CNN's Blitzer asserted Petraeus and Crocker are not "political appointees" -- but Bush appointed both to current positions
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer said: "General [David] Petraeus is a career military officer. Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker is a career diplomat, a foreign service officer. It's not as if they're political appointees by the Bush administration in which they can sort of, you know, roll up their sleeves and really go after them." In fact, both Petraeus and Crocker were nominated for their current positions by President Bush.
While discussing Sen. Hillary Clinton's questioning of Gen. David H. Petraeus, Multinational Force-Iraq commanding general, and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, during the April 8 edition of CNN's Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer asserted that "General Petraeus is a career military officer. Ambassador Crocker is a career diplomat, a foreign service officer. It's not as if they're political appointees by the Bush administration in which they can sort of, you know, roll up their sleeves and really go after them." In fact, while Crocker is a member of the senior career foreign service and Petraeus is a member of the military, both were nominated for their current positions by President Bush.
Additionally, ambassadors serve in their positions at the pleasure of the president. And, responding to the question, "Is your time up when the next president steps in to position, in the U.S.?" from CNN's Kyra Phillips during an interview aired on the March 19 edition of CNN's Issue #1, Petraeus stated: "[F]olks at this level serve at the pleasure of the -- of the president, of the chain of command above them. And that certainly is -- is true in my case."
From the April 8 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
CANDY CROWLEY (senior political correspondent): In the short time senators are allotted, Clinton also took exception to the administration's plan to work out that long-term agreement with Iraq about the presence of U.S. troops, without first coming to Congress.
CLINTON [video clip]: Well, Ambassador Crocker, it seems odd, I think, to Americans who are being asked to commit for an indefinite period of time the lives of our young men and women in uniform -- the civilian employees whom you rightly referenced and thanked -- as well as billions of dollars of additional taxpayer dollars, if the Iraqi parliament may have a chance to consider this agreement, that the United States Congress would not.
CROWLEY: So essentially, Wolf, what we're talking about here is pretty much what both [Sen. John] McCain and Clinton have said on the campaign trail, just in sort of lower tones in a Senate forum.
BLITZER: They have to be very careful, because General Petraeus is a career military officer. Ambassador Crocker is a career diplomat, a foreign service officer. It's not as if they're political appointees by the Bush administration, which they can sort of, you know, roll up their sleeves and really go after them. They have to walk a delicate line.
CROWLEY: Absolutely. And what was interesting to me is if you remember the last time he was up on Capitol Hill, she talked about how his testimony would require the willing suspension of belief. You know, she really kind of went after him and undermined -- tried to undermine the credibility of what he was saying. There was none of that this time.
Give me a break Media Matters. Of course both Petraeus and Crocker were nominated by President Bush. That's the way it works. Presidents nominate all Ambassadors...and all four-star officers.
Blitzer's point -- which was a correct one -- is that they are both career officials who have served honorably under both Republican and Democrat administrations.
If Crocker were someone brought in from the outside -- or someone long-retired whose recent credentials were as a party hack -- you would have a point. But you don't.
Some times you guys just try too hard to find something to find objectionable.
It's doesn't have to be objectionable.
It IS still misinformation. Of course they are political appointees - you said so yourself: That's how it works.
Blitzer was incorrect to suggest otherwise, especially as it was meant to put these men above criticism... which they're not!
Blitzer is falsely claiming that these were career guys who had worked their way up into these jobs and were thus independent soldiers.
That was false. It is a lie, and that's MMFA's point.
You really don't see any contrast? Seriously?
My "idea" is that one cause was more noble than the other. Given that it's difficult, at least for me, to quantify the nobility of a cause, I believe the number of times Bush has found it necessary to replace people, including generals, says a lot.
Pete,
Take a look at how many times Lincoln replaced his generals.
As an aside, even if you disagree with the way the war came about, do you really feel the cause for going to war in Iraq was less noble than the cause for going to war in WWII?
Newt was spewing out comparisons of Iraq to our Revolutionary War in that it took eight years or so after the war for the U.S. to draft a constitution.
Apple meet orange.
Solon,
You misframed my question. I asked if the cause were any less noble, not if it was as morally justifiable.
"do you really feel the cause for going to war in Iraq was less noble than the cause for going to war in WWII? "
YES!!!! YES!!! YES!!!
Hey, Media Matters (very little) dudes.....
Here's some info from state dept bios
"Ambassador Crocker received the Presidential Distinguished Service Award in 1994, the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Civilian Service in 1997 and the Presidential Meritorious Service Award in 1999 and 2003. He also holds the State Department Distinguished Honor Award, Award for Valor, three Superior Honor Awards and the American Foreign Service Association Rivkin Award. In January 2002, he was sent to Afghanistan to reopen the American Embassy in Kabul. He subsequently received the Robert C. Frasure Memorial Award for "exceptional courage and leadership" in Afghanistan. In September 2004, President Bush conferred on him the personal rank of Career Ambassador, the highest in the Foreign Service."
Yes he was nominated by Bush but confirmed by the Senate, I believe that both General Petraeus received all 'Yay' votes. And if you look at Ambassador Crocker's work in the State Dept., I think it preceeds the present administration and even has received some special awards and a nomination or two during the Clinton Adminsitration. Egaads!
This kind of worthless dribbling is why Media Matters (very little) is mattering less and less. Maybe MM(vl) could have encouraged Bush to instead nominate a former Senator and Ambassador to New Zealand, Carol Moseley-Braun for the Iraq post. But then, wasn't she connected to the dictator thug from Nigeria and all about making money on their oil?
Oh well, at least this story diverts attention away from Senator Rockefella's comments about the military, joining others of his ilk like Senator John F. Kerry (who served in Cambodia under Nixon!), turbin-Durbin and John Murtha who at one time or another at first blush, showed their loathing of today's soldiers and contempt for the good they are accomplishing in the war on terror.
Kudos once again MM(vl)!
Hey ProudMORON just how stupid are you going to get. Remember THIS part of your post
Yes he was nominated by Bush but confirmed by the Senate? THAT means he is a political appointee you idiot.
Let me at least congratulate you for being on topic. Your post was STUPID but it was on topic
It also doesn't mean that they're OK because the Senate validated them.
It's not share the blame time-- If the Senate hadn't ratified them, all hell would have broken loose with these wingnuts!
I love how the Right tries to glom things off on the Dems, when things don't work out for them! Like the war itself.....
Nice hi-jack, PC. Any idea why McCain votes against benefits for vets whenever the opportunity arises?
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/page/article/id/9559
Check all the links to the senate.gov website. I am at a loss to explain it, but since he seems to be the candidate you seem to be aligned with, I'll let you try. NAC bailed on this one.
All those nice medals were political.
Both bios confirm that these men are political appointees.
"turbin-Durbin"
PROUDCONSERVATIVE
Hey PC-- you're an a-hole. And a bigot, too.
What we all know:
There were many political hacks spouting off like jackasses during the committee hearings for the past two days.
Petraeus and Crocker were not among them. These guys are cool and professional.
I hope that Obama will give thanks that such courageous and dedicated men as these are willing to serve their nation and wear the uniform proudly.
Go Obama!!!
solon:
I have really been busy lately and was thinking about quitting. But your post reminded me that there are people who need to be reached. And if I can get just one person to take a good, hard look at reality, well that will be enough for me.
So I just want to thank you for giving me the incentive to keep going.
Thanks, ol' buddy. Thanks.
You are a liar and a fool and no one with two brain cells to rub together takes you seriously. You dont try to reach anyone, you dont try to have a discussion, you are a troll, a liar, and a fool, nothing else
Solon, I've read so many of your unproductive and pointless rants & raves, its hard to separate you from those you attack. I fail to see anywhere in your previous post on this subject where you tried to "have a discussion" - especially when you start off with "You are a liar and a...."
And if I can get just one person to take a good, hard look at reality, well that will be enough for me.
LOL
First you would have to say something intelligent.
I noticed the vitriol aimed at NAC by so many of our liberal friends here for making a valid point and nobody criticizing Solon for his ad hominem attack on NAC as a liar and fool.
Think about it. What if NAC (or me,) called every progressive who posts here a liar and fool. How many of you would be up in arms.
The double standard here is amazing. Solon's repeated refrain of calling everyone he disagrees with as a "liar" is getting a little long in the tooth.
If one cannot understand the point being made by Blitzer of a career diplomat and officer being appointed to these two positions, as opposed to an appointment purely on political grounds, (like five of President Clinton's ambassadorial appointees wo donated more than $100,000 to Democratic causes shortly before he was elected,) then you are simply being deliberately partisan.
Solon,
I do not believe NACs comments here had anything to do with Obama. So what if NAC is being sarcastic. Again your defense of childish name calling only shows your hypocritical attitude toward those whom you disagree. Ok. We get it. You think we're all liars. Fine. Lets move on.
You are hereby allowed to give your position as self appointed defender of what is truth a rest. It is really monotonous.
"If one cannot understand the point being made by Blitzer of a career diplomat and officer being appointed to these two positions, as opposed to an appointment purely on political grounds,"
It IS solely on political grounds. All political govt. appointments involve some degree of expertise in the respective fields-- but they are still SOLIDLY political appointments.
Just because these generals have military experience does not obviate this fact. They were appointed for political policy reasons. That's why they-- and not others-- got the jobs.
This ain't the Civil Service, guys.
NAC, how about the reality of an untold number of years of squandering our resources in Iraq to manage a civil war...oh wait, I'm sorry, an "ethno-sectarian competition," where, as Dick Cheney put it so eloquently in 1994, we'll be in nothing but a quagmire.
That's what it is, and that's what it's going to continue to be until we bring our troops home. All of them.
Of course, Petraeus will of course advise us to bring our troops home when it comes to the point that he'll advise us to bring the troops home. And when will that be? At that point. When is that point? When he advises us to bring the troops home.
But your buddy McCain will cut the deficit! Just like Reagan did! (hint: Reagan tripled the deficit.) And he was a prisoner of war, so we should vote for him, right?
Go Huckabee!
Oh I know, just wanted to point out all the points... :)
NOTANOTHER
EVERYONE THANKS THE COURAGOUS,DEDICATED MEN AND WOMEN IN THE ARMED SERVICES THAT PROUDLY DEFENDS AND PROTECTS US. WHAT YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IS THE LIES THAT SENT THEM THERE . I'M SURE YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING,BUT THATS BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN SOLD A BILL OF GOODS
NAC,
I guess you must be sleeping in today. Because you still won't answer my question, I will bring it up again: How do you reconcile McCain as a friend of the military when he constantly votes against giving the military greater government benefits?
Since you don't want to go to that website, I will post all of its external links here:
1) Article about McCain being the only presidential candidate to miss key Iraq votes. He only made it to 4 of the 14:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccains-missed-votes-on-iraq-trigger-reid-rebuke-2007-05-17.html
2) Here is a vote where McCain voted against specified time between deployments:
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00341
3) He didn't vote on a troop draw down bill. If the war is how he is to be judged, even according to him, why miss this vote? He was only one of two senators to miss it and Tim Johnson was out after his stroke:
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00075
4) McCain voted against giving $20 million to the Department of Veterans' Affairs for Health Care facilities
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00111
5) He was one of ONLY 13 Senators to vote against a measure to provide an additional $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00098
6) He voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00041
7) He voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00040
8) He voted against providing an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00376
9)McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00116
10) He voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00263
Any idea why McCain voted these ways?
Fried,
You make good points. I hope that gets asked during the debates this fall.
Well as I said I was only guessing. No one can say one way or the other the reasons one choses not to vote on a bill. Many in congress choose not to vote on certain bills for whatever reason (political, personal, etc)
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270
Theres the voting record for all 3 candidates... as you will see there are many (not voting) in there. Hilary and Obama didn't vote on the economic stimulus package. Is it because they don't care... I doubt it.
Anyway thats just my input on that matter.
Hope Obama doesn't feel too bad when you stiff him when a recently retired general runs for the presidency in 12.
GOOO! MING!!
I find it hard to believe that the folks of Media Matters are so ignorant as to fail to understand the distinction between "political appointees" and career personnel -- or the fact that careerists have significant official and unofficial protections that political hacks do not.
Therefore, I have to assume this particular piece is a deliberate deception, making MM no better than the conservatives it criticizes.
"Political appointee" is a specific term of art in both political reporting and government circles -- it is applied to those who ENTER and LEAVE government service as a result of the election of someone else.
In other words, to people who have a government job only because their patron was elected to office.
Cabinet secretaries, for example, or ambassadors who get their appointments because they were big campaign donors.
It does NOT apply to career foreign service or military officers -- who may be re-assigned to a different JOB but cannot be removed from their GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT without cause.
Now, the fact that Solon and other ranters are so ignorant that they don't know this doesn't surprise me. But an organization that goes by the name of "Media Matters for America" certainly SHOULD know it!
No Solon... you demonstrated your personal ignorance by taking my criticism of the Media Matters staff who mischaracterized Blitzer's comment and somehow assuming it was meant for you -- and then immediately resorting to a personal attack on me.
From now on, when you feel the urge to start talking out of your posterior, at least try standing up first -- it helps the blood get to your brain.
Actually that may have been what you MEANT but it isnt what you SAID. You posted that the FOLKS at Media Matters... Now not only do I support this site with my money I come here regularly. You go on to be COMPLETELY WRONG about whether or not Crocker and Petreaus are political appointees which of course THEY ARE. Since I am taking the stance they are and you said so ignorant we cant tell the difference it is absolutly reasonable to infer you were talking about people like ME. Not to mention its dumb to call people ignornant for BEING RIGHT while you go on to show YOUR ignorance by being WRONG.
Well, Solon, tell ya what: You find Petraeus' position here in the official government list of THE ONLY positions that are considered political appointments, and I'll give you an apology.
My criticism was directed at the author -- apparently "—M.M.B." -- but since you seem to be unable to even consider the possibility that the Media Matters staff could be mistaken (or, as I suspect, being deliberately deceptive in this case), you pretty much self-identify as "ignorant."
As a professional journalist myself, I generally find Media Matters to be reasonably on-point -- which is why I posted on THIS thread when they are so demonstrably wrong.
Oh and you also said
Now, the fact that Solon and other ranters are so ignorant
So bite me. YOU are being insulting. I am returning serve. If you dont LIKE mud thrown at you dont throw mud. I am perfectly willing and capable of having a civil discussion with someone who is discussing civilly. I am not going to take insults blithely and ask if I can have another. IF you leave off YOUR personal attacks so will I. IF you want to be rude, I WILL return serve.
fingerlickinggood,
Are you kidding us? Look at what you posted....
AA, your childish name-calling and ad hominem attacks are getting rather monotonous. I'd suggest you try to address the issues rather than unleashing your vitriol on those trying to have a discussion. Simply popping in to call somebody a troll does nothing to advance the discourse here.
Did you not look at the crap flowing in the previous 30 or 40 responses? You used to seem to have possessed a reasonability regarding your comments but as you once told me about yourself, "Don't confuse me with someone of decency" is ringing true now. And here I thought you were being sarcastic then. What a pity for the poster you have become and an ally of whackjobs that truely respond with vitriol to reasonable dissenting writers that try to engage here. Next you WIIL be DOING nothing but JUVENILE CAPITALIZATIONS in lame attempts to appear INTELLIGENT ENOUGH to play with the big boys.
What a fricken shame.
Just out of curiosity, Solon, have you ever lived outside your parents' basement?
Obviously you have never been a career foreign service officer nor a commissioned officer, or you would understand the difference. Petraeus is a four-star general -- and no matter what he says or who he pisses off, or what job he is assigned, they can't take that away from him unless he is convicted of crimes under the UCMJ.
That creates a significant degree of independence that pure political appointees do not have. Anyone who doubts that need only look back to Abizaid's early appearance before Congress as the new Centcom commander -- when he called Iraq an "insurgency" and "guerilla warfare" despite Rumsfeld's claims to the contrary -- and note that eventually Abizaid retired on HIS timetable while Rummy was effectively told to turn in his resignation.
Crocker has similar tenure-style protections as a career foreign service officer.
Any inside-the-beltway government reporter should have learned the difference the first week on the job... which is why I strongly suspect this is not a mistake by MM, but a deliberate attack on Blitzer by throwing out a disinformation campaign.
I've no idea why they want to attack Blitzer; although I can find much to criticize about him, this particular claim doesn't make the cut.
My, my... I write a reply pointing out what I thought should be obvious -- that it appears the EDITORS of Media Matters deliberately misrepresented reality to blast Blitzer -- and somehow it never appears.
A little Left Wing censorship to balance that of the Right Wing???
Let's try this one more time...
A "political appointee" is someone whose government job depends upon the favor of the appointing official.
Neither Petraeus nor Crocker fits that description. The politicians could change their specific JOBS... but not their status as career government employees. Petraeus would still be a general and Crocker would still be a career Foreign Service officer (and still be entitled to the honorific "Ambassador.")
Equally important, the experienced professional journalists on the MM staff/advisors list know that, or should -- it's unlikely any competent editor would let a description of Petraeus as "a political appointee" slip into print.
As for you, Solon, and your knee-jerk personal attack on me... I'm sorry if the point -- and the facts -- are beyond your comprehension.
The stupidity is YOURS. An astonishing level of stupidity. You personally us and me personally so spare me the WWWAAHHH stop treating me the way I treat you WWWAHHHH, its pathetic. Keep your posts civil so will I attack me and I am coming back at you. Whoever told you conservatives had the exclusive franchise on personal attacks LIED to you. The job they have RIGHT NOW is a political appointement. Nothing you say, no spin you try, can get past this fact. The job they have NOW is dependent on the whim of the President. The job they are in NOW means they serve at the pleasure of the President. The fact that if they are fired from THE JOB THEY HAVE NOW, they will still have a government job to go back to changes this IN NO WAY. I dont know how much simpler I can make this. We all get how stupid you are but it would take a world class moron not to understand that what MMFA said is absolutly and without dispute correct. YOU are tying to redifine the term to mean what you NEED it to mean in order for your argument to make sense. They were APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT. If he doesnt like the job they are doing they are gone FROM THAT JOB. Since the job they are currently in is by definition a POLITICAL APPOINTMENT then by definition they are POLITICAL APPOINTEES.
"I find it hard to believe that the folks of Media Matters are so ignorant as to fail to understand the distinction between "political appointees" and career personnel"
This is a career guy who was appointed politically into an essentially political job.
The truth finally comes out - David Brock (and his paymaster George Soros) are just a political hack front group:
David Brock, Dems plan $40M hit on McCain
But after a dinner Tuesday night at the Manhattan apartment of liberal megadonor George Soros, at which Brock and consultant Paul Begala laid out the group's plans, Brock said his group now has commitments worth $7.5 million — almost twice what the Fund for America is expected to report raising in the first quarter of this year. He said the group would begin running ads before it meets its $40 million goal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like everything that was said about Brock and his phony MMFA front group is proven true by the new media smear his master (George Soros) is planning against McCain.
I call on my candidate Obama to denounce the new smear merchants and I hope that Obama realizes that associating with these scumbags will only hurt his chance to be the first affirmative action candidate in US history.
Go Obama!!
I call on my candidate Obama to denounce the new smear merchants and I hope that Obama realizes that associating with these scumbags will only hurt his chance to be the first affirmative action candidate in US history.
Go Obama!!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VV52QG0&show_article=1
I've got some bad news for you NAC, it appears that the Maverick is gaining on your candidate in the polls
NAC,
Did you actually read the article? I call on you to live up to your word and try to answer my reasonable questions. I answered yours.
friedbergboy1422
I'm going to just be honest with - I'm afraid! You are such a genius that I'm worried that I'll just be crushed by your brilliant logic. Obviously, most of the other people who post at MMFA are just dumb. But not you. You're smart.
NAC,
Read through the articles and links and let's have a discussion. I just want your point of view, nothing more, nothing less.
Blitzer is such a conservative pig I just can't believe any network would give him a job. He should change his name to Blitzer-Bush.
Here you go: This is the complete 2004 Plum Book, the list of positions that CAN be filled by political appointees.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2004/2004_plum_book.pdf
You won't find Petraeus' position in there anywhere.
As for Crocker, the ambassador in 2004 WAS a political appointee, John Negroponte -- but Crocker was chosen as a career FSO... and career FSOs fill the majority of ambassador positions.
No, they are NOT. The government defines the term "political appointee" -- not you. It is a very specific term, with specific legal implications.
And experienced reporters like Alterman, Blumenthal, Boehlert, and Brock -- not to mention all the political players on the staff -- certainly should know that and know that Blitzer was correct in his statement. (If not, then they have no credibility at all.)
Which is why I suspect the blast at Blitzer is a deliberate deception -- raw meat thrown before the ravening pack upon which MM relies for its finances.
You been played, Dude... and you bit hook, line and sinker.
It is NOT a deception. They are IN political posts. They WERE nominated by Bush. They DO serve at the pleasure of the President. Petreaus even said this directly
Petraeus stated: "[F]olks at this level serve at the pleasure of the -- of the president,
THAT is what a political appointee IS. Nothing you have said or shown changes any of this. Whatever you want to say about political appointees meaning this or that how can it POSSIBLY preclude those who are NOMINATED by the President and SERVE AT HIS PLEASURE?