Sen. Whitehouse: Petraeus Has ‘Conflicting Loyalty,’ Independent Iraq Report Needed
Sen. Whitehouse: Petraeus Has ‘Conflicting Loyalty,’ Independent Iraq Report Needed
Many members of Congress have rallied behind a September deadline to reassess President Bush’s Iraq strategy, saying they will rely on a report from Gen. David Petraeus to determine whether escalation has been effective.
But despite numerous indicators that Bush’s strategy is failing, ABC News reported recently that Petraeus wants the “surge” to “continue until at least December,” and expects “to report enough progress by September to justify the extension.”
In an interview this week with ThinkProgress, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) became the first member of Congress to call for an independent analysis on the state of the war in September, in addition to Petraeus’ report. Whitehouse charged that Petraeus has an inherent “conflicting loyalty” between “the desire to please the president” and to report the unvarnished truth about Bush’s strategy.
“[H]ow General Petraeus chooses to balance those conflicting prerogatives is up to him and his conscience and I’m hoping and expecting that he’ll come back and speak very candidly to us,” Whitehouse said. But noting President Reagan’s maxim “trust but verify,” he added, “I don’t think it’s necessarily to distrust Petraeus to want to verify.”
Watch it:
Center for American Progress senior fellow Lawrence Korb, a former senior Reagan Pentagon official, called for such an independent assessment last month, writing that Petraeus “is not a reliable source for an unbiased assessment.” The group Third Way has a similar proposal. This past Sunday, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a 37-year Marine Corps veteran, acknowledged that he has “lost a lot of confidence in many of the military leaders” because “they say what the White house wants them to say.”
Transcript:
WHITEHOUSE: I think that would be a good idea. It’s nothing against General Petraeus. But people who are appointed to high positions in government by a president, sort of inherently have a conflicting loyalty between the desire to please the president who appointed them and to stay on the team because it’s wonderful to be important and on the team and all that good stuff. And on the other hand, particularly where the president’s view is in conflict with the interests of the country, or the men who serve under them — the men and women who serve under them — with their duties to the country and to those men and women. And how General Petraeus chooses to balance those conflicting prerogatives is up to him and his conscience and I’m hoping and expecting that he’ll come back and speak very candidly to us. But it’s always prudent, what did Ronald Reagan say? Trust but verify? So I don’t think it’s necessarily to distrust Petraeus, to want to verify. So I think the idea of having another look, is not a bad idea.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
43 Responses to “Sen. Whitehouse: Petraeus Has ‘Conflicting Loyalty,’ Independent Iraq Report Needed”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
In September, they should pick 500 troops on the ground, interview them (anonymously of course) and have their testimony played to the congress. Screw Petraeus, he won’t tell them shit.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:26 amI’ll help the trolls get this out of the way:
Ha ha, Sandy Berger is disbarred, he’s a burgler and a Clintonista, and Clinton did it too.
Ha, ha.
Ok. Now that’s out of the way. Alabama Republican punches out a Democrat. See, they like to be bullies, cuz, thinking doesn’t come easy.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:31 amIndeed! Any report that doesn’t fit the moonbat template of doom and gloom is pure heresy!
June 8th, 2007 at 11:31 amPetraeus made his fatal compromise when he endorsed the surge. He hasn’t had to pay for it personally, but every day more Americans and Iraqis succumb to his errors in judgment.
If you want to evaluate Petraeus’ qualifications to evaluate his surge, ask the generals who declined to command it.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:33 amPatrick will volunteer to go to Iraq, and generate an independent report, right Patrick Starr?
June 8th, 2007 at 11:36 amYou know things are degrading when people in legislative bodies are punching each other out.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:37 amImagine an official operating without oversight? Listen to him pander to his feelings. It isn’t that we don’t trust him but it would be good to verify. LOL. I wonder how Waxman would have stated that one?
“Oversight is an essential tool to keep all of government honest.” or something along those lines. You would think that oversight would have been included from the start?
June 8th, 2007 at 11:37 amwith the information released yesterday about “petrol”aeus and his activities, today someone calls for an independent person to look at Iraq?
No offense Senator, but it is long overdue, and calls for something you clearly have no intention of following through with are disgustingly pedestrian. We, the people, are sick of all of you allowing the machine to go on, eating everything in it’s path, while you watch and ignore.
we are quite sick of our lack of representation in congress. the only thing we, the people, can consider is that you are either cowardly, or in the pay of the people making a profit off the war.
Which is it?
June 8th, 2007 at 11:38 amWhy does the Senator hate our troops?
June 8th, 2007 at 11:38 amAn Independent Iraq Report is THE ONLY thing the people will come close to believing at this point. First lie = shame on you; second (and hundredth as the case actually is) = shame on me! The people have been deceived by the lockstep partiality of those preparing said reports and will believe absolutely nothing from these Bushitco sycophants…..all of them!
That goes for the mainstream media as well. Unless/until they become purveyors of “reality” and “truth” and not the varnished, propagandized version of the facts, will the american people ever again embrace them, support them, or believe a word they say.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:38 amIndeed, if anyone speaks out against der furhbush they will be met with swiftboating, I mean Swift retribution.
For Der Furbush shall not be questioned. Das ist a goot little Patrick1. Der FurBush is proud.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:38 amThere’s nothing different about Petreus; in fact, he was perhaps the ONLY one left who would sell his soul to Bush - the others were dismissed and culled along the way.
I wouldn’t expect anything but what Bush wants to put out there emanating from the mouth of Gen. Petreus. He’s a known sycophantic Bush loyalist.
Besides, any time one individual is given the chore of defining “progress”, then it becomes an entirely subjective (not objective) proposition. He’s in Bush’s pocket and his new “poodle” now that Blair is gone.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:40 amGen Petrol-a$$! That’s more apropos.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:41 amThe singular response from Bushbots, reichwingists, and trolls these days is: Well, er…..er…..Clinton did it, too! Hahahahahah - what a copout for having absolutely nothing you can hang your hat and being on! How sad, indeed.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:43 amI nominate Shinseki to lead the team.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:43 amSenator Whitehouse is pretty impressive and eloquent and definitely not afraid to speak his mind. I watched him on CSpan hearings yesterday and found him to be a “truthteller” - so unlike most of them these days.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:44 amIn September, they should pick 500 troops on the ground, interview them (anonymously of course) and have their testimony played to the congress. Screw Petraeus, he won’t tell them shit.
Comment by RUCerious
I think that’s an excellent idea, RUC.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:44 amReally can this be anything more than lip service?
Until Americans make a decision about their willingness to engage in a so-called war of civilizations then terms like:
1. Benchmarks
2. Progress
3. Surge
4. Commitment
5. War
are relative terms. You say potato, I say potato. Ony, you know, differently :-)
June 8th, 2007 at 11:45 am“Indeed! Any report that doesn’t fit the moonbat template of doom and gloom is pure heresy!
Comment by Patrick1 — June 8, 2007 @ 11:31 am”
So I guess that the General that was being interviewed by the Congress yesterday is not a White House tool????
Before the break he stated that the person in charge of Iraq and Afganistan now would no longer be involved with them when he was approved.
After the break, he comes in with a TYPED statement saying that he mistated……
Anyone working under the WH needs to have their stories checked because this Criminal administration THREATENS everyone to say and do what they want. There is NO free thinking allowed with these criminals.
So your fine with our military being told what to say about the war when it is NOT the truth??????
You know….. Like all those Generals who were let go or retired because they would not spin the truth????? NOW THOSE ARE REAL PATRIOTS!!!
June 8th, 2007 at 11:48 amIt is too bad that we are repeating one of the primary mistakes of Vietnam, the destruction of an independent corps of senior officers willing to speak truth to power. One of the primary faults to our strategy in Vietnam was the inability of the brass to call bullshit bullshit. It was not the case in the beginning of this misadventure. The brass did speak up within the halls of power, one in the halls of Congress. However, the President and Rummy made it clear that “yes” men were needed. They weeded out the independent voices. It not only takes independent military officers, but also an executive that will appreciate their role. Remember, the military will always be subordinate to civilian control as it must be in a democracy.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:48 amIt does not matter what Gen. Petraeus, Be-Tray-Us, says in September to the Congress. They will continue to fund the occupation of Iraq till every drop of OIL is extracted from that country.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:53 amYeah Patrick, us Dems are just being negative, if we would just adopt a more positive attitude, I’m sure it will make the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan much better.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:54 amAs long as only 50 something percent of Americans want to end the war then it’s gonna be nothing but “yes men”. Hell the damn Dems can’t even bring themselves to part with Lieberman, an extreme outspoken warhawk.
The “yes men” are a product of American apathy to this WoT, the Clash of Civilizations, the Great Caliphate-Killing Machine!
June 8th, 2007 at 11:55 amWhy do you think the troops Lieberman spoke with didn’t want to tell him how they really feel?
Why was I slightly concerned about speaking out to the Speaker of the House about impeachment and tables? I gave my real information.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:56 amWe have a civilian government ,so military people do not set the strategies and the policies.
Military officers do run governments as dictators in many countries…
When Bush says that he will leave it to Generals to decide,not politicians in Washington D.C. then Bush got this wrong.
President Truman fired General Douglas McArther to show him that decisions are made in Washington and not by generals.
An independent evaluation and assessment is needed here due to the fact that military generals hold jobs under Commander In Chief..and that’s the President…It is like criticising your company’s chairman.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:57 amIf Americans were really wise, then we would inform the Congress that we will never vote for Senators to become president. None of them seem to do anything, but talk big, including Hillary and Obama.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pmI think the biggest problem, is the mission is to establish a stable, secular democracy in Iraq. The problem is, this is a political mission, not a military mission. As long as the mission is political, it cannot be carried out by the military. Our forces end up propping up a government, that is unable to control its own country.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pmWell hey, lets resurrect the Iraq Study Group! Their recommendations were ignored once. Why not a second time! Whoooo-weeeee….
June 8th, 2007 at 12:08 pmWhen Bush says that he will leave it to Generals to decide,not politicians in Washington D.C. then Bush got this wrong.
Comment by tarazan — June 8, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Bush only said that so that he could avoid taking responsibility for his decisions. He didn’t actually believe it. For Bush, an essential ingredient of every plan of action is to have in place someone on whom he can pin the blame for failures.
Bush has experienced failure so often in his life, that he learned early on how important it was to have a scapegoat ready.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:08 pmKrazny > the mission in Iraq is to control the OIL, so Bush needs the military or mercenaries to do that. If Iraq was really about democracy, then we would depart leaving skid-marks.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:09 pmnice suite general………
this is surely a guy who represents and leads his troops by example..
/sarc
June 8th, 2007 at 12:11 pmBush has experienced failure so often in his life, that he learned early on how important it was to have a scapegoat ready.
Comment by spit take
Yup. The Chimp ain’t stupid.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:13 pmfrom October 2004, here’s petraeus’ greatist hit:
“BUSH: The best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job. And that’s what we’re doing. We’ve got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, over 200,000 by the end of next year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: Jamie, are those numbers right?
MCINTYRE: There’s a big dispute, Paula, about whether the Pentagon is overstating the number of Iraqis that are truly combat ready.
But the general who’s in charge of the training, very respected general, General Petraeus, insists that 100,000 is the right number out of 164,000 in Iraq.”
those numbers were total crap.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:16 pmAgreed Jay. I was simply trying to point out the difference between a military mission, and a political mission.
We here the support the mission thing so much, it has become hollow rhetoric. A military mission is to say take a city, bridge, ridge, etc. It is what they do, and what they did, by seizing baghdad. The mission of creating a functioning, secular democracy, is a political mission, and cannot be accomplished militarily.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:19 pmRally behind a Sept. deadline to REASSESS the war pigs strategy ?!?!?
You’ve GOT to be EFFING kidding me !!!
Why don’t they just paste their grill on fox, look into the camera during the hours that all of the idiots are tuned in and say:
We’re going to keep sacrificing our troops in Iraq and killing thousands of innocent people while further bankrupting the United States just as long as we please. AND THERE”S NOT A DAMN THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Have a good evening and . . . God bless. (cut to suv commercial)
June 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pmYup. The Chimp ain’t stupid.
Comment by Zooey — June 8, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Well, I wouldn’t go that far, Zooey.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pmIf Petreaus sells his troops down the Tigris and the Euphrates he won’t be the first general or admiral to sell out to please his superiors in rank and authority. Military and naval history is full of examples.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:27 pmIf?
June 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pm#34 Comment by Krazny — June 8, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Agreed Jay. I was simply trying to point out the difference between a military mission, and a political mission.
What bothers me about your statement is not that you are wrong, rather it is that you imply that what the Coalition is doing is right. It is just that they are doing it wrong.
The real point is that we had no right to invade Iraq or throw out Sadaam. We have no right to devistate their country nor set up huge permanent bases that thousands of our troops will occupy for 50 years. (The Korean strategy.) We have no right to attempt to set up a puppet government nor write the laws Iraqis will have to live by. We have no right to try and steal their natural resourses, or set up laws that turn them over to international oil companies. And on and on!
It is stupid, in my view, to argue about the merits of a surge when our very invasion was built on lies. It is arrogant and insulting assume we will have 30 to 50 thousand troops staying there. It is stupid to even discuss it. We are not wanted there by 60% of the Iraqi people. We are occupiers in the middle of a civil war.
There is only one thing that is morally, ethically and responsibly right to do. We must get out of soverign Iraq as fast as possible while doing so safely.
All the rest is just talk set in the “frame” that the neocons have proposed. “War” “democracy” “freedom” “a soverign Iraq” “war on terror” are all frames of the neocons. To talk or argue about all these issues plays their game by their rules.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pmWe’re escalating the war. That’s been made clear. When Petraeus says that what’s gone down so far isn’t even the half of it, that the full surge won’t happen for another couple of weeks, that means we’re going for a re-do of the war. We’re going to be killing everything that moves. There’s going to be acceptance for U.S. occupation or there’s going to be nobody left alive in Iraq.
Thanks Democrats! (for voting for that military spending bill 2 weeks ago)
June 8th, 2007 at 7:15 pmPlease go the way of General Pace.
Patreaus will allow American soldiers get slaughtered if it furthers his career with the neocon crowd.
June 9th, 2007 at 8:39 pmThis is the reason they hate us:
I am outraged that National Lampoon is considering making a film on the Islamic belief of 72 Virgins… a comedy film. I think this is a sign of how far Hollywood has fallen when we turn to attacking groups for their religious beliefs and pass it off as cinema.
Here is the trailer for evidence;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUYQwCW5ShQ
John Gordon
June 9th, 2007 at 10:50 pmDoes that impress you, Lawrence Korb, high in Reagan’s Defense Dept? Maybe you ought to read his piece before you put your weight on it. Suffice it to say, I don’t think much of it.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:46 pm