Top House Democrats skip breifing with Gen. David Petraeus

**mad1** · April 24th, 2007, 11:46 AM

We see here a division in the Democratic Party-its politicians and its voters-that we have seen ever since military action started to be considered in 2002. Then, most House Democrats voted against the Iraq war resolution, most Senate Democrats for it. The lineup today is not necessarily the same: Levin, who voted against the war resolution, insists the troops must be funded; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who voted for the war resolution and said last November that, of course, the troops will be funded now, says he's for Sen. Russ Feingold's March 2008 deadline.

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 March 8. How long this fight will go on is unclear. Some Democrats predict that it will go on for months. But their dilemma remains the same. They want to be seen as acting to end the war. But they dare not be seen as not funding the troops.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar..._cid=rss:site1

We support our troops but do not attend briefings from the Commander in Iraq?

**Mojo Risin'** · April 24th, 2007, 11:57 PM

They’re playing in a heavy stakes stud poker game with a “suited” 2,3,4,5 hand showing, and an “off suited” 7 in the hole. They’re hoping the spineless RepubliCants fold because there’s no way to win the hand otherwise.

What’s the bet?
Whether America wins or loses.

What side of the bet do you think the Dems are on?
Quite a while back, they positioned themselves, so that the only way they can win is if America loses in Iraq.

I would never want to put myself in that position. However, they pulled it off in Viet Nam, so who knows? We never lost a battle in Nam or Iraq. No one can defeat us except ourselves and that is what our enemy is counting on. They feel we’re inferior, weak-willed, paper tigers. Time will tell if they’re right.

**Theophylact** · April 25th, 2007, 09:25 AM

The full House could vote on Wednesday on the controversial war-funding bill, the same day Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, is due to brief senators in a closed session.

McCain, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, skipped the meeting because he was campaigning in New Hampshire.

**Theophylact** · April 25th, 2007, 05:21 PM

If you only read the headline "Pelosi misses Petraeus' congressional Iraq briefing", you might miss this:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, does not plan to attend Gen. David Petraeus' briefing for lawmakers Wednesday, and instead had a one-on-one phone briefing with him Tuesday night, according to an aide.

Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNN the Speaker realized "first thing (Tuesday) morning" she had a scheduling conflict and could not attend the all-House members briefing Wednesday, so her office tried to set up a special, face-to-face meeting with the General.

Petraeus was unable to meet in person, so the two talked by phone for about 30 minutes on Tuesday. Elshami insisted it was not meant as a slight, and that it turned out to be even more beneficial for Pelosi to have the chance to hear from Petraeus and ask questions independently.

"It worked out perfectly," said Elshami, "I'm sure she got a lot more out of that conversation than sitting in a room with 400 other members of congress." Elshami said he did not know what on Pelosi's schedule prevented her from attending the briefing.

**Chuckiechan** · April 25th, 2007, 07:36 PM

Well the Democrats are scared to death that things may settle down in Iraq. To their dismay, the surge is showing some progress and many Shiites are turning against Al Quaeda which is a great development - depending on whether you are a Democrat or not.

If the war drifts of the front pages the Democrats are as dead as Saddam. They were elected my anti war sentiment, not domestic policy. Domestically, the Democrats are generally rejected by the people who see them as too liberal and living lives of no consequences. They represent the "Big City" culture of death and decay, and government handouts.

The Democrats desperately need this war to continue through the '08 elections, and they need dead GI's to keep in the headlines. That's why they won't stop the war by cutting funding. They only making it more difficult and dangerous to wage. The MSM won't report on winners.

**Theophylact** · April 26th, 2007, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

The Democrats desperately need this war to continue through the '08 elections, and they need dead GI's to keep in the headlines. That's why they won't stop the war by cutting funding. They only making it more difficult and dangerous to wage. The MSM won't report on winners.

As usual, Chuckiechan, you've got things upside-down. Bush desperately needs not to lose this war on his watch, which is why he's prolonging the deaths of GIs. (After noon on January 20, 2009, the Republicans will blame everything that's happened on the Democrats, as they're still blaming it on Bill Clinton whenever they can.)

**MTAtech** · April 26th, 2007, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

The Democrats desperately need this war to continue through the '08 elections, and they need dead GI's to keep in the headlines.

Let me understand this. According to your theory, the Democrats want to continue the war through the '08 elections. But wait, the Democrats passed a bill mandating an Iraqi pullout starting in Oct. 07 and ending in April 2008 - that's six months before the election. But wait again, it's Bush who wants to veto that bill because he feels April 2008 is too soon. Did Bush secretly become a Democrat? It's the only way that theory works.

Perhaps someone can resolve this theory's apparent inconsistency with the facts.

But getting back to the main topic... The assertion that Pelosi skipped the briefing is because she got a private one-on-one phone briefing with Petraeus. Seems like a non-issue to me.

**Chuckiechan** · April 26th, 2007, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by MTA

Let me understand this. According to your theory, the Democrats want to continue the war through the '08 elections. But wait, the Democrats passed a bill mandating an Iraqi pullout starting in Oct. 07 and ending in April 2008 - that's six months before the election.

Yes, that's correct. They are trying to force Bush to end the war via a deadline they set. In reality, if they want to stop the war they can do so by ending funding. But by doing so, they become partly responsible for the chaos that follows. Trying to force Bush to end it is a lot different than taking responsibility and ending it yourself.

Six months before the election? They want to make sure the bloodbath of American GI's running for their lives with empty rifles is all over the media to give them that extra "Oomph" they need right at election time!

BTW, Why will Pelosi be seen with Assad of Syria and not Petraeus? World perception? Non - issue? Given how Democrats feel about the war at least she isn't playing lip service to the concept of success in the middle east.