Email This to a Friend
In Focus: Petraeus Speaks But Who’s Listening?
The U.S. general's appearance before Congress today was the perfect opportunity for grandstanding.
General Petraeus’ appearance today before Congress calls to mind the old tree falling in the woods question. If the commander of our armed forces in Iraq testifies before a group of gaseous narcissistic partisan politicians does he really make a sound?
While the broad strokes of his testimony come as no surprise, is it too much to hope that the senators doing the questioning might actually listen and perhaps even learn something? Apparently, that’s not the point of Senate hearings which seem to exist almost exclusively as an opportunity for grandstanding. When the stakes are as high as they are now, rather than rise to the occasion, our elected representatives cling ever tighter to their safety positions, making the hearing nothing more than a televised partisan debate in which these pols hold out for as much air time as possible.
A quick scan of the blogosphere shows that no one has learned anything they didn’t already “know.” At the Corner, National Review’s Rich Lowry succinctly points out the main purpose of the hearings for both sides of the aisle — to get the answers they want to hear:
“Whatever else you think of [Senator Lindsay Graham], he’s an excellent questioner at these hearings. I think he just elicited about a dozen answers that highlight the importance of the surge and of success in Iraq.”
Senator Evan Bayh attempted something similar from the opposite end of the political spectrum, scoring extra points with the anti-war crowd for making the general sound irritated in his response.
Memeorandum’s main page is most damning of all, demonstrating with the following most talked about non-story story that these hearings exist in a political echo chamber, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
7 Comments
1. Susan Katz Keating:It’s not just the Petraeus testimony. The Senate has been holding hearings on Iraq for the past week or more, and yet… the witnesses’ words have gone mostly unheard.
Apr 9, 2008 - 8:49 am 2. jambrowski:That is because the only thing they care to hear is their own voice, not the voices of the people that serve us, or for that matter us. But, this is nothing new nor is it something we were not expecting.
Apr 9, 2008 - 9:30 am 3. Anita Hope:My wife was driving home from work yesterday, listening to NPR, we sat down to dinner and were watching Fox News, she says “my goodness, this isn’t the story that NPR was telling”. She has been saying that a lot these days. I listen to it (NPR) every now and then, but if I listened to it all the time I would have to see a shrink, they might as well be Hanoi Jane or Cuban free radio, cause the sky is/has/ and continues to only fall on us everyday.
They don’t teach “POLITICAL CANDOR ” in high school or college, so should we expect our elected officials or reprsentatives to understand the meaning of the word.
Apr 9, 2008 - 10:28 am 4. Anita Hope:If YOU HAVEN’T LOOKED IT UP THIS WILL EXPLAIN WHY THE TERM IS DIFFICULT FOR WASHINGTON TO LIVE WITH.
“CANDOR” THE QUALITY OF BEING HONEST, STRAIGHT FORWARD IN ATTITUDE & SPEECH. THE ABILITY TO MAKE JUDGEMENT FREE FROM DISCRIMINATION OR DISHONESTY.
THE WORD IS A SIMPLE NOUN, BUT NOT SIMPLE FOR THEM TO USE WHEN IN DISCUSSION.
Apr 9, 2008 - 12:24 pm 5. Floss:The President remarks to the American people seemed very strong and honest. He did as he said he would do, listen to the advice of General Petraeus, and make his decisions. Congresswoman Pelosi and Senator Reid, however, seem to stumble through their rebuttal to the Presidents comments. I am sure, not many noticed, but the two of them sounded weak and dishonest.
Apr 10, 2008 - 12:02 pm 6. Ratatosk:I listen to it (NPR) every now and then, but if I listened to it all the time I would have to see a shrink
I find that NPR, FOX, CNN etc are all biased in one way or another… the only sane news I’ve found has been through filtering multiple news sources and then assuming that its slanted right or left anyway…
The sad state of a Free Press.
Apr 11, 2008 - 9:18 am 7. John Samford:When things are going well, no change is goooood.
Apr 12, 2008 - 5:45 amMost change is bad anyway. Change can be winning the Lottery, or having your leg torn off by a pit bull. Most people tend to think more about the lottery then the pit bull. This is a well known psychological fact that changemongers and other con men use to fool people.
The trick is to avoid being pinned down on exactly what the change is. If the change is delineated, the suckers will start to find the flaws in it. If the con man stays vague, then the suckers fill in the details them selves. The most believable lie is the one you tell yourself. Plus the con man cannot be held accountable for a lie his suckers tell themselves.
So Congress is doing well when they “exist in a political echo chamber, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.” I still think the do nothing Congress is a clever plot to get re-elected by the Demonrats.