PDA

View Full Version : White House: Petraeus likely to testify before congress on 9/11


Adept Havelock
08-20-2007, 03:27 PM
If true.....utterly shameless, IMO. :shake:

Petraeus likely to testify on 9/11 anniversary
By Klaus Marre
August 20, 2007
The White House said Monday that Gen. David Petraeus likely will testify before Congress on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

A spokesman for President Bush, Gordon Johndroe, reiterated that Petraeus, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, would testify in open hearings. They will answer lawmakers’ questions about the situation in Iraq, the success of the troop surge and the next steps to be taken.

The highly anticipated report from Petraeus and Crocker is seen as a potential turning point in America’s involvement in Iraq. Several Republicans, who so far have refused to side with Democratic calls for withdrawal, have said they wanted to hear from Petraeus and Crocker before making any decisions regarding U.S. troop levels.

Democrats last week tried to make an issue of whether Petraeus and Crocker would testify in open session and attempted to paint the administration as trying to stifle such testimony. However, the White House was quick to respond that no such plans had been made.

According to Johndroe, the fact that the pair likely will appear before Congress on Sept. 11 has nothing to do with the anniversary of the attack, but was rather dictated by Congress’s tight schedule.


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/petraeus-likely-to-testify-on-9/11-anniversary-2007-08-20.html

I'd like to hear Congress comment on the "scheduling". Perhaps that is the case, but the history of this administration gives me ample cause for doubt.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 03:43 PM
That is shameless not to mention manipulative.
But congress'es tight schedule...LOL! They had a nerve going on vacation just like the Iraqis with the mess going on they created and getting a pay raise to boot.

Shameless hussies!

Taco John
08-20-2007, 04:02 PM
Can someone explain to me why 9/11 hasn't become an officially sanctioned national day of mourning? It's disgusting seeing Washington turning this day into a political spectacle.

Adept Havelock
08-20-2007, 04:18 PM
Can someone explain to me why 9/11 hasn't become an officially sanctioned national day of mourning? It's disgusting seeing Washington turning this day into a political spectacle.

I'd guess the same reason December 7'th hasn't. :shrug:

I recall a holiday (fictional) from a series of novels that might be appropriate. The series followed a separate US and CSA through a second Civil War in 1880's, and WW1 and WW2 as well. (4 Wars in 90 years in North America? :eek: )

That timeline's U.S. had "Remembrance Day". That idea might be appropriate, but I don't see how that would make it less amenable to manipulation for partisan political purposes.

patteeu
08-20-2007, 04:20 PM
First of all, it's Congress who will schedule his appearance not the WH (within a window of opportunity of the few days that Petraeus is in Washington of course), so if it's crass opportunism of some sort, you should direct your anger at Harry Reid. But why he would want to remind people that we are actually in a GWoT for a reason is beyond me so the whole theory that this is a political choice is questionable IMO.

This is a good illustration of the way people can twist almost anything to fit their anti-Bush prejudices though.

Adept Havelock
08-20-2007, 04:22 PM
First of all, it's Congress who will schedule his appearance not the WH (within a window of opportunity of the few days that Petraeus is in Washington of course), so if it's crass opportunism of some sort, you should direct your anger at Harry Reid. But why he would want to remind people that we are actually in a GWoT for a reason is beyond me so the whole theory that this is a political choice is questionable IMO.

This is a good illustration of the way people can twist almost anything to fit their anti-Bush prejudices though.

Gee, I thought I covered that in the original post.


I'd like to hear Congress comment on the "scheduling". Perhaps that is the case, but the history of this administration gives me ample cause for doubt.

Congress or the President, it's still shameless. JMO.

patteeu
08-20-2007, 04:28 PM
Gee, I thought I covered that in the original post.



Congress or the President, it's still shameless. JMO.

I missed that, so I admit that you aren't demonstrating bias here, but I still think it's unlikely that it was anything more than coincidence. The responses you received didn't seem to give the possibility that the administration was innocent in this even a moment's thought though.

Adept Havelock
08-20-2007, 04:30 PM
I missed that, so I admit that you aren't demonstrating bias here, but I still think it's unlikely that it was anything more than coincidence. The responses you received didn't seem to give the possibility that the administration was innocent in this even a moment's thought though.

IMO, no more than you seem willing to give the possibility that the admin. actually is using the date for partisan purposes.

We tend to see bias where we want to see it. ;)

patteeu
08-20-2007, 05:54 PM
IMO, no more than you seem willing to give the possibility that the admin. actually is using the date for partisan purposes.

We tend to see bias where we want to see it. ;)

The White House doesn't arrange the Senate schedule, so it's not really rocket science.

SCTrojan
08-20-2007, 06:34 PM
The deadline in the supplemental legislation calls for the report to be submitted by Sep. 15th. The summer recess basically ends on Sep. 4th, the day after Labor Day. On Sep. 13th, Congress goes back on recess for the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashanah. That leaves seven total working days to get the testimony completed.

While Sep. 11th might appear to be hand-selected by the administration for its symbolism, I think it's more the result of a fairly tight Congressional schedule.