No matter how many times they don’t say it, they are saying the same thing. Can one lie by not saying something? I think so
I don’t know why I punish myself by subjecting my rather smallish and cluttered brain to the hours and hours of political low theatre implicit in the testimony of two of the Bush Administration most accomplished sycophants on the status of our “Mission in Iraq”. Watching these two fellows give dissembling answers or completely dodging the same simple minded questions over and over and over could drive one to drink. In fact it did. An early morning Bloody Mary and a late afternoon potion of Vitamin G (as in gin and tonic) helped me make some sense out of the whole thing.
I even took the time to look in the archives of these humble writings to reread (no, I don’t expect you to do the same) my blog written on Sept. 11, 2007 entitled “War in Error” wherein I commented on, in an indirect way, the first testimony of these two same distinguished chaps. I’ll jump to the punch line. I concluded that epistle by opining that Petraeus and Crocker were perhaps amongst the best and brightest in the service of our country, but that they were bound on the fools errand of “….fighting the wrong enemy based on a bankrupt foreign policy built on a foundation of lies and false assumptions.” Nothing has changed. Well, that’s not quite true. A few things have changed. Thanks to our Surge Strategy we now have about 30,000 more troops on station in Iraq. And sadly to say, we have sacrificed another 275 of our young people and maimed, many for life, still another 2000 or so. I’ve tried to calculate the cost since that day almost exactly 7 months ago in cold, hard cash, but a) the numbers are so big that they’re hard to relate to, and b) there is no definitive source for toting up all the money we’re spending on our Iraqui misadventure. One source suggested that we were spending $100,000 per minute, so for 302,400 minutes x $100,000.00 that is ?????. You see what I mean, too many zeros. Another source said $12 billion per month, but I dunno if that’s all in. I mean that probably they count the guns and bullets, and cheeseburgers, but what about the aftermath. The funerals, the lifetime of treatment for brain injuries and repairs to the prosthetic devices that will be needed are most certainly not included in any of the accountings I’ve seen. So, yes some things have changed.
But to show you that I was paying attention:
…the phrase “fragile and reversible” was used 417 times throughout the testimony.
…and yes, I did see McCain genuflect to the General before launching his own particular pomposity
…I noted that our best new enemy is not Saddam, Saddam’s Imperial Guard, the Baathists, the militias of al Sadr, it’s not even Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI to those of us in the know), it’s now something called “special groups”. I never did figure out what made them special.
…I caught several glimpses of the Lt. Col behind Patraeus, probably his bag carrier, dozing peacefully.
…I learned again that war is “hard” and “complex”
…and the ever popular phrase “on the ground” was used by witnesses and questioners alike 4716 times. This, btw, is a new Guiness record.
The Honorable Senators and Representatives so fortunate as to have a seat at the table had seven months to think of a relevant question or two, but alas only the rare Congressperson (I’ve been waiting to use that) was able to muster a question of any relevance. The rest of this hard charging gaggle apparently spent their time honing their opening remarks which ranged in quality from inane to ridiculous. I calculated that we could have saved two hours and seventeen minutes of valuable air time if the honorables had selected one of their number to remind the witnesses that all assembled were thankful for their patriotism and sacrifice, and all the rest could have gotten to the business at hand forthwith. But alas, we had to hear different versions of the same groveling patrimony time and again.
The real crime wasn’t the poor quality of the questions that were asked or the non-answers that were provided, it was the questions that weren’t asked. To wit: General P. stated repeatedly that only after a period of consolidation and analysis after the surge ends in July, would he be able to determine if the conditions “on the ground” would permit him to recommend further reductions in forces. Why not ask, “General, exactly what are the conditions ‘on the ground’ that would allow you to draw down our forces in Iraq?” And then ask, “General, what is your plan for achieving those conditions?” and finally ask, “General, in you best estimate how long will it take you to execute your plan?”
Notwithstanding the fact that war is hard and complex, as is the the job of our overworked and under appreciated elected representatives. What’s so hard about that?
