Via Ilan Goldenberg, a good Jonathan Weisman article in The Washington Post on the truth about congressional delegations to Iraq: "Brief, choreographed and carefully controlled, the codels (short for congressional delegations) often have showed only what the Pentagon and the Bush administration have wanted the lawmakers to see."
« No Way Out | Main | Fuzzy Casualty Math »
Codels
31 Aug 2007 09:34 am
Comments (23)
If this Democratic Congress doesn't have alternative sources of information, it is its own goddamn fault.
The White House can NOT do anything without the work of the national security bureaucracy. The ordinary citizens in that bureaucracy are very patriotic -- and it pisses them off when Bush palms the cards in a deceitful manner.
One of the best Emperors of China put out jars in the market squares of Chinese cities and invited his subjects to drop in anonymous notes to inform him of anything going wrong in his administration. Advisors he trusted regularly collected the notes and advised him on widespread or serious problems like corrupt, incompetent or traitorous Mandarins.
The Congress should do the same. And fuck the President's abuse of the classification process. Any US citizen working on national security should be able to ANONYMOUSLY complain to Congress if he sees serious wrongdoing.
So the Defense Department "carefully controls" Congressional visits to a war zone, and the only explanation for this that resonates with you is a political one? Have you considered the possibility that the Pentagon might "carefully control" these visits because they are in a war zone and want to minimize the chances of Congressmen getting captured or killed?
I admire your persistence in throwing anything you can find into your effort to shape the rhetorical battlefield prior to the September reports. I guess not every post can be a 40 yard bomb, so we get these 'three yards and a cloud of dust' dives between the tackles. Old school!
Or to warn Congress when it is being deceived in a major way.
Which happens frequently.
Re "Have you considered the possibility that the Pentagon might "carefully control" these visits because they are in a war zone and want to minimize the chances of Congressmen getting captured or killed? "
---------
If Congress was doing its job, it would have its own spies in Iraq. Lots of them.
Re Fred's comment "Have you considered the possibility that the Pentagon might "carefully control" these visits because they are in a war zone and want to minimize the chances of Congressmen getting captured or killed? "
----------
Has Fred "considered the possibility" that this situation alone -- after 4 years of US occupation -- tells us that the President he defends is a failure??
Fred's too busy apologizing to actually read the article.
The spin isn't the problem. The real problem is that Congressmen feel the need to use a trip to Iraq as a talisman to support the war. It isn't like the number of bombings and attacks on civilians reported in the press is made up. And that number alone justifies the conclusion that Iraq is hurting in a pretty bad way. A couple days of niceties doesn't change that.
What Archit said. What is the real need to go to Iraq again? Everyone knows the place is a holy mess. What greater perspective is acquired by going on these carefully choreographed visits? All we get is these stupid 'i see real progress', 'like a market in Indiana' bs. Next time Congressmen want to go there, they should pay for their own tickets, hotels, and security.
What is the real need to go to Iraq again?
So that on pundit shows and debates, the Congressman can say "I've been to Iraq, and you haven't, so I know what's going on there," and to inoculate himself against same.
Good point Tyro. But nobody except the 'base' is buying that nonsense anymore. And the base won't save the GOP in the next election. Don't know about the Presidency though... the Dems might just manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
That was a good article. My favorite part (and by 'favorite' I mean laugh-or-cry-funniest-and-most-horrifying-at-the-same-time) was the national security advisor watching cartoons.
Hey, at least they had electricity.
I have seen numerous CODELs on the ground and the Congressmen, Senators, Governors, etc. get to see what they want. Most blow in for a day or two, get some photos and hop on the next plane. Some actually ask to go on patrols and visit COPs. No one tells a member of congress they can't do something. Some congressman send their staffs to do the "dirty work" and actually get out of the wire.
MSNBC reports that some of the most supportive republican senators were almost shot out of the air while leaving baghdad after "inspecting all of the security gains" on the ground!http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13538730/
I cant handle all of the lies and cheery propaganda by the administration and it supporters anymore!!!
These poor poor congressvictims didn't care how offensive their prior comments, conduct, or legislating might be to the soldiers they claim to "support."
Politicians of all stripes pander. They go for pithy or even outrageous sound bites to get press, to curry favor, or suit some political aim or purpose. The potential downside of words for one audience causing problems with another is a problem of their own making.
The irony is, these same war critics have spent 4 years taking every utterance or press appearance of the Bush Administration -- many crassly political themselves to be sure -- and "sliming" the President or our military efforts in Iraq. ("Mission Accomplished," anyone?)
Hoisted by their own petard, and the petards in this case are their own reckless and stupid comments and irresponsible votes.
Kudos to the soldiers in harm's way for fouling their attempts to burnish their "support for the soldiers" credentials. Reminds me of the Minnesotan Guardsmen and women who asked Senator Kerry to "halp" them.
How much time does Petraeus spend meeting with congressional delegations? It sure seems like a lot. I don't understand how progress can possibly be made if such a great portion of his time is spent giving powerpoint presentations to congresscritters about how much progress is being made.
Carl - Bingo! They are a distractor.
'Dadmanly' is a parody, right? I mean, nobody would ever call themselves 'Dadmanly' except as a parody...right?
There were three pro war columns in today Washington Post. I guess Friday is support the war day over at the Post. I link to Mr. Yglesisas' favorite columnists for one of them which essentially says blame everything on Maliki. The others are by Michael Gerson, and two British officials.
No it's not a parody. I am as manly a Dad as you will see. I see no need to justify my choice of name here for you--nor my 3" penis or the pink lace teddies that I wear to bed.
Do real manly men have to proclaim their manliness?
Do people here typically stoop to attacking someone's nick when that person makes a point that hurts the attacker's position, but which they cannot rationally dispute?
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I typically stoop to attacking someone's nick when the nick is ludicrously stupid.
As for rationally disputing Dadmanly's manly position, I'm hard-pressed to find anything resembling an argument there to dispute. Dadmanly appears to be saying that Democrats have hurt his tender yet manly feelings, and appears to consider this worse than actually endangering his life. There just isn't any response to something that bizarrely nutty.
Comments closed September 14, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"coddles" is more accurate
Posted by cleek | August 31, 2007 9:51 AM