Kuhl Speaks about Petraeus
It’s later today and Randy released a statement.
WASHINGTON – Sept. 11 - U.S. Representative John R. “Randy†Kuhl, Jr. (R-Hammondsport) issued the following statement today about the findings in the Petraeus-Crocker Report:
“General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker’s testimonies yesterday represented the most accurate, credible and up-to-date assessment of the security and political realities in Iraq. I am in complete support of starting to bring our men and women home this month. However, although their testimonies were encouraging in terms of securing Iraq, I am discouraged by the advancements made in the areas of reconciliation and political progress. As I have discussed in the past, the results from the 18 benchmarks set forth by Congress will be released on Saturday, the 15th and will be an important determinate of the progress in Iraq.â€
“I will continue to support our troops in every way so that they may return to the United States as quickly and safely possible.â€
So before Randy said
I’m confident that General Petraeus is the most competent, qualified, objective individual to determine how this country should proceed in Iraq.
OK now we have today
As I have discussed in the past, the results from the 18 benchmarks set forth by Congress will be released on Saturday, the 15th and will be an important determinate of the progress in Iraq.
So which is it, or are you trying to have it both ways? Are you dragging your feet here?
Related posts:
It’s just “strategerie” or whatever Bush calls it. The original “surge” was supposed to be 21,000 troops. Instead it was 30,000 additional troops. They are committing them to remain until late next summer. Tomorrow Bush will state that they will, at that time, start to withdraw 30,000 troops. Americans will buy it not realizing, that all they are doing is pulling out the surge troops, and leaving the rest of the soldiers, some of which are on their fourth tour, still sitting in Iraq.
It’s a shell game he’s playing, and it needs to be exposed and shown for exactly what it is - another lie.
Could we really expect Petraeus to go in there and say anything other than what he said? He’s a soldier, and good soldiers do what they are told by the commander and they never willingly retreat. I’m sure Petraeus has personal feelings that differ but he would not be true to his sworn duty if he publicly eviscerated the administration’s strategy. (Kuhl’s assessment of Petraeus elevates the General over the President. This is not Pakistan.)
Here’s where Kuhl and others come in. They are not soldiers, they are our representatives, and they should vote what is right, not vote what they think the higher ups want to hear. The term “checks and balances” is not about a bank account (special interests, lobbyists, etc.), it’s about checking power and balancing it.
The Sound of Silence…
I searched the morning papers for Randy Kuhl’s statement on the Iraq war and found nothing. Finally, thanks to Rochesterturning, I noticed that Kuhl has issued a statement on his web site. The reason it hasn’t been reported is pretty……
So “truth” isn’t supposed to be a component of Petraeus’s testimony — the only thing he should include is loyalty to the commander in chief? Is that why General Batiste had to leave the Army in order to tell the truth?
If so, I would like to say, that’s not what I expect from a General. I would like Generals to tell the truth, regardless of whether or not the commander in chief agrees.
Randy Kuhl and obfuscation … inseparable!
Hey, I hear ya. I wanted truth to come out in the report too but it is all subjective isn’t it? People can see whatever they want to see on the “surge” (subliminally “escalation”) and it will be their truth. I don’t hear many offering objective measures of success.
I think if Petraeus had gone in there and said “Look, our strategy has failed, it is a mess over there and it’s time for us to pull out” he would have been seen by his soldiers as a quitter and traitor, by the Iraqis as a rube, and by Washington as a turncoat.
Would the families of the soldiers and the majority of Americans have been happy? Yes, but he’s not there to make us happy, he’s there to say “I did my job, it’s working and I support the job that’s been asked of me.” In that sense, the report is and always will be useless because it’s done on tv. If it had been issued in private to the administration then we’d have likely gotten some actual truth.
You have changed horses in the middle of the stream. First you say that “good soldiers do what they are told by the commander”, and I wonder where telling the truth fits in.
Then you make the point that truth is subjective … “People can see whatever they want to see on the ’surge’ (subliminally ‘escalation’) and it will be their truth.†This is entirely irrelevant to your first point, where Petraeus is supposed to do as he is told. Petraeus could still tell us “his truth”, even if it is not what Bush wants him to say. That is why I asked where telling the truth fits in. It doesn’t matter whether Petraeus’s truth matches my truth or matches Markos Moulitsas’s truth … I want to hear what Petraeus’s truth is, not what George Bush tells him to say.
And in the country I want to live in, I want all generals to tell the truth, even if it is not what their commander wants to hear, when they are asked a question. That’s the whole point of sking a question. That is why Congress asked Petraeus to report. Congress did not ask Bush to report.
[...] has a good take on Kuhl’s press release on Iraq: The developing mainstream Republican strategy seems to be to sell the return of the 30,000 troops [...]