AP ignored previous reporting on Obama's questioning of Petraeus
SUMMARY: An AP article stated that Sen. John McCain "chid[ed] [Sen. Barack Obama] for never receiving a briefing from Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in [Iraq]." The article reported McCain's claims without challenging them -- it made no mention of the fact that Obama has twice questioned Petraeus on the situation in Iraq during Senate hearings.
In a June 24 "Analysis" article by Glen Johnson, the Associated Press stated that Sen. John McCain "chid[ed] [Sen. Barack Obama] for never receiving a briefing from Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in [Iraq]." The article went on to quote McCain as saying: "Remarkable how someone can make an assessment of the situation without asking for a briefing from the commanding general." The AP reported the claims without challenging them -- it made no mention of the fact that Obama has twice questioned Petraeus on the situation in Iraq during hearings held by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September 11, 2007, and April 8, 2008.
In fact, the AP has issued several articles that noted Obama's presence and/or questions to Petraeus during the two hearings. For example, in a September 11, 2007, article, the AP reported:
In separate hearings conducted by the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, [Petraeus] and [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker were sitting in front of four other presidential hopefuls besides Biden. They are: Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Barack Obama of Illinois."
And in an April 8 article, the AP stated:
Obama pressed Petraeus and Crocker on their standard for success in Iraq. The Illinois senator and Democratic front-runner said he worries that the goals -- completely eliminating al-Qaida and Iranian influences -- may be impossible to achieve and troops could be there for 20 or 30 years in a fruitless effort."
Further, in a September 11, 2007, AP "Analysis" article, Nedra Pickler quoted Obama asking Petraeus and Crocker during the Foreign Relations Committee hearing, "We are now confronted with the question: How do we clean up the mess and make the best out of a situation in which there are no good options, there are bad options and worse options?"
From the June 24 AP "Analysis" article:
More recently, McCain has taken to taunting his Democratic presidential rival, offering to escort first-term Sen. Barack Obama on a visit to Iraq and chiding him for never receiving a briefing from Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in the country.
McCain, like President Bush, views the war in Iraq as critical in the effort to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
Obama has called instead for a withdrawal of U.S. troops, prompting McCain to scold him Monday by saying, "Remarkable how someone can make an assessment of the situation without asking for a briefing from the commanding general."
Obama responded Tuesday, saying McCain supported "one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in our history," the Iraq war.
To claim that it would be neccessary and informative, to sit down with Gen. Petraeus for a briefing on Iraq, is almost the same claim of value to do the same thing with Defense Secretary Gates: there's nothing that Gen. Petraeus knows and can tell you, that DOD Secretary Gates doesn't also know (because Gen. Petraeus answers to the Secretary), and wouldn't also tell you (if he could)... and by extension, wouldn't it be just as informative and necessary to sit down with and be briefed, on Iraq, by George W. Bush the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, under whose command and orders is Gen. Petraeus... if you'd you'd find value and worth in being briefed by Gen. Petraeus, wouldn't you find at least as much value if not more, in being briefed on Iraq by George W. Bush?
If you accept that extension as logical and true, then you might dispute the claim there was anything informative or valuable about sitting down with Commander in Chief George W. Bush, for a briefing on Iraq... you might decline such a briefing, thank you very much, because you had already heard it a million times before, and don't need to hear it again.
So, the only people who can make any comments or analysis of what's going on in Iraq would be those who have had a briefing from Petraeus?
That sure sounds like what McCain is saying - that Obama can't make a fair assessment of what's going on without having a briefing from him. That's the conservative misinformation, and any news source should mention that Obama has gotten lots of information, including much directlly from Petraeus himself.
"Remarkable how someone can make an assessment of the situation without asking for a briefing from the commanding general."
The articles are pointing out that what McCain said was disingenuous and they should have called him on it this time like they and other news media did on other occasions. The reason they should call him on it is because it's unfair and untrue that only people who have had a briefing from Petraeus should comment and analyze the war in Iraq.
I called you on what you said. If you don't like it, don't put it out there for all of us to see.
Obama responded Tuesday, saying McCain supported "one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in our history," the Iraq war.
Obama should say this as often as he can.
but, but...it wasn't a real meeting...I mean, it was a hearing, not a meeting right? Barack Obama hates our troops.
Did I get all the talking points in? Did I miss any? ;)
Hey! You forgot a few! Bad bowler! Pool player! Orange-juice drinker! Basketballer! TERRORIST FIST-JABBER!
And of course...n****r...
Who called Obama the n-bomb?
Oh, it will happen soon enough. I'm sure that word has been used to refer to him on GOP back room discussions; it's just a matter of time when you'll hear rank-and-file Republicans use it.
Look for it to be heard on the floor at the GOP Convention......
Haha, I was really only looking for topic-specific talking points, but thanks for the input.
btw, what's GWAT?
It's maybe of value to note here, in this matter, that the man who is presently in the U.S. and is meeting with George W. Bush, Iraqi President Talabani, is Officially Iraq's "Chief of State": he is not Iraq's Official "Head of Government", as that is Prime Minister Maliki... this is an important distinction to make, for the reason that President Talabani has no authority whatsoever over the Iraqi Armed Forces, and therefore plays no role (but has an opinion I'm sure) in Iraq's National Security... this is an important distinction. It means among other things, that neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain would necessarily seek any briefing from President Talabani, because he has no authority in Iraq over that nation's armed forces, and plays little or no part in that nation's National Security: and therefore has nothing to do with the U.S. Military occupation of Iraq. This is in stark and serious contrast to Prime Minister Maliki's function in Iraq, and to the fact that both Senators Obama and McCain should be eager to speak often, and at length, to PM Maliki: his place in Iraq's government (as Official "Head of Government") making his opinion of Iraq's Armed Forces, and of their capacity to perform the functions of Iraq's National Security (so that U.S. Armed Forces do not have to continue doing that, and can return Home)... his opinion in the matter is important, extremely important. President Talabani's opinion is much different, as he serves a non-military and non-National Security function to the Iraqi people... it's worth noting here, to kind of stay ahead of the wave, so to speak.
I think this criticism is entirely legitimate. The senate hearings involve nothing but political grandstanding, an opportunity for politicians on both sides to pander and look good in front of their base.
Both Obama and the Maverick should be regularly seeking private "briefings" from those in charge of the most important foreign policy issue presently facing the country. It will land on one of their laps very shortly. It's awfully presumptuous, not to mention stupid, to suggest that Obama should not seek individual briefings from petraeus, in an atmosphere where both can speak frankly to one another.
It's likely that he'll learn something new about what's happening over there, what intelligence reports are projecting, and so on. And even if he learns nothing new regarding the fluid situation in iraq, which is doubtful, it stands to reason that petraeus and the military would benefit as well. I'm sure they're curious as to what concrete changes, as opposed to campaign rhetoric, that a new administration has in mind . . .
You gotta keep in mind, Thomp., Obama is pretty busy running his campaign and preparing to take the office of president.Once he's in there will be plenty of time to do the ceremonial kaffeeklatches with the old figureheads.
Grampy (& maybe Petraeus, too) is just preparing for retirement, which involves a lot of sitting around and gossiping with other old people.
And yelling at kids to get off his lawn.
*giggle* McCain's ooooold...
We have an older couple that moved into our neighborhood. Lots of 3-4 bedroom homes on fairly small lots without lots of fancy upgrades. The exact place one is going to find many small and mid-sized children.
They piss and moan about finding kid's toys on their yard. They complain when the neighbor kid's ring their doorbells to ask about Halloween candy or buying the latest school fundraiser. They have taken to sitting out in their yard and yelling at the kids to quiet down on summer evenings, like the kids aren't supposed to be having fun outside in the street!
What did they think they were going to get buying in this neighborhood?
Anytime anyone visits, it's nothing but PR.
Except for the Maverick who went to get some cheap rugs.