Thomas B. Edsall

BIO

Thomas B. Edsall

The Huffington Post

Questioning Petraeus: Squandered Opportunities, Longwinded Monologues

September 19, 2007 08:40 PM


stumbleupon :Questioning Petraeus: Squandered Opportunities, Longwinded Monologues   digg: Questioning Petraeus: Squandered Opportunities, Longwinded Monologues   reddit: Questioning Petraeus: Squandered Opportunities, Longwinded Monologues   del.icio.us: Questioning Petraeus: Squandered Opportunities, Longwinded Monologues

About halfway through the September 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with General David Petraeus and Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Senator Barbara Boxer of California got her allotted seven minutes to ask questions.

She began by informing Petraeus and Crocker "I represent 37 million people" and that she spends much of her time informing her constituents of "my own views." She then told the witnesses that "this war is the biggest foreign policy mistake ever" and detailed why.

Boxer's "question" went on for 1275 words, and used up her entire seven minutes. She wrapped up by saying:

"My question is -- and I know I've run out of time, so I will have to take it in writing, but it's a very important one. Don Rumsfeld said no more than six months would this war last. How long will it take now that we've spent $20 billion and we've trained 350,000 Iraqis in counterinsurgency? When, General Petraeus, can they take over their own defense? Call me old-fashioned -- you have a country, you defend it."

No information was elicited. Nevertheless, Boxer issued a press release headlined "SEN. BOXER ASKS GEN. PETRAEUS TO TAKE OFF ROSE-COLORED GLASSES AND FACE REALITIES IN IRAQ" and posted prominently on the front page of her website a link to a video of her "question" under the heading, "Senator Boxer Asks General Petraeus to Face Realities in Iraq."

In theory, the purpose of a congressional hearing is to find out information to guide policy-making. In reality, as those who have suffered through such sessions know, the purpose all-too-often is for politicians to tell witness and television cameras what they think, with little or no acquisition of information.

Cross examination at congressional hearings requires extensive research and careful planning, especially when dealing with sophisticated witnesses who are skilled at remaining technically truthful while revealing little.

Some members of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee did press for answers, using short, tough questions.

The questioning by the four Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd -- produced mixed results.

Perhaps the most discomfiting was Obama who, after talking for 1,181 words and using up all his time, asked a question that had already been raised more than once:

SEN. OBAMA: And if we're there at the same place a year from now, can you please describe for me any circumstances in which you would make a different recommendation and suggest it is now time for us to start withdrawing our troops? Any scenario? Any set of benchmarks that have not been met?

AMB. CROCKER: Senator, I described for Senator Sununu a little bit ago some of the things that I think are going to be very important as we move ahead.

SEN. OBAMA: Can you repeat those? And I know I'm out of time.


Hillary Clinton combined a long, 858-word statement with two modestly revealing questions. One required Petraeus to reaffirm his position that he would be "hard-pressed" to call for the continued presence of a large troop contingent if there were no change in Iraq a year from now; the other allowed Crocker to reiterate a policy of trying to engage other nations in and outside the Middle East region to find solutions to the Iraq war.

Dodd, in turn, quoted a wounded soldier in Walter Reed Hospital who said "'Look, the civilian population,...they know where the IEDs are, they know where the ammo dumps are; they won't share that information with us'... [Are] his views commonly held views about the cooperation from the Iraqi population?"
Petraeus replied, "you can walk around the map, and you could say, looking at it, literally, this is where they'll help you, this is where they won't. The fact is that we are getting a lot more help. I mean, that's the only explanation for the fact that we now have 4,400 weapons caches."

Biden, who is known for a tendency to talk, and talk, long into the night, in fact asked a series of short, to-the-point questions, including:

SEN. BIDEN: Is it not true that the fundamental purpose of the surge, the primary purpose -- political settlement -- has not been met at this point?

AMB. CROCKER: Sir, clearly we do not have a national level of political settlement. It also, I think, is no way reasonable to expect that a surge that reached its full strength just in the middle of June --

And

SEN. BIDEN: If in fact the circumstances on the ground are exactly what they are today in March of next year, will you recommend the continuation of somewhere between 130,000 and 160,000 American troops being shot at, killed and maimed every day there?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Mr. Chairman, I -- that's a pretty big hypothetical --

SEN. BIDEN: Well, I don't think it's hypothetical if they're to stay.

GEN. PETRAEUS: I would be very hard-pressed to recommend that at that point in time.

At the same time, Biden, unlike the other Democratic presidential candidates, had one big advantage: as chairman, he alone could make an opening statement before cameras that did not count against his 7 minute question time. He did so for 1,681 words.

Of course, the number of questions asked does not guarantee that either the queries or the responses add much to the debate. Some of the slowest softballs of the hearing were pitched by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama):

SEN. SESSIONS: Well, I think that's important. There's no one area of that country that's exactly like another area.

GEN. PETRAEUS: That's correct.

SEN. SESSIONS: Each one has to be treated differently. Does it not?

GEN. PETRAEUS: That is correct, sir.

SEN. SESSIONS: And you had that complexity in mind as you developed this strategy. I think it does give us cause for belief that we can make progress. General Petraeus, when your came before us in January before you went to Iraq, you had told me previously that no matter what happened, you would tell the Congress the truth. I asked you that that morning, and you committed to tell the American people the truth as you see it. Have you to the best of your ability told this Congress the truth about the situation in Iraq today?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I have, yes, sir.

SEN. SESSIONS: And General Petraeus, in your opinion, is a circumstance in which -- in your opinion, is this effort in Iraq such that we cannot be successful, that we would be putting more effort in a losing cause if we continue it? Or in your opinion, do we have a realistic chance to be successful in this very important endeavor?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe we have a realistic chance of achieving our objectives in Iraq.


If Sessions put them chest high over the center of the plate, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia held the ball motionless right in front of the witnesses so that it was impossible to miss:

SEN. ISAKSON: So this is really a recommendation for a way forward to reduce American involvement in combat, increase the involvement of the Iraqi troops, and have an oversight, an overwatch if you will, of those operations by American troops. Is that correct?

GEN. PETRAEUS: That is correct, sir.

SEN. ISAKSON: And the -- and you can't put a timetable on it, because none of us ever can. But certainly we're in reach or in sight of some of those significant goals that were established five years ago that would then trigger the ability to make some of those reductions.

GEN. PETRAEUS: That's correct.


Senator John Warner (R-Va.), who is now on the fence in terms of supporting or opposing the administration, used short, pointed questions to elicit the most striking response of the hearing:

SEN. WARNER: Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.

SEN. WARNER: Does that make America safer?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind.


Comments for this post are now closed

 
Comments
98
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

The Obama campaign whined after this hearing saying that Biden didn't give him enough time for political reasons.
Give me a break!
This op-ed says it all!
Thank you for posting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:12 PM on 09/20/2007

Americans expected nothing from the "Petreaus Report," and Americans got nothing from of the "Petraeus Report."

Just another useless waste of time and money - like the "Iraq Study Joke" - oops "Iraq Study Group."

Bottom Line ?

Oilmen, Arms dealers, and other War Profitiers are making money... Americans troops will continue to die.

Watch out for the cliff America - getn close.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:38 PM on 09/20/2007
photo

Dear lowly aide to Senator Boxer that has to read constituent emails,

I am dropping the illusion that the Senator is in touch with her constituents and reads or gets briefed on the emails sent to her. A good indication of when an incumbent has reach their "used by date" is when they spend their time, in this case seven minutes, making self-promoting statements rather than addressing the issues.

It is inexcusable to waste the opportunity to exact laser-like questions that could have been asked the General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in order to expose the falsified data and propaganda that is being foisted on the American people.

Questions like:

Does the official figure of American soldiers killed in action include those that work as paid mercenaries or those who died of wounds after being removed from Iraq?

If 3,770 soldiers killed in Iraq does not include nearly 1,000 contractors killed in Iraq that have been hired at more than 3 times the salary of a soldier to do what has, in the past, been work done by soldiers, how are other statistics provided by the DOD to be taken at face value?

Is the humanitarian crisis of 2.25 million refugees helping or hurting, and what are the monthly statistics regarding refugees?

How many Iraqi civilians have been killed in our attempt to bring peace and freedom to their country and what are the monthly statistics regarding deaths of those we are there to help?

Of the $500 billion spent, how much has been spent on the 180,000 contract personnel hired by the Pentagon?

If an Iraqi shot in the front of the head, rather than the back of the head, is not counted as a war related death in the surge statistics, is the same true for an American soldier?

With large reservoirs of Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and of Shiites in Iran, what are the prospects that the US will be met by a surge from the independent factions in the civil war?

Has the surge promoted lasting political progress?


Any question?





    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 PM on 09/20/2007

You've nailed a key issue here, Mr. Edsall.
Congressional grandstanding is inexcusable, and it goes far toward explaining the low regard in which Congress is held.

I would offer up one method of assessing the POTENTIAL 'financial costs' of Petraeus' testimony, at a time when America:

-- spends over $6 billion each month on Iraq (to use the most conservative estimate)
-- spends probably $2 million each month for Congress (staff, IT infrastructure, salaries...)

And the Congress meets for... around 160 hours each month...?

So add (a) one month of the costs of Iraq, plus (b) one month of Congressional costs, and then (c) divide $6,200,000,000 by 160 hours. I come up with around $38,750,000 per hour -- simply for the costs of Iraq and Congress.

Put on those terms, the Congressional grandstanding is inexcusable.

The Democratic Leadership needs to sit down with every one of their members and have a 'come to Jesus' heart-to-heart about the fact that a '1200 word comment' represents -- conservatively -- over $1,000,000 of taxpayer time.

What it represents in terms of 'lost opportunity costs' is even larger.

Excellent post.
I hope it is widely read!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 09/20/2007

no mention of 7 min ass kissing most gop congressmen gave the general

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:19 PM on 09/20/2007

I too was disappointed in Obama, again, when he spent 6 of his 7 minutes playing to the galleries, showing how smart he is, and then spent about 1 minute asking a question that had already been asked.

He was supposed to be there to interrogate Patraeus and he didn't do his job.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 AM on 09/20/2007

Why only 7 minutes per senator?? That is ridiculous under the circumstances. The senators should have been allowed to ask questions until all questions had been answered, no matter how long it takes. This isn't about whether or not to throw a little pork toward a senator's state, this is about people dying every day! As for the hardballs and softballs, I'd like to see a list of actual questions, not the crap that packaged them. And most disappointing was the speech from Barbara Boxer. She got her face time, but to what end? Where were the hardballs we expect from war critics????? Too bad the senators were not willing to sit there "until hell freezes over" like true diplomats of the past!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:15 AM on 09/20/2007

You say have no time limits? Think how long Boxer et al would pontificate and preen for the cameras.

I would rather see a list of questions submitted in advance and posed by one or two congress members. Some of these committees are huge and each member wants his/her 15 minutes of fame. Waste of time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:44 AM on 09/20/2007
photo

As much as I like Joe Biden's voting record he would be a danger if you found youself standing between him and a microphone ;)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 09/20/2007
photo

Let's be sensible here. Everybody knew (or should have known) the Petraeus show had almost no chance of having any nutritional content. Craft the most cogent questions in the world and all you would've got Party Line sound bites for every answer. Does anyone expect that he would've ever responded "Why Senator, you've got a good point, this whole war is a criminal charade!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:10 AM on 09/20/2007

These hearings are pure ritual with any substance as an unintended by-product. These events are not meant to be about gaining information or insight. They are about self aggrandizement and publicity. Not one senator seems to be able to pursue a point with any rigor. They ask a question, hear the answer then ask a question, usually long winded, on another unrelated topic. Talk about AADS!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 AM on 09/20/2007

All we hear lately is SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, the rationale for continuing this war.
Why did the Senate filibuster and not allow passage of the resolution allowing soldiers as much time at home as they've served in Iraq before redeployment?
Why is the pay for military so abysmal that many military families must seek assistance (welfare, food stamps) or spouses to work extra jobs?
Why are veterans continuously denied benefits for injuries (including PTSD) after bravery and service?
Why are military and veteran's hospitals in such deplorable condition?
Why can't we raise a professional all-volunteer military force, and rely instead upon private contractors (Blackwater) who are accountable to no one?
Why can high officers (who give orders) elude prosecution or conviction for torture (Abu Gharib), killing civilians (Haditha) allowing foot soldiers to go to prison for their crimes?
Conscription (a draft), were the Congress to authorize such, would cause a revolt against the Bush & Co. policies and the Iraq war itself so they won't bring that up as a possibility, yet the only way to sustain this war is with a new fresh crop of recruits.
Instead, the policy-makers are content to continue placing the burden of sacrifice on the backs of those veterans, military personnel (most of whom who were called up from National Guard service) and make them pay with their lives, their families, and add insult to injury.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 AM on 09/20/2007
photo

Re: Haditha. Charges have been dismissed against all but one of the Marines. He is on trial now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 PM on 09/20/2007
photo

Politicians are longwinded monologues.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 AM on 09/20/2007
photo

Dem to Petraeus :

Thank you for your service to our Country, you are a great American. No further questions, I yield my remaining minutes to the next dem ass kisser.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:25 AM on 09/20/2007
photo

to the point

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:58 PM on 09/20/2007

This commentary is baloney. I watched hours of the House and Senate hearings with Petraeus. Even the so-called critics, read Democrats, spent more time praising Petraeus than in any meaningful questioning. Barbara Boxer was a breath of fresh air. She didn't play the "great general" game, she spoke for the American people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:10 AM on 09/20/2007
photo

Every dem I saw, started their questioning with a big tongue kiss for the General, I wanted to puke.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:17 AM on 09/20/2007

It may take just one thing to wake people up... A shortage of gasoline. You can bet your last dollar that when that happens many who have their heads in the sand will pop up to take a second look.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:55 AM on 09/20/2007

He was not sworn in so all given is useless!
No accountability whatsoever. If these flunkies knew they would be held accountable after the fact they would not dare to attempt to deceive us, the public.
Nope, heard Biden on Meet the Press and he
wanted to stay in Iraq too, not disappointing the children there he said.
Kucinich, Ron Paul or 3rd party. Or get more
of the same. Notice how carefully Hillary worded her questions, she would never end the
war in Iraq.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:26 AM on 09/20/2007
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect