« Congress and Cowardice | Main | John Edwards' America »

Petraeus Confirmed By Senate 81-0

The Senate has confirmed General Petraeus with no dissenting votes, but they don't seem interested in listening to him, except to quote "dire" soundbites.

The U.S. Senate on Friday confirmed Army Gen. David Petraeus as the next commander of U.S. forces in Iraq even though he supports a boost in American troops that many senators oppose.

Widely regarded as one the army's brightest commanders, Petraeus, who was confirmed on a vote of 81-0, told senators earlier this week that the situation in Iraq was "dire" but not hopeless.

Petraeus, who has already completed two Iraq tours, will be charged with implementing President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq in an effort to halt spiraling insurgent attacks and sectarian violence.

A key Senate committee has approved a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's strategy. A full Senate vote on that measure and another proposal criticizing the plan could come as soon as next week.

An excellent point from Kate O'Beirne:
"Rather than back a non-binding resolution of disaproval, why didn't the gutsy Senators, like Chuck Hagel, who are riding the surf of public opinion opposed to the troop surge and taking on a president with approval ratings at the freezing level vote aginst General Petraeus' confirmation? Their convictions hold that he has endorsed a wholly unjustified escalation and will be leading troops on a futile mission. They want a role in the conduct of the war and with the need to win Senate confirmation of Gen. Petraeus the Constitution has given them one, but they have taken a pass. "
Hat tip to Instapundit.

Betsy Newmark has more about the Democrats' cognitive dissonance.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Petraeus Confirmed By Senate 81-0:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Warner Backs Resolution Opposing Troop Increase

Comments (39)

How can you hire a man to l... (Below threshold)
woody:

How can you hire a man to lift heavy boxes for you & then tell him that he can't use his hands, his legs, or his back--& by no means shall he use machines or other people as aides? Well hell--don't hire him.

Lorie: That 81 (out... (Below threshold)
Langtry:

Lorie: That 81 (out of 100 senators) to zero confirmation vote suggests that 19 senators either didn't show up or chose to abstain from voting to confirm Patraeus. I always have trouble looking up Senate voting results: can you help me find out of my 2 worthless senators (Obama and Durbin) were amongst those who chickened out of taking a stand (a stand I disagree with but nonetheless demand they account for)?

Woody: Well said!

Langtry - Normally you can ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Langtry - Normally you can fine the resultts of Senate votes here.

As you can see the digital minions that update the site haven't done jack sh*t since the last vote on Dec 9th of '06.

I would echo Kate O'Beirne thoughts.

And add, just where were those 19 Senators that didn't care enough to do their jobs, on a Friday.

Oh wait, Friday! Silly me I didn't realize they are above the rest of us and can decide to take a paid three day weekend on the slightest whim.

Wonder who will be the first to propose the Senate use sick days when "friends" are sick like San Fransisco?

Wait...they were against th... (Below threshold)

Wait...they were against the surge before they were for the guy calling for the surge?

Marc beat me to the link. <... (Below threshold)
al:

Marc beat me to the link. This is the one I used.

As for our worthless senators

Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea

Lorie, you forgot to quote ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lorie, you forgot to quote the latter part of Kate 's post

When you're playing at being a military strategist you sure don't want to go up against the real thing, so better to have an unpopular commander-in-chief be the face of the new mission rather than the veteran general who will be in command.

The liberals are not interested in a real debate. This is their chance to debate the surge general, but they only want to play politics. That 's why I am always amused at liberal pontification about their sophisticated understanding of the world. These people are a joke.

The answer is they are more... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

The answer is they are more interested in scoring political points and harming Bush than they are about winning or losing the war. Of course since they think losing the war will hurt Bush, that has it's attractions for them. They also realize what they will look like, so winning the war doesn't look to hot for them. But all in all, the winning and the losing is only intepreted through the lens of BDS and political spin.

"..but they don't seem inte... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

"..but they don't seem interested in listening to him, except to quote "dire" soundbites."

-As if Petraeus would even be considered for the position if he had ever mentioned "dire" and "Iraq" in the same sentence.

Shorter Bush: "Goddamit, get me someone in uniform who believes in what I think!"

Liberals said they want a d... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Liberals said they want a debate. Here is a general who believes in the surge. Let 's have the debate with him through the confirmation hearing. This is another example of how the liberals cannot be honest about who they are and what they believe.

LoveAmerica et al:... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

LoveAmerica et al:

You ought to try looking in the mirror sometime when it comes to the "pontification" thing. But more of interest - what do you think about these, I guess you'd call them "liberals":

...an interesting quote from the chairman of the Kansas Republican Party. Kansas is not exactly a bastion of democratic "Bush haters" as far as I know. He said: "...the president's war policies are not very popular here...even good republicans are getting frustrated and believe the president is being stubborn...Seven out of 10 good conservative republicans may not want to say it, but they oppose the war."

The Dems are giving Bush th... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

The Dems are giving Bush the rope to hang himself. You know that. Politically speaking, it's the Oppositions "best move". A covered pawn is stronger than an isolated queen.

Hugh,I know you are ... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Hugh,
I know you are having trouble seeing this, but there is a difference between "opposing the war" and openly rooting for defeat through surrender and slandering our troops as either torturers (Durbin, Gitmo) or terrorists (Kerry, Iraq) or kids who don't have a clue what they are doing (ala Cindy Sheehan and thousands of others like her).

Refer to Kate O'Beirne's comment about the Petraeus vote. These gutless wonders in the Senate think Petraeus is dead wrong when he says there is a chance to succeed in Iraq, they oppose the plan he says he will implement, but they vote to confirm with no opposition. They believe the plan is a disaster and will cost more American lives, yet they won't defund it.

By the standard being used by Democrats, everyone who voted for Petraeus has the blood of any future American deaths in Iraq on their hands. Those in the general public who are not loving the war, but are also not slandering our troops do not give me one minutes' worry.

Americans gave their respon... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Americans gave their response to the Bush War..(it is his War now..he is the decider)in November...
Tomorrow 100,000's of Americans will attend rallys that will demand "No More" I will be at the one in Denver..so will my wife who still voted Republican in the last election...so will our son-in-law who received his purple heart medical discharge from wounds in Iraq and is a pissed off vet because he will not receive his full College benefits..BECAUSE HE DID NOT SERVE FOR 4 YEARS...

Sanity and awareness have nothing to do with political parties. It does not matter who commands our troops in Iraq...Because we are led by a man who could care less what the majority in congress wants..but more importantly what the majority of Americans want...No Escalation! Those people you will see on your local and national TV tomorrow are not a gathering of moonbat hippies...we are a gathering of Americans...exercising our right to assemble for a redress of grievances.

May I suggest you folks give out a call for a massive march in Washington and your city of those who support this debacle of escalation..see how much enthusiasm that garners.

Lorie:I have no tr... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Lorie:

I have no trouble at all in seeing it. What I have trouble with is painting those who oppose the war with a broad brush and generalizations that are just plain false, e.g. "liberals want us to lose."

As I said in my comment to your first post today. I disagree with your position but I certainly respect it. I don't (as I imagine the vast majority of people don't) condone calling the troops "terrorists" or torturers.

And I completely reject the argument that you can't support the troops and be against the war. That's just a disingenuous argument.

Thanks for your comment to me. I'd like to continue the discussion with you in the future.

Nogo,Sounds to me li... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Nogo,
Sounds to me like you agree with me that those Dems who were against the surge should have voted against Petraeus and should be defunding the mission.

I hope you will be holding up a sign at the rally calling for just that action because the Dems are certainly not delivering that. They want to oppose the war, in line with popularity polls, but don't want to do anything of substance to put teeth to that opposition. Non-binding resolutions...voting 81-0 for the guy in favor of the surge and dedicated to implement it...real courage there.

No surprise though, these are the same guys who voted for the war in the first place, then when the going got tough, decided to blame it all on the President and pretend they didn't know what they were getting into. They are liars or incompetants, but you won't hold them to account. It is so much easier bashing Bush.

I think Dems and many Repub... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I think Dems and many Republicans who have expressed "reservations" about the surge need to put up or shut up...this is not about the troops..we can support the warrior without supporting the war..
Politics is about being elected..then of course being re-elected ...there are the spineless in both parties..but if folks thought Iraq was the issue in 06 (remember it drove Joe L from the party..
..when chaos still reigns and our brave are still dying and the Iraqi govt is still trying...ALL will be held accountable...
either they represent their constituents or they don't...

Lori I do agree with you ab... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Lori I do agree with you about many Dems...they must have known more than the many of us regular folks who did not believe our President/VP..back in 2002..
But again it was about being re-elected..they did have have the courage to withstand the insults from the right of being weak on terror...That is why Edwards seems hollow and Obama and Gore and Richardson who spoke early will outperform Clinton and Edwards...(oh yeah..bless goffy Dennis Kucinich)

Thanks, Marc and Al!... (Below threshold)
Langtry:

Thanks, Marc and Al!

Nogo, I agree with ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Nogo,
I agree with you about one thing: the liberals haven't changed their stripe. They are for cut-and-run. They were defeatist against the communists. They are defeatist against the terrorists now. In essense, the Dems want to cut and run since the US cannot win!
It does take courage for the dems to do what the terrorists expect them would do. And Patreus is an example that the Dems are not serious about debate. All these anti-war dems can have an open debate with Patreus about the surge strategy, but they chose not to. That does take courage?

One more thing: the dems/li... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

One more thing: the dems/liberals haven't changed their stripe at all. During the cold war, the liberals tried to sabotage/undermine Reagan every step in his effort to fight the communists. Now they are trying to undermine/sabotage Bush every step in his effort to fight the terrorists. The liberals are simply not honest enough to admit that. Patreus is simply an example fo that dishonesty.

"cut and run"...Love A...ha... (Below threshold)
nogopostal:

"cut and run"...Love A...have you ever been to "The Wall" in D.C.? Viet Nam? been there done that..two simple questions...Were more of those who took over planes on 9/11 from Saudi A or Iraq? next...why do we kiss the Saudi ass while their schools teach hatred toward us and Israel...
You can continue to believe what you want..but the overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens disagree...(by the way when was the last time you personally talked with someone who has served in Iraq...visited your local V.A. hospital? Attended the burying of someone killed over there?) Why keep yourself removed from the reality of this debacle?)

All of the require much less sacrifice of effort on your part than your call for more blood until we win (whatever win means now)
You don't even have the balls to stand on a street corner in your town with a sign that reads "I support our President and The Surge"

Here is a general who be... (Below threshold)
Larkin:

Here is a general who believes in the surge.

No one knows what Petreaus really thinks. His job is to implement Bush's surge plan as he's been instructed. Military men don't have the option of openly disagreeing with the civilian leadership. That's not how our system works.

The whole idea of voting against Petreaus is just completely absurd. Bush is the commander-in-chief and the war is being fought under his direction. The surge plan is his idea. Petreaus is just following orders and if it wasn't him it would be someone else.

If you really want a confrontation over this why doesn't Bush propose that Congress pass a bill specifically authorizing the funds to pay for this surge? That way we could have the debate and let Congress decide. If they vote no, he would have to abandon the plan. If they vote yes, then it can go forward.

Wouldn't that be the democratic (small "d") thing to do?

Congress SPECIFICALLY has t... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Congress SPECIFICALLY has that power. It's not anybody else's job to encourage Congress to their job.
-=Mike

And this was the time for t... (Below threshold)

And this was the time for the Democrats to send the message to Bush to stop the war. Apparently, they don't believe that's such a good idea.

Can someone please arrest n... (Below threshold)

Can someone please arrest nogo for criminal molestation of the ellipsis? It makes his pieces almost impossible to read... like it's one long run-on sentence... that goes on and on... and approaches one point after another... meandering in endless circles... but never really achieving them... it's like Ben Stein's character in Ferris Bueller... an endless, tedious, mindless droning...

J.

nogo:<br... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

nogo:


but if folks thought Iraq was the issue in 06 (remember it drove Joe L from the party..

And re-elected him in the general election.

nogo's writing is a lot mor... (Below threshold)
englishman:

nogo's writing is a lot more intelligible than some of the Thirty Percenters on your blog, J. Would you prefer that everyone communicated solely in perfunctory declaratives like Bush?

The Democrats don't want to... (Below threshold)
drlava:

The Democrats don't want to listen to Petraeus? I'd say Bush/Cheney don't want to listen. In this manual that Petraeus wrote he calls for minimum force strength for counterinsurgency work at 20 soldiers per 1000 residents. That is 100,000 of our guys for Baghdad alone.

As Hagel says, Bush is sending them into the grinder and you folks think its a great idea.

Try turning of Fox news and read Petraeus' field manual:

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/Repository/Materials/COIN-FM3-24.pdf

drlava: primary sources rul... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

drlava: primary sources rule! good job! (and no, I'm not going to read it (ALL) (HEADACHE-INDUCING!), but still: good job! ... JT, if you have time on your hands, could you post something? Preferably not related to the Boston Globe? I mean, the Taxachusetts-envy is kind of embarrassing. Mr.Ducky's OK if you could somehow include a hot anime nymphet angle. Nerds and pervs! I'm THERE!

primary sources rule! g... (Below threshold)
marc:

primary sources rule! good job! (and no, I'm not going to read it (ALL) Posted by: bryanD at January 26, 2007 10:13 PM

Like the primary source loose change you're so quick to trot out?

With the Senate [semi]Intelligence Committee voting a nonbinding resolution disagreeing with the Bush policy and many, if not all the same people voteing to confirm the new Gen for the Iraq mission it raises a question.

