Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NormsRevenge; elhombrelibre; Allegra; SandRat; tobyhill; G8 Diplomat; Dog; Cap Huff; ...
Closing of the article....:

*********************EXCERPT**********************

With Petraeus and Crocker spending two high-profile days on Capitol Hill to appear before four committees, the Democrats have a chance to undercut the White House story—which has gained traction within the media (if not within the public)—that the surge has been a success. In the opening round, they did not do much to inconvenience Petraeus and Crocker. It was not an entirely triumphant appearance for the pair, but it was good enough for anyone who favors a continuation of the current course in Iraq, and that includes their boss in the White House.

2 posted on 04/11/2008 9:57:36 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: All
H/T to Belmont Club for pointing to Corn' article:

"People hearing without listening"

***********************EXCERPT*********************

David Corn is depressed at the inability or incapacity of Congressional Democrats to discredit the Surge.

****************************snip*********************

See the above posted article

******************************

Corn thinks the "big news" in Petraeus testimony is that there isn't going to be a definite drawdown to pre-Surge levels any time soon. He may wish to consider another candidate for the headline. Admiral Fallon left CENTCOM amid rumor that he and Petraeus had clashed over the subject of how to respond to Iran. A recent spate of articles quoting Petraeus shifting the focus of operations to Iranian and Iranian backed groups suggests that the real context of the Surge and what follows is no longer driven by events in Iraq, but in its Islamic neighbor. That change in emphasis the "real news". Petraeus said in his testimony to Congress:

*****************************snip**************************

It's hard to say what lies ahead. My guess is that Petraeus himself doesn't know how the confrontation with Iran will play out. And that is the fascination with watching events unfold between Maliki and Sadr: it is freighted with information about how all sides (the Iraqi government, Iran and the Coalition) are going to deal with this conflict. Interestingly enough, Petraeus has explicitly mentioned the role of the "Lebanese Hezbollah" in training Sadr's men. This suggests that Petraeus regards the problem in theater-wide or regional terms, not simply as a problem that is confined to Iraq.

Corn seems to think that the proper role of the Democratic Congressmen was to discredit or attack the Surge. I would have thought their first duty was to listen to Petraeus and think about America's strategic choices in the region. But then it's 2008 and we all know what that year signifies.

3 posted on 04/11/2008 10:04:04 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson