by D. Cupples | I know. It wasn't the point of yesterday's Senate hearings, but I still want to know how those 190,000 U.S. weapons (nearly 30% of the weapons we provided to Iraq). Let's hope they didn't end up in enemy hands.
We first learned about the lost weapons in August. General David Petraeus, who was in charge of arming and training Iraqis in 2005-05 (when the weapons disappeared) chalked it up to clerical errors.
Anyway, Gen. Petraeus reported yesterday to the Senate on progress in Iraq. Similar to his September report, he said that progress is "fragile and reversible." In other words, the Bush Administration hasn't wasted lives or tax dollars on this war, but we still need more of both.
Petraeus wants to delay further troop withdrawals at least 45 days after the current withdrawals are complete, meaning that the current situation won't change much for nearly half a year. The New York Times reports:
"When the withdrawal of those troops is completed by July, there will still be more Americans serving in Iraq than before Mr. Bush announced what became known as 'the surge.'
"Even if General Petraeus were to consider additional reductions after his 45-day suspension, there would be little time left in Mr. Bush’s presidency to withdraw more than two or three combat brigades given the time required to move troops and heavy equipment.
"Even under the best of circumstances, and neither General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker would predict that, the next president will inherit an American force in Iraq exceeding 100,000 troops." (NY Times)
Naturally, the three major presidential candidates were at the hearing. Below are the Times' quotes from each of them:
McCain: “We’re no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success.”
Clinton: “It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again.”
Obama: restated his view that the war in Iraq had been a “massive strategic blunder.”
I suspect that Sen. Obama said more than that, as conciseness is not exactly his strong suit. And certainly, he wouldn't waste time focusing on the past and stating what others have repeatedly said for years now.
Before the hearing, incidentally, Sen. Clinton said some very interesting things about the Iraq situation, troop withdrawals, and oil allocation (video here). She certainly has an impressive grasp of this issue.
Joe Biden was another Senator with interesting things to say. According to Digby, Biden "just obliterated every Administration argument about Iraq":
"Joe Biden asked Amb. Crocker where it would be better for American national security interests to eliminate Al Qaeda in Iraq or Al Qaeda along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Crocker had nowhere to hide with that question. Spencer Ackerman describes the outcome.
Crocker, in an impossible political position -- give the correct answer and humiliate the Bush administration; give the administration's answer and look like a fool -- dodged as much as he could. Then Biden forced him down. Crocker: 'I would therefore pick Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.'
"Game over."
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other BN-Politics Posts:
* $1 Billion More in Military Hardware Missing
* Bush Administration's Secret Plain for Lasting Presence in Iraq
* Surge Still "Working," 5 More U.S. Soldiers Die
* Jon Stewart on Iraq War Anniversary
* Clinton Speaks On Her Plan to End Iraq War Responsibly
.
It's hard to tell from the coverage, but there were actually two hearings yesterday. Any footage with Levin/Lieberman/McCain/Clinton is the Armed Services committee, while the footage with Biden/Dodd/Obama is the foreign relations committee.
Biden's question was brilliant.
Given that we have Iraqi security forces that switched sides to Sadr's militia, it's a given that the US is facing US-supplied weapons. The only question is how many. I agree that someone should have gone down that path. Maybe someone did but I haven't heard about it.
HuffPo has a great collection of coverage, including video of both Hillary's and McCain's questions. They don't have any of the foreign relations committee video, though. Youtube of Obama, if you are curious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8fv7CWekXQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHHSy2XQuEE
(there's about 2 minutes of overlap there, but that's the best I can find.)
The early part of the discussion is more or less a nuts and bolts discussion, with almost no political grandstanding. Obama does make a bit of a political speech right after the end of the first clip. Then he asks a clearly politically motivated question, but one that I think is fairly clever. He asks, essentially, if the status quo could exist without a large US troop presence, would we consider that "success"? Crocker blatantly dodges the question and generally acts slimy. Joe Biden gets testy with him for being slimy. Good times!
Posted by: Adam | April 09, 2008 at 09:59 AM