General Petraeus v the candidates: the verdict

The testimony of the top US officials in Iraq to the Senate yesterday provided a rare opportunity for voters to see how their remaining presidential candidates might handle the conflict once in office. With all three sitting on the committees which questioned General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the occasion was hailed by the US media as a dress rehearsal for the role of commander-in-chief.

Ambling through the blogosphere today, the general consensus appears to be that all three acquitted themselves well, but not necessarily to the degree that might convince voters to swap camps.

The exception in liberal eyes was John McCain, whose confusion - again - about the religious affiliation of al-Qaeda was seized upon as evidence that he does not possess the necessary foreign policy acumen to be commander-in-chief. Fresh from a thrice-repeated gaffe during his recent Mid East trip, when he contended that Iran, a Shiite country, were supporting al-Qaeda - a Sunni group - in Iraq, he once again described the terrorist organisation as a "Shia sect," before later correcting himself. Meanwhile conservatives fired back that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had been vague in their plans for withdrawal and did not make clear the distinction between their strategies and that currently underway.

For commentary on how the report itself was received, click here.

Here's a selection of comment from the web:

Political Animal, Washington Monthly:

"Obama was able to hit Petraeus and Crocker very hard....He got Petraeus to agree with him that the total elimination of Al Qaeda is an impossible standard for withdrawal. Next he goes after Crocker's points about Iranian influence, pointing out that both Iran and Al Qaeda are in Iraq because we invaded and that we can not expect to eliminate Iranian involvement.

"Then came the hammer. Obama pointed out that if the definition of success is put so high - no Al Qaeda, no Iranian influence, a prosperous diverse democracy we will be there forever. He then points out that we still, after 8 hours of testimony, have no definition of success....Crocker's weak response its "hard and complicated.""

The Daily Kos:

"Here is the conclusion of John McCain's prepared remarks: "Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. We should choose, instead, to succeed." That's a measure of the depth of his thinking about the morass McCain helped the nation to get into. ...

"His questioning of David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker was somewhat perfunctory and added little insight. It looked calculated to give the impression that McCain was asking tough and skeptical questions, though he accepted vague responses without demur. ... And predictably, McCain sought to help Petreaus to blame continuing violence in Iraq upon Iran. However he ran short of time and his aspersions upon "the Iranian threat" merely trailed off hastily."

Democracy Arsenal:

"McCain did genuinely mix up Sunnis and Shi'a again.  Saying that Al Qaeda was a Shi'a group before quickly correcting himself.  Now, I know that there is a bit of gotcha going on here.  But this man claims that his greatest qualification for the Presidency is that he understands foreign policy.  But the differences between Sunni and Shi'a matter.  They matter a lot!  And this nasty habit of mixing it up just seriously needs to stop."

Talking Points Memo:

"Under pointed questioning earlier from Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Gen. Petraeus painted a much more somber picture of Iraq than many of his Republican cheerleaders:
"It's why I've repeatedly noted that we haven't turned any corners, we haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible."
Contrast that with, say, a certain senator from Arizona currently running for President, speaking this morning:
"But today it is possible to talk with real hope and optimism about the future of Iraq and the outcome of our efforts there. For while the job of bringing security to Iraq is not finished, as the recent fighting in Basra and elsewhere vividly demonstrated, we're no longer staring into the abyss of defeat and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success.""

Powerline:

"Hillary Clinton's turn to ask questions came late in this morning's appearance by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, a reminder of how junior she is in the Senate, notwithstanding that her campaign is based largely on her purported experience. Hillary consumed most of her allotted time by delivering a speech rather than asking questions. Her speech was notable for its defensiveness and for the fact that it ignored the hours of testimony that went before. ...

"A third aspect of Clinton's comments should also be noted: the lack of any conclusion. ... Troops are already being withdrawn from Iraq, in an orderly way, in response to conditions on the ground. How Clinton's "orderly process of withdrawing our troops" would differ from what is now underway, she did not explain."

The Daily Dish, Atlantic.com:

"Very low-key, to my mind. Anti-war but no fireworks and no soundbites. She behaved as if she still believes she could be president next January."

Huffington Post:

"Neither (Clinton nor Obama) ended up contributing much in the way of fireworks, but both, in general, demonstrated an authoritative grasp of the issues at hand, even as they presented their inquiries in different manners. Clinton was measured, yet firm, taking a headlong shot at the two men, while Obama opted to pursue an indirect line of questioning in order to catch Petraeus and Crocker up in their own statements. Both of the candidates proved themselves able to get their heads off the race for the nomination and onto the task at hand, dialing back any election year grandstanding."

Comments

[Sashia]

Again,I wonder, as I read with disbelief the statements made by the press, whether journalist or reporter, why no one has addressed the viewpoint of those marginalized candidates,(shhhhh,) that the public is not supposed to know, are still running in the race for presidency.
Strange, it seems, that the statement, from The Daily Dish "Very low-key, to my mind. Anti-war but no fireworks and no soundbites", when in fact there are people who are WELL versed in the occurences in Iraq etal and ARE committed to ending the war.

[Scott]

Sasha, I submitted a comment yesterday (prior to yours) asking the same question with detailed links to You Tube videos outlining the "other" Republican candidate who the media refuses to talk about - in his video he grilled Petraus. We live in a sad state of affairs when any opposition to the war machine is blocked by mainstream media. I'll re-submit that comment as well.

[Scott]

If you are going to include questions by presidential candidates, you need to include Ron Paul - he's still in the race, although it appears he is a long shot to win. Representative Paul asked a very relevant, pointed question which can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWr5Wl-mev0.

Paul: "Does the administration have the authority to bomb Iran without further Congressional approval?"

Petraus: "I'm the commander for Iraq and I don't know the answer to that question and it's not within my purview."

Crocker: "Nor is it in mine. My job is Iraq and I'm just not competent to pronouce on an issue like that."

[Rip Tide]

Sasha;
I totally agree with your comments regarding "the other") candidates. The reason we don't hear from the "Others" is because the Powers behind the scenes and the U.S. Left-leaning media don't want them in the contest.

So we Americans are stuck with three choices; (1) Hillary the queen wanna be..and who tells more stories then Aesop. (2)Obama who has a questionable past involving his Racist Pastor..his longtime admitted terrorist and Black Panther "Friend". A Great Orator..But someone has got to ask him some real hard Questions about His "Friends" and what he plans to "Change" and how does he plan to change and what and how??!!
Last; we have John Mc Cain who has a great Military Record no doubt. But has flip-flopped on Border security and other items that does not win the conservative vote. The 3 "Stooges" if you please. whomever wins in November America is in deep trouble..right Curly? Nhuk..Nhuk..Nhuk!

[Hillary4Pres]

Hannah, you appear to be suffering from that contagious illness going on in America called Clinton Derangement Syndrome. It's pretty apparent a lot of women, as yourself ,have an unusual and questionable disdain towards the Former Lady. Is it perhaps some jealousy? Or self-hatred. Or do you wish to appease your male superiors?

It's funny how your strikingly biased report on Gen. P's questioning mentions zilch of the glowing and across-the-board consensus in the Mainstream Liberal American media that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was the most knowledgeable and precise in her questioning. Tsk, tsk.

I notice your slant towards Barack Obama (wink, wink) Please be a little more professional. I know. I can see. I'm an American--and I'm a proud supporter of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York State, USA--the preeminent, glass-ceiling shattering, and most brilliant woman of our time. Set yourself free, Hannah.

[Rip Tide]

Hilary4Prez;

She's "Brilliant" compared to who?
(1) Wiley E Coyote

(2)Ralph Cramden/Norton
(3) Bashful..One of the Seven Dwarfs

(4) Barney Fife

(5) All of the Above.