Monday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits.

*TPMM: “While Gen. Petraeus repeatedly cited the Sunni tribal turn against al-Qaeda as the most significant development in Iraq over the last year, he balks at the suggestion that his command is providing them with guns. ‘We have never given weapons to tribals,’ he said. ‘What we have done is applaud when they ask if they can point their guns at al-Qaeda.'” That’s rather misleading — the U.S. military is paying “tribals,” who are in turn using our payments to buy weapons.

* Speaking of Anbar, Petraeus said repeatedly this afternoon that he wants to see the successes of this province expanded to other provinces (and suggested he could if only policymakers give him more time). It’s a dubious claim; replicating the model is almost certain to fail.

* Matthew Dowd, Bush’s former pollster who publicly denounced his old boss a few months ago, offered Dems an interesting perspective yesterday at the HuffPost: “In the public’s mind, the Iraq War was a mistake, and continuing the status quo is simply continuing on with a mistake…. The public does not see withdrawal from Iraq as a signal America doesn’t support the troops. In fact, the public sees removing the troops from harm’s way and having them in a place where the mission is supported, welcomed and understood as the most proper way to support our troops.”

* Greg Sargent: “For weeks now we’ve been hearing endlessly that today’s testimony by General Petraeus will mark a key moment in deciding which way public opinion will swing on Iraq. Guess who disagrees with that prediction? The public, that’s who…. Bottom line: The public appears to have decided that Petraeus won’t tell them the truth about Iraq, that they want out of Iraq no matter what he says, and that the President won’t change course in the wake of his testimony. Clever public.”

* As far as I can tell, the media’s interest in today’s testimony and the media’s interest in MoveOn.org’s Petraeus ad is running at a 1-to-1 ratio this afternoon. (Let this be a reminder to all of us: if you’re going to say something politically intemperate, and you don’t want excessive scrutiny, make sure you’re a conservative.)

* The last I heard, Petraeus will appear on Fox News tonight — and only Fox News. I’m actually a little surprised by this; I thought the Bush gang would want to at least pretend Petraeus is a neutral, dispassionate public servant.

* Roll Call reported that the White House has narrowed his list of replacements for Alberto Gonzales to five: Michael Mukasey, Theodore B. Olson, Laurence H. Silberman, George J. Terwilliger, and Larry D. Thompson. Rumor has it that Olson — best known for his role in the infamous anti-Clinton Arkansas Project — is the leading candidate. The announcement may come as early as this week.

* Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) isn’t on the short list, but he’s reportedly interested in being asked about the Attorney General gig.

* Michael O’Hanlon’s transition from Brookings scholar to “conservative movement propagandist whose salary just happens to be paid by Brookings” is nearly complete.

* NYT’s Adam Cohen: “Alberto Gonzales is out as attorney general, but there is still a lot of questionable Justice Department activity for Congress to sort through. The imprisonment of Don Siegelman, a former Democratic governor of Alabama, should be at the top of the list. Jill Simpson, an Alabama lawyer and Republican operative, is heading to Washington this week to tell Congressional investigators that she heard prominent Republicans plotting to use the United States attorneys’ offices to remove Mr. Siegelman as a political threat. The case should be the focus of a probing Congressional hearing this fall.”

* In legal/academic circles, more and more people are seriously discussing whether to change lifetime appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Interesting.

* Note to the White House: never pick a fight over previous events with a guy who writes everything down.

* 9/11 Commission Co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton: “Two years ago, we and our colleagues issued a report card assessing the U.S. government’s progress on the bipartisan recommendations in the 9/11 commission report. We concluded that the nation was not safe enough. Our judgment remains the same today: We still lack a sense of urgency in the face of grave danger.”

* And finally, Donald Rumsfeld told GQ magazine he has had practically no contact with Bush since leaving the Pentagon. Asked directly if he misses the president, Rumsfeld told the Magazine, “Um, no.”

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

Orrin Hatch would make a great replacement for Alberto Gonzales. All the partisan arrogance, but only half the smirking. And of course the millionaire’s club will let him slide on into the chair with nary a serious question.

Bush’s own pollster tells us that “the public sees removing the troops from harm’s way and having them in a place where the mission is supported, welcomed and understood as the most proper way to support our troops.”

So what will the Dimocrats take away from that? That they need to meet the Republicans half way.

Just kill me now.

  • All of this talk about Bush’s Pet-raeus has got me thinking.

    I wish that they would bring some of the troops in to testify, sort of at random sampling of the brave men and women who serve our Armed Forces (even now, through this nation’s darkest hour). That’s one way that I’d support the troops —give them their say on a national stage to express their unfiltered experience in the interests of practicing –and preserving democracy.

    The troops are truly the experts on the ground. It would only make sense to honor their service with the weight to their first-hand knowledge that it deserves. Congressional testimony would accomplish that.

    Let me reiterate something that I have said before: I want the safety of our troops. I believe that the mission of our troops is that of a strong National Defense. I do not believe that the mission of our National Defense is predicated upon unconstitutional, “undeclared” war.

    Just look at the bravery and integrity of Jessica Lynch in her testimony before Congress. I believe her testimony far more than any sales-pitch from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

    The troops, by and large, believe in the American Way of Life: the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Let them demonstrate their leadership through their unmitigated, unrestrained, uncolored accounts of their experiences.

  • …media’s interest in MoveOn.org’s Petraeus ad is running at a 1-to-1 ratio this afternoon. (Let this be a reminder to all of us: if you’re going to say something politically intemperate, and you don’t want excessive scrutiny, make sure you’re a conservative.)

    I think there’s another lesson here: don’t give your opposition ammunition unnecessarily. These days, you don’t attack a military man personally on the same day he’s going to appear on TV with all his bling — particularly when he’s already fighting an uphill PR battle. Today’s focus should have been on the benchmarks — those were the conditions of continued funding and all else is secondary.

    Two weeks ago, the ad would have made it’s point and R outrage would have burnt out by now. A week from now, the ad might have made a nice summary of this week’s testimony. Even running the ad today might have been okay if it had asked Petraeus not to betray us instead of charging him. Putting it out today was just naive.

  • ‘We have never given weapons to tribals,’?

    So why is Maliki so upset? Is he supposed to be afraid Sunnis will attack Shia with that $10 per day?

  • Do you think that Gen Petraeus is boycotting the other networks because the Democratic Presidential candidates boycotted Fox? The ratings at Fox may be more directly tied into the Republican campaign fund than we realize.

  • The Pet Rock will appear exclusively on Foxnoise because right now, it’s the only network completely willing to “bend over and take it all” from the WH. Think “genetic blending of Pat Robertson and Jerry Springer” here.

    The horror………………the horror………………………………………….

  • Sounds like Petraeus wasn’t too atrocious in front of Congress (otherwise I’m sure you’d be reporting more of the details). I’d guess he got wind the blogosphere was onto him, and knew what kind of hokeyness he could be prepared to pull; and realizing his credibility was at stake, he decided to go for a more modest presentation instead. There was that stupid graphic of course, but still- yay blogosphere! We did it.

  • I’m sure many of you have noticed the media isn’t treating Rudolph Giuliani too well. I think the right is annoyed that the leading Republican contender in America is a New York, Italian, cross-dressing, gay-embracing, Catholic, abortion supporting, Jew-lover liberal type, and they want someone who conflicts less with their narrative of America as a rootin tootin, hick, Protestant, guns-in-your-socks, gay-bashin’, homophobe, racist, Germany-lovin cowboy nation.

    Yee-haw!

  • “Ethno-sectarian violence.” That means that our little fracas back in the 1860’s must have merely been “agrarian-industrial” violence. Thanks guys, but “civil war” works for me.

  • lol @ Swan @ #8

    That’s exactly why I abdicated my Dem party affiliation for the Indy label.
    If the election is close I am going to vote in the Repug primary for Ghouliani.

    I want to see angry southern white males have to embrace The Ghoul.
    I want to see them do a buddy-hug thing AND keep their fried twinkies down…

    Yee-haw!