If Gen. John Abizaid was "fired" (he actually had his papers in to retire long ago) for not agreeing with the Bush plan wouldn't it have been more politically expedient to offer a resolution stating the Senate desired Abizaid to remain on the job?

When Petraeus was before th... (Below threshold)

When Petraeus was before the panel, his staff had an elaborate presentation prepared to fully answer questions related to counter-insurgency and the like. But the distinguished panel never asked for they were too busy posturing for Cspan's cameras.
C'mon folks, snap out of it!! 21 senators up for election and one of 'em is Chuck Hagel. Not the most popular guy on campus. Everyone is preoccupied with 2008 and the politics trump what matters.

Americans gave their res... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Americans gave their response to the Bush War..


You're right. They elected Bush to be the commander in chief and president back in 2004. electing democrats to congress does nothing as far as commander in chief powers. Until the democrats start proposing a defunding of OUR (americas) troops and a defunding of OUR (america and the free world's) war, then they really have no say in what the commander in chief does. Quite frankly it is a good thing there is only one commander in chief, and not 101...

marc: huh?.... Wizbang: Now... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

marc: huh?.... Wizbang: Now is the time for all good Bushbots to come to the aid of The Chimp (yeah, I stole "the chimp" from another poster, but it FITS!)... until then http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

Liberals cannot simply be h... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Liberals cannot simply be honest enough to admit who they are and that they wish for American defeat in Iraq. The democrats are doing exactly what the terrorists expect them to do and even more than that. Liberal journalists complained that not enough soldiers were killed in this war compared to previous wars because of the advanced treatment in the field! And liberals pretend to care about the troops. They spit and assault the military back here in the US. Liberals try to bar the military from the campus. I am amazed by the hypocrisy and the lack of honesty from these liberals.

I'm curious, do you like li... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I'm curious, do you like liberals?

I like Gen Petraeus for som... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

I like Gen Petraeus for some reason. He seems to, in a my opinion, understand the situation on the ground currently. Let's be realistic, we didn't need 300,000 troops to overrun the country initially.

But now, with the numbers in the remote provinces able to do their job, commanders cannot pull them into areas within trouble spots in Sadr city in order to prevent the whack-a-mole possibility. The insurgency is watching the movements of our troops - that's what enemy forces do.

Generally, I'm with the hawks, but it needs to be carefully considered what a congressional adjustment of funds will result in.

I think that the question from both the Left and the Right needs to be something like...

What is the risk vs. the reward?

That's the important part of entire [reasonable] discussion.

If you're a war opponent, then the reward is bringing them home also must include considering the risk of the possibility of criticisms from the right, emboldening the enemy or creating more terror here at home. I'd say that then you have to throw out the anti-Bush or "neo-con" idealism in order to achieve clarity within that discussion, and put forth some reason besides what happened 3 or 4 years ago with the current administration.

Generally, from the right, if the risk portion equates to that the anti-war crowd here at home having more criticisms of the President, the "right", the military and our elected representatives - then the the reward part of this is exhibiting a trust in the military commanders, who've successfully deposed a brutal dictator and are trying to prop up a government that can reasonably defend itself. You'd have to trust those in charge of our defense. That's the reward, I think.

To those who say "chickenhawk" - you're dismissed, plain and simple. Fuck off already.

By the same token, those who call "cowardice" - I'd say the same, unless you're specifically addressing those who call 'chickenhawk'.

It's about risk versus reward, and it can be a reasonable discussion if you leave the common denominator of "Bush" or what has occurred in the past out of it. Things change, that's the nature of conflict.

Personally, I like the disagreement, otherwise we wouldn't be America - but I think we all need to be careful with what may result from one side or the others' decisions.

Whatever happens, America will remain strong.

I'm sure its just a coincid... (Below threshold)
epador:

I'm sure its just a coincidence that all the "bring the troops home before more die" folks are getting a lot of air time and our folks are being attacked, killed and maimed in higher numbers.

There's no way the enemy could be emboldened by the November election results and is pressing at vital points (the media and the death count) as it senses victory.

Right, Lee, mantis, aR, jp2, bryanD? 'Cause otherwise there are a lot of Americans with blood of their soldiers as well as many Iraqi's on their hands.

The Democrats don't want... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The Democrats don't want to listen to Petraeus? I'd say Bush/Cheney don't want to listen. In this manual that Petraeus wrote he calls for minimum force strength for counterinsurgency work at 20 soldiers per 1000 residents. That is 100,000 of our guys for Baghdad alone.

Just checking --- your beef is that the surge isn't large enough?
-=Mike

i think this is completely ... (Below threshold)
jiga:

i think this is completely ubsurd and i need more info on general david petraeus for my class
there is no real point here




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy