?

They put forward a spending bill, I'd say they graduated from complaining. Not only that, their newest funding bill doesn't even REQUIRE they are all out by 2008. They set a goal for that. Not only that, there will be a new president who will put their strategy in place.

There is absolutely no reason why the president can't come to an agreement of some sort. Someone has to give before this summer or they will be forced to withdrawl, it is as simple as that. He could by more time by signing off this bill and adapting the strategy to fit.

[Donkey®]

Meeting rescheduled. Disaster averted.

[7960]

*this* one was rescheduled, probably because they took a lot of shit for completely skipping out on the one in march.