The Political Chase

Clinton skillfully questions Petraeus, Crocker

My first cut at Hillary Clinton’s questioning Petraeus and Crocker is Clinton did a very good job. With three questions, she hit two home runs and one grand slam.

First, she skillfully illustrated (see video) George Bush’s disregard for the American people and Congress when she asked Ryan Crocker about the Security Forces Agreement Bush is pursuing with Iraq. Briefly summarizing, she let Crocker point out, in his own words, that the Iraqi parliament was privileged enough to review and/or approve the agreement, but the same rules and privileges did not apply to the U.S. Crocker said that he and the administration had no intention of letting Congress review the agreement.

Clinton then deftly addressed the ambiguity encasing Petraeus’ and Crocker’s report to Congress. Of course the ambiguity was not going to be resolved in six to ten minutes, but she appropriately laid it out to discredit critics such as Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. And she made it clear and simple for the American people to see. What they (the people) do with it is another matter. Good political maneuvering

But far more importantly, in one question, Clinton stepped all over the most compelling issues — the absurdity of the hearings, the justification of the war (past and present), and the management of the war. She asked Petraeus:

"What conditions would have to exist for you to recommend to the president that the current strategy is not working. It seems apparent that you have a conditions-based analysis, as you set forth in your testimony. But the conditions are unclear. They certainly lack specificity and the decision points with respect to these conditions are also vague. So how are we to judge, General Petraeus, what the conditions are or should be and the actions you and the administration would recommend based on pursuing them."

There is no way Petraeus could possibly give an appropriate answer to that question, which in itself proves just how absurd the hearings are. It is the president’s responsibility to decide policy and the military develops a strategy to meet the policy. George Bush has abdicated not only his role as Commander in Chief to Petraeus, he has also given Petraeus the authority to decide what policy is. Bush has made it clear Petraeus will determine how the war will be waged and when it will end.

A perfect example of Republican ideology on and giving Petraeus policy and Commander in Chief decisions is the op-ed Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

As I said, on first glance, I believe Clinton did an excellent job, especially considering the time available. After I’ve had more time to review the exchange, I might interpret it differently or see something else. If I do, I’ll post it.