"Hard is not hopeless"

"Progress will require determination and difficult U.S. and Iraqi actions, especially the latter, as ultimately the outcome will be determined by the Iraqis. But hard is not hopeless," Lt. Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Forces Committee in his confirmation hearing this morning. Petraeus's introductory statement.

"I do wish this was not just on C-Span 3 but on national television," so more people would watch, commented Sen. Lieberman this morning during the Senate Armed Forces Committee confirmation hearing of Lt. General David Petraeus -- "one of the Army’s most daring and original thinkers" according to Thomas P.M. Barnett of Esquire --  the President's choice for commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. We couldn't agree more. While confirmation of the widely admired "soldier-statesman" who "spent the last year supervising the re-writing of the Army's counterinsurgency manual" seems all but assured, the hearing itself was most edifying, a fascinating snapshot of the world's most deliberative body in action. Other than Hillary, who appeared to be practicing for her 2009 State of the Union speech, the senators -- even our own normally abusive Sen. Ted -- were on their best behavior. A few highlights [watching C-Span 3 online, we had a few blackouts so didn't catch it all]:

Our favorite Democrat, Sen. Lieberman used the opportunity to chide fellow Senators from both sides of the aisle who are trying to hobble the Administration's new "plan forward" before it's even out of the gate:

If, God forbid, you are unable to succeed, then there will be plenty of time for resolutions of disapproval. I believe we can succeed, and I appeal to my colleagues today to give you the chance -- perhaps the last chance -- to succeed.

RINO Sen. Collins, protesting perhaps a bit too much, attempted a defense of her own sponsorship of the Republican version of a resolution of disapproval [rough transcription]:

I must comment about what my colleague, Senator Lieberman said about the impact of a passage of a resolution and whether that would convey something to the enemy that the American people are divided.

The resolution that I have been working on with Senators Nelson and Warner is very clear in expressing support for our troops, and I don't think it's going to come as any surprise to the enemy that the American people are deeply divided over strategy.

Kind of lame. We think it was Petraeus himself [we missed the exact moment but heard about it from a TV commentator later on] who reminded the senators that the enemy -- "determined, adaptable, barbaric" -- finds aid and comfort when members of the president's own party appear to go wobbly.

In response to Sen. Lindsey Graham's question of why reinlistment rates are so high, Petraeus spoke about the military ethic and the importance of being part of something larger than oneself:

The reason I and others have stayed in is that we like the people that we do what we do with.

Are you paying attention, John "Stuck-in-Iraq" Kerry?

President Sen. Clinton was in full finger-pointing harridan mode:

I want to begin by associating my remarks with those of Sen. Collins. The Congress was supine under a Republican majority . . . and the President and his team refused to adapt to changing circumstances on the ground . . . and the failure of Iraqis to step up and take responsibility . . .You [Petraeus] wrote the book [the Army's counterinsurgency manual], but the policy is not by the book. You are being asked to square the circle. In the absence of the kind of full-court press we had in Bosnia . . . I see nothing coming from this Administration that it is willing to pursue such a strategy now. They won't talk to bad people, and it is bad people you talk to and not your friends to try to further your goals.

Get it? Foreign policy was the picture of perfection during the Clinton Co-Presidency, and if it weren't for that do-nothing Republican Congress -- not to mention the impotent Bush -- we'd be sipping lattes in downtown Baghdad as we speak. In the ball-busting manner that is her trademark, the junior senator from New York even managed to imply that "the Army's own Lawrence of Arabia" is a eunuch, carrying out a policy he doesn't believe in. His response, an exquisite counterpoint to her question:

I'm doing this out of a sense of service. This is not about being beholden to anyone. I will give you my best professional military advice, and if people don't like it, they can find someone else to give best military advice.

Class will out.

Update: Pajamas Media links.

Comments

[goomp]

You said it, Class will out. Petraeus has it. Hillary doesn't.

[hnav]

what a display...

yikes...

it is hard to imagine, how some of these fools managed to get onto a Committee of such importance.

no wonder the Terrorists think we are easy prey, as well as why they pull for Democrats in US elections.

Hillary is truly a nightmare.

[Gayle Miller]

We are fortunate in the military we have and many of our fellow citizens fail to appreciate that fact.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is more than a nightmare hnav. She is the potential destructor of our nation's security and way of life.

[JimboNC]

When there is a witch hunt in 2009 or 10 we know the Witch they will be hunting.

[Trochilus]

Hard surely is not hopeless. And even hopeless can surely be turned on its head. Think, if you will, of the Battles of Trenton and Princeton.

It seems to me that the fundamental question for any person like Hillary who would be President comes down to this:

She was just re-elected, but not just as a blowhard Senator. She has declared her desire to not finish her term, and to become this nation’s Chief Executive and Commander in Chief. So, it is fair to judge her positions in a different light than you would judge the opinions of blowhard Senators like Biden or Graham or Warner.

In other words, she must be willing to justify a position, particularly on matters involving war and peace, that she would uphold herself were she the President. Regarding her current “stand,” for example, she must be willing to explain in detail, and be closely questioned on what the military justification for the imposition of a cap is, or drop the idea.

Any patriot, even a skeptic, at this point, would say something like this about Iraq:

"Well, here we are. It is not where we wanted to be . . . but here we are."

"I am not the President. The President was reelected in the midst of this, and in the face of strong criticisms of his policies, with all the accusations laid on the table. And, he was elected for a term certain, one that is not over for nearly two years."

"So, our core, our fundamental beliefs demand that we must give this our support, whether in our hearts we believe it will ultimately succeed, we must give it our support. Because if we do not do so, we are, to that extent, supporting the sworn enemies of our nation, and betraying the cause of human freedom. I will not go there."

"Enemies of our nation, enemies of our fundamental cause, the cause that bound us at the beginning, and that threads and binds us together today -- that change is made through the consent of the governed in elections -- have instead openly threatened, through terror and violence, to shake us loose from those beliefs. Any of us who accede to those demands, will thereby concede that we have altered our beliefs."

"These people, these Iraqi people have, through a succession of three elections, chosen a course we Americans have openly commended to them. It was their version of our way."

"It was not perfect; elements of their constitutional process make many of us somewhat uncomfortable. But our electoral processes evolved over time, too; they did not emerge full blown from the surrender at Yorktown. They took time. Let me remind you that there were ugly, critical moments of our own history we as Americans wouldn’t wish on anyone. And, yet, that fundamental idea survives intact, even though those processes are changing still. We believe in our hearts and in our minds that changes for the better have and will emerge from our imperfect democratic processes, ones that have as their bedrock the consent of the governed."

"So, how is that different for them?"

"How obnoxious, how craven would we be to so harshly judge those just emerging from the shadows of a horrid tyranny, one that turned souls against souls, peoples against peoples, sect against sect . . . and cruelly and indifferently hand these people back to the darkness and chaos of tyranny and its handmaiden terror, especially when we were the ones who entered here so promisingly, as agents of their change?"

"Finally, should we callously and indifferently ignore the fervent wishes for the success of this mission, the one surely and overwhelmingly felt by those heroes among us who voluntarily sacrificed their lives and their limbs in this cause? Can we honestly look a soldier in the eye and say, oh I support you, just not the cause for which you offered to give your life or limb? Who will be the first to say that? Not me. And what of the families of those who have already paid that sacrifice? No Commander in Chief worth his salt could ever utter such words."

"Ultimately it comes down to this . . . should any one of us, acting out of petty fear, or for the sake of momentary political expedience, cast principal aside, and thereby lose our souls? The answer is no."

[Gayle Miller]

BUT Trochilus, here's the problem. You ask Hillary Rodham Clinton to justify or explain ANY position that you take and she immediately accuses the questioner of picking on poor little old her - or the vast right wing conspiracy (half vast is more like it based on this last election).

She truly believes that she can continue to pull this nonsense from now through the primaries and, if nominated, through to the general election because she holds the intelligence and fundamental common sense of the American people in such utter contempt. She is - from beginning to end - a socialist to the depths of what passes for a soul in her, from her earliest days sitting at the feet of Saul Alinsky in worshipful attendance. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change.

[Trochilus]

Gayle, nice play on words! Half vast!

Look, I agree. I believe that she will try to continue to hide from anything resembling serious questioning. She already said, "Lets chat!" as if running for President was a one person version of "The View."

The only folks we will hear from are surrogates -- that is, if we and the press let her get away with it. But those in the blogosphere can do a great job of challenging the press to "out" her on her positions. She is no longer a Senator entitled to write her own public scripts. She is now obligated now to come forward and defend her positions as a candidate for President, and if she will not, her opponents on the Democratic side will force her out into the open. There is, or at lease there should be no Rose Garden strategy available for a mere candidate.

Regarding the specific issue I raised -- only one of many she should be forced to adddress -- presume that she is asked the following question, "Mrs. Clinton, you aspire to be the commander in chief. Will you please explain to the American people a legitimate military justification for setting troop caps, not a policy justification as a first step in a retreat or stand-down, but a military justification?"

And presume that in response she takes the tack you suggested -- she says that questioning her public position that way is just a partisan attack, i.e., "picking on her."

One obvious follow-up question would be, "Is that an answer you would give another head of state who you are conducting a particulary difficult negotiation with? Stop it, you're picking on me?"

Another would be, "Please explain why, on one hand you feel entitled to refuse to answer a perfectly legitimate question about justifying a position you have taken, and on the other you feel entitled to look people in the eye and ask them to vote to make you the commander in chief of all our armed forces?"

[Trochilus]

Let's give credit where credit is due. Today, (January 29th) Anderson Cooper on CNN did raise the issue with Hillary about her idea for a troop cap, first pointing out to her that it is essentially what both she and Barrack Obama both are proposing, as of slightly different dates. And then Cooper asked her what the military justification was for setting a cap. Hillary simply had no answer whatsoever, claiming instead that any solution in Iraq now only has political and international components. So, she who aspires to be the Commander in Chief, is simply without any explanation or justification whatsoever for her very first proposal as a candidate.

Cooper also interviewed John McCain and asked him about her proposal for a troop cap. Please, try to view the clip. The look on his face is priceless. Oh, he tries to be gracious! But the grin tells all. At the same time he is telling Cooper he "respects" her view, he also says that in a lifetime of familiarity with military matters, he has never heard of such a proposal, and then he goes on to point out why it simply makes no logical sense.

All of this should raise a basic question. Who could anyone possibly ever take her seriously?

[Trochilus]

Here is the portion of the CNN transcript on the McCain evaluation of Hillary (and Obama's) troop cap plans.

If this doesn't completely undermine her claim -- and Obama's -- to be serious candidates to be our nation's Commander in Chief, then nothing will.

McCain tried to be polite. He even said, "I respect it." Well, of course he did! He wants the debate to continue on her "idea!" But I honestly cannot ever recall a time when a proposal by a candidate for high office was so thoroughly despoiled by another so early in the game.

Had a Republican ever floated an equally idiotic idea, it would have immediately precipitated a minimum three week barrage of media criticism, followed by the early end of their candidacy. It would have taken them right down.

But, she and the new kid so far are getting a complete pass. Gayle, I hate to say it, but she apparently doesn't even need to say, "You're picking on me."

Here was the exchange:

COOPER: Sen. Clinton is proposing cap on troop levels at the January 1 level; Obama says January 10. Does that make any sense to you?

MCCAIN: First of all, I think I'm fairly well versed in military matters and tactics and strategy. I've been involved in it literally all my life in one way or another, but I can't tell you how many troops are needed. I think it's pretty clear the number of troops we have isn't getting the job done. I think there's almost universal acceptance of that. So you put a cap on it? So the status quo remains? Which is a steadily deteriorating situation? Again, intel sources tell me, by the way, public not classified, that if this present situation continues, within six months you'd see absolute chaos in Iraq. So cap on troops? There's a certain lack of logic associated with that position. But I respect it. And I think we need respectful dialogue and debate on this issue.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2007/01/mccain-clinton-obama-iraq-plans-lack.html

[Gayle Miller]

Great work Trochilus!

[Sissy Willis]

I did catch McCain's response as he professed his "respect" for Hillary's opinion. As you point out, Trochilus, his body language said it all.