  • Re Matthew Dowd and his
    The public does not see withdrawal from Iraq as a signal America doesn’t support the troops.

    It’s funny (though not in the “ha ha” way) that it takes a repenting neocon to serve the Dems what should have been self-evident truth in a manner that should be easy enough to understand, even by politicians… Of course, placing it on the Huff’n’puff will almost guarantee that those who need to see it the most, won’t.

  • ROTFLM, conservatives don’t even get our jokes about them sometimes, I think. If I said, “Conservative women know just what they’re fighting for– there to be more down-home country crafts in the world,” they would probably think I was conceding that a greater conservative influence on politics would somehow necessarily lead to there being more craft-stuff in that style around, and that I was belittling their aesthetic taste- when I really couldn’t care less what kind of crafts conservatives are into, and don’t have any preference one way or another about country craft stuff. What’s even funnier, is we’re probably wrong to assume that conservative women don’t even think that accomplishing stuff like that (proliferation of country crafts) is what they’re into politics for, and my poking fun at them by pretending they’re fighting to fo that is probably unintentionally hitting the mark, as to some people.

    All I know is a lot of them are really mistaken about stuff.

  • I don’t know about anyone else – and I have to admit that I wasn’t fully tuned in to either the statements given by Petraeus and Crocker or the questioning that followed – but I have the feeling that the “report” landed with something of a “thud” after all that hype. I guess we’ll have to see what tomorrow brings, as there will be two more committee appearances, but this is shaping up for me as being a colossal waste of time. The WH and Petraeus have more or less telegraphed or leaked pretty much what the story line was going to be, the response pre-hearing was “yeah, yeah, more lies, more manipulated intel, blah, blah, blah.”

    I think the American public is at the point where they are asking, “Are they still talking about this?” Iraq is a dead horse, and people want us to stop beating on it and just get the hell out.

    What would really crank this into high gear is for the Democrats to take a damn stand – stand up for the American people who want their men and women home. Show a tenth of the courage that thousands of GIs have shown, over and over and over again, for over 4 years – and stand up for them.

  • Jeez, why do you bother? You know exactly what’s going to happen – the American people are going to become suffused with hope on the diet of pabulum General Stonewall Petraeus is feeding them, and give Bush another Friedman Unit and as much money as he asks for. It’s a dead cert, as predictable as an arm-wrestling contest between Pee-Wee Herman and The Rock. George Bush is going to keep on chucking the taxpayers money down a dark hole in the desert, and America is going to let him. Sure, they’ll grumble about how cheeky he is and how he doesn’t really listen to the voters very much, but whenever he gives ’em a little of that ol’ black magic, their eyes will roll back in their heads and they’ll start groping for their wallets.

    Here’s a little secret on another way Iraq and Vietnam are similar – America is going to be in Iraq at least as long as it was in Vietnam. Bush is carefully crafting the situation so the next president CAN’T pull out. If he or she does, the voters will rouse from their stupor and shout, “Hey!!! He/She stole all our money and then lost the dammned WAR!!” I always thought Bush was stupid, and conventionally speaking, he is. Where I misunderestimated was in failing to notice that those who are trying to stop him are even stupider, and much less effective.

    As long as America has hitched its wagon to a petroleum-based economy, it will never leave Iraq until it has seized control of Iraq’s oil, and if it is successful in that, it will leave enough troops to consolidate and protect its investment. Maybe its not too early to try and get a patent on “My folks went to Baghdad, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt” stencils.

  • Rummy also said that his worst times in government were during the Nixon Administration. Can you believe that Bush’s head assassin would say it was worse protecting that scumbag Nixon, than sending all our good men and woment to death for OIL!
    Unf’n believable!! That’s compassionate conservatism for you.

  • 6 months ago they say:
    This is what we set out to do. This is how we measure progress. We know our goals have been met if …
    Today they say
    This is what we measured, as promised. And, as stated 6 months ago, our goals have (not) been met.

    Then I’d believe them.

    Instead there is an outright scandal about how and what they measured, and what it means.
    And I still have only a fuzzy notion of what, precisely, the measurable goals were.

  • Comments are closed.