Army Times: “McCain reveals confusion over Petraeus role”
EmailLiberal blogs are all over this…The Army Times writes that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., "may not have been paying the closest of attention last week during hearings on the Bush administration’s Iraq policy."
The evidence? Before the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked if elected if he would divert troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to if that’s what it would take to capture of kill Osama bin Laden.
"I would not do that unless Gen. Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that," McCain said.
Watch the Q & A HERE.
The issue, according to the Army Times, is that Gen. David Petraeus, as top commander of troops in Iraq, testified last week that he would not express an opinion on allocating resources on the worldwide stage since he’s focused on Iraq.
"Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision," the Army Times writes. "Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq. Decisions about Afghanistan would be made by others, he said. "’I've been sort of focused on another task,’ Petraeus said when pressed about whether more troops should be diverted to Afghanistan rather than Iraq."
The McCain campaign argues that this is misconstruing the senator’s point, and that of course McCain knows that Petraeus isn’t in command of forces in Afghanistan.
The senator knows the difference between the responsibilities of theater commanders and regional commanders in chief, they say; his father, Admiral John McCain Jr., was CINCPAC — Commander in Chief, Pacific Command. What the senator was saying , his campaign argues, is that he wouldn’t remove troops from Iraq to go to Afghanistan unless Gen. Petraeus assured him that he could sustain the counterinsurgency in Iraq without them.
The question the Army Times is referring to was asked during the House Armed Services Committee hearing — not the Senate hearing — when Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., asked Petraeus, "do you have an exact time in your mind as to when Iraq became the number-one priority, compared to Afghanistan? Is there a date in your mind that you can relate back to when that occurred?"
"Sir, not in mine," Petraeus said. "I’ve been pretty head-down inside Iraq for most of that time, and I’m not sure who made that determination, when that was made."
Snyder recalled that Admiral Fallon last month testified that he needed 2,000 more troops in Afghanistan. "You have talked a lot today and yesterday about conditions-based," Snyder said. "Here we had a combatant commander sitting down and testifying he needs 2,000 more troops — trainers, primarily — today in Afghanistan. How should the Congress respond to that kind of comment?"
"Well, again," Petraeus said, "you’re asking the commander in Iraq, … I don’t know how the Congress responds. I mean, I guess the Congress weighs how much more it can resource. I think you are already funding an expansion of the Army and of the Marine Corps, I believe. Again, I’ve been sort of focused on another task."
This all gets into the drive to create narratives. In an attempt to undercut McCain’s national security expertise and credentials (which is not to say his judgment, a separate issue), any gaffe or confusing statement McCain makes in that area is being attacked. There’s the subtextual implication that this may be because he’s old.
Fair or not, this is how the game is played — on both sides. If Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, made such a statement — the phrasing, not the position — conservative commentators would be all over him, accusing him of not knowing the difference between a theater commander and a regional commander in chief.
- jpt
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
To Jake Tapper: This is not confusion.
The question was diverting troops from afganistan to iraq.
Petraeus is the commander of our troops in iraq. In order to divert troops from Iraq to Afganistan the size of the force structure in iraq would be affected.
McCain has said he would seek input from his commanders on the ground to the size of the force structure and Mccain is the commander on the ground in Iraq.
Damn it! Once again the media has taken McCain out of context.
Hey Jake Tapper, you and the rest of the media were silent when Obama in the Petreaus hearing said it was Iraq that was helping the special groups not Iran.
How many times is the media going to take McCain out of context?
The only confusion is on part of the media.
Posted by: Jason | April 15, 2008, 12:45 pm 12:45 pm
Unlike Obama the know-it-all, McCain would first ask the General’s opinion.
Trying to change the subject from Obama?
Posted by: geevill | April 15, 2008, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
THIS IS NOT CONFUSION. THE MEDIA ARE THE ONES CONFUSED>
Petreaus is the top commander on the ground in Iraq.
If you are going to be diverting troops from Iraq to Afganistan the size of the force level in iraq would have to be decreased.
Petraeus in the army times article said it wouldn’t be his decision where those troops would go. But it is his decision on the force level inside Iraq. So if troops would be diverted to Afganistan from Iraq and thus decreasing levels in iraq petreaus would be involved.
Petreaus is the one in charge of troop levels in iraq. His recommendations go to the secretary of defense and to the president.
How is this confusion.
How dense can the media be.
The media is constantly twisting and distorting McCain’s comments.
McCain wasn’t confused. McCain was right saying he would consult Petreaus if we would be moving troops from iraq to afganistan. Diverting troops from iraq would affect the troop levels in iraq.
Decreasing our forces in iraq by diverting them to afganistan would affect Petraeus’s ability to conduct operations in iraq.
The media are the ones who are confused.
Once again the media shows how dense it is.
I am tired of the media taking McCain out of context.
Posted by: Jason | April 15, 2008, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
It’s such a bizarre thought that McCain would a good Commander-in-Chief simply because he was an exceptionally brave soldier in the Vietnam war. He lacks the intelligence, the knowledge of internal afairs and the everyday alertness of mind to be just that. It may be his age, and what age does to the mind, that is hindering him.
McCain has been very lucky so far that he is not part of what the MSM and rest of America is focusing on: the fight between HRC and BO. And yet he has already produced some serious gaffes on the only issues that could portray him as a strong President: national security and the war in Iraq.
Just wait till he’ll have to discuss modern economy or the details of our education system. Without a txst writer or a souffleur McCain is lost in the growing disorder of his mind. He’s an old man, I don’t blame him for it, but a President – no, that would be a BIG mistake and even a serious danger.
Posted by: wertheim | April 15, 2008, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
McCain wants us to trust himself. He is pandering to the extreme most elements of the right-wing, where Petreaus is GOD. Instead of using rationaled thinking, he is doing the Bush thing… trying to act as if he’s deferring to the military commander. The problem is… he’s not deferring to the RIGHT military commander.
Posted by: David | April 15, 2008, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
Wertheim, Italy just elected their leader who is the same age as McCain.
Werteim you talk like McCain is running against JFK. He is running against two lousy candidates with serious flaws. Clinton can’t tell the truth EVER.
6 justices of the supreme court are over 70. Justice Kennedy is over 70.
Colin Powell is over 70.
Ron Paul is older than Mccain at 72.
Senator Feinstein is 74.
Speaker Pelosi is a few years younger than McCain.
Obama called the leader of canada the president of canada.
Hillary said Musharraf was going to be on the ballot when he wasn’t.
Obama confused Iran and Iraq on who was helping the special groups in iraq.
McCain said nothing wrong.
Posted by: Jason | April 15, 2008, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm
David,
McCain said he would bring our troops home and would leave it to the iraqis to deal with the insurgency.
McCain has visited Iraq 8 times. McCain is the ranking member of the armed services committee. His son just came back from Iraq.
McCain is not a neocon. McCain voted against keeping our troops in lebanon.
McCain’s generation hates war. McCain is old school. His foreign policy is much more like Bush Sr.
McCain knows the hell of war from personal experience.
Amazing how McCain who sacrificed so much can be smeared by the likes of Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama who wouldn’t know the first thing about sacrifice. They look down on this country and its people.
Posted by: Jason | April 15, 2008, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
“Wertheim, Italy just elected their leader who is the same age as McCain.”
Which is terrible enough as it is. Comparing McCain to Berlusconi might not be a good idea, the latter one being one of the most circumspect and despised leaders in the Western world. He would have been in jail if he hadn’t fired all the judges who were studying his cases.
I’m not a supporter of 70+ people in high offices in general, but my point is that McCain’s age shows, in his lack of alertness, his memory gaps, his gaffes. He wouldn’t make a strong President, no way. I don’t like Howard Dean but I agree with him that McCain is a weak candidate. And his age is part of that weakness. So is his temper, so is his wellknown lack of interest for the details of any issue.
Posted by: wertheim | April 15, 2008, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm
Hey Jake -
How about a story on the 100 Pennsylvania Mayors that endorsed Hillary Clinton today.
Posted by: Kris | April 15, 2008, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
It’s quite simple.
For McBush, the Iraq War — a war that should not have been started and should not continue — is more important than the war on terror — samesame Bush/Cheney.
McCain may not be a neocon, but his flip-flopping on issues over the past couple of years leaves him extremely difficult to categorize. If you want another four years of Bush politics, elect McCain.
McBush has stated he is anti-torture, yet he voted Bush’s way against curbs on waterboarding. If you want another four years of Bush’s politics, elect McCain.
Obama 2008 — Yes, WE CAN!!!
Posted by: Jackt51 -- Vietnam Vet and Proud Liberal | April 15, 2008, 1:40 pm 1:40 pm
Jackt51,
We agree.
========================================
McCain is Bush III
========================================
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | April 15, 2008, 1:46 pm 1:46 pm
Kris, splitting hairs can be misleading – 100 PA mayors didn’t endorse Hillary today, but it was the 100th PA mayor (over a period of time) that endorsed her today. It was noted that only 19 out of the 100 showed up at today’s event. It’s all in the interpretation, isn’t it?
Posted by: counting crows | April 15, 2008, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm
Any candidate who jokes about bombing a country, isn’t qualified to be President.
“The thought of John McCain being president sends a cold chill down my spine,” “He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.” – Thad Cochran (R)
Posted by: AkaDad | April 15, 2008, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm
Simply stated Obama worries me
and the rest of the country.
Posted by: bill | April 15, 2008, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm
Jake said: ” Fair or not, this is how the game is played — on both sides. If Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, made such a statement — the phrasing, not the position — conservative commentators would be all over him, accusing him of not knowing the difference between a theater commander and a regional commander in chief.”
=========
What role is the Army Times playing in the game? They chose a particular way to report this, given that Petraeus definitely would have input about whether troops should be taken *from* Iraq.
Posted by: MayBee | April 15, 2008, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
McCain? such a dumb ! he does’t look presidential at all,Obama does !!!! Obama ’08,’12
Posted by: capt billly | April 15, 2008, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
How many more Gaffles, flip flops are we going to see from John McCain. More to come. He is confused…BUSH III
Posted by: james | April 15, 2008, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
I just can’t imagine McCain becoming the commander-in-chief with those shorter than normal hands,veteran my foot! bob dole, john kerry,collin powel and millions of others are also veterans,he is not owed the presidency,he is entitled to his pension like others. He should go and rest for a job well done and nothing more.
Posted by: capt billly | April 15, 2008, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm
“Simply stated Obama worries me and the rest of the country.”
The fact that Obama’s convincing the rads that he’s a closet commie, like his mommie — and that there’s enough evidence for the Republicans to convince anybody who doesn’t CARE for that, which could be fewer than one supposes — and everybody else that he’s the opposite, bothers ME.
Obama’s both-sides-now approach to Israel-Palestine is enough to bamboozle anybody.
Better the Democrats should nominate John Edwards — who’s outfront about populism and social change, and whose life’s work has actually been in that direction — than either face of Hillobama.
Posted by: Adlai Stevenson | April 15, 2008, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm
To wertheim, Bill Clinton has a far worse temper than McCain and the dems loved him as president for 8 years.
Count how many times Bill Clinton has blown up in this campaign compared to McCain.
Remember the interview with peter jennings, chris wallace, female interviewer in europe where he blew up.
How about Hillary having to be separated from Bill after she hit him so hard he turned red.
Temper are you kidding me. I am so tired of that propaganda. The one with the temper is Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Jason | April 15, 2008, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm
HE BLAMES THIS ON AN INTERN [JUST WHEN I THOUGHT AT LEAST HE WAS HONEST HIS CAMPAIGN HAS TO LIE ABOUT CRAP LIKE THIS-A LIE BECAUSE NO ORGANIZATION HAS AN INTERN DO THIS UNMONITORED AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE CINDY SO THIS IS HER MICHELLE MOMENT?]
At least three “McCain Family Recipes” posted on John McCain’s campaign Web site and credited to his wife Cindy –
The similarity was first noted by a New York attorney and appeared in a report on the Huffington Post Monday night.
Posted by: Sheeza Lyer | April 15, 2008, 3:09 pm 3:09 pm
Jason: “The one with the temper is Bill Clinton.”
I agree . But McCain got a very serious temper as well; that’s no propapanda, even his allies will tell you all about it. It’s a weakness, and not an indication of a strong character that can control itself. Self-control is an important trait of a good President and a Commander-in-Chief, IMO. Nixon didn’t have it, Reagan did.
Posted by: wertheim | April 15, 2008, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
This is really showing bias , McCain did not mis-speak, he said he would leave it up to Petreasus whether troops can be moved from Iraq to Afghanistan.
When is the press going to show Obama real talk about his socialistic view and stop changing what McCain says!!
Yes people before you pull troops out of an area you need to talk with the General in that area. I know I know Liberals who never seen battle think they can run our troops!!
Posted by: spock | April 15, 2008, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
Wertheim, are you aware that McCain visited a dem senator Mo Udall when he was sick every week. No one else visited him. Some real bad guy there.
You want your president to have the ability to get angry when they see something they don’t like.
A lot of senators don’t like McCain because he was against their pet projects. Senators on the appropriations committee couldn’t stand him.
Look at how Obama dealt with that guy wanting him to have an autograph. McCain is open for access. He has town halls, press conferences on his bus and plane all the time and after events.
McCain is always in contact with the voters. He refused secret service protection to be able to have contact with the voters. McCain gives far more access to voters and the press than Obama or Clinton. Suddenly the Howard Dean argument gets hurt. Dean outright lied about McCain’s position on the gun show loophole. The job of Dean is to lie about McCain.
Look at Dean’s record. He dodged the draft saying he had a bad back but was sking in colorodo.
McCain encourages dialogue. He is going on a tour to democratic areas where he encourages voters to come in and air their disagreements with him.
McCain is getting a raw deal.
McCain’s son who is in the Navy Academy said his father not once had a temper with him.
Look at the kids McCain raised.
It’s not like presidents in the past haven’t had tempers.
FDR had a temper, truman had a temper.
Lyndon Johnson had a temper. JFK had a temper.
Posted by: Jason | April 15, 2008, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm
Given McCain’s name recognition, Senate tenure and very impressive military history, how is it that a man of such military esteem and tenure in the US Senate after 20+ years consistently misses and/or forget pertinent details surround a war the he 100% supports? Ask yourself that.
Secondly, McCain isn’t supposed to have problems getting money from donors due to his HIGH VALOR AND PERSONAL ESTEEM, is he? Can anyone explain how someone can be in the Senate for 20 plus years and not have the connections to match a Senator with just 3 years in the same Senate? The answer is quite clear. Very few truly believe in MCain and his cause or that he will win against Obama. He’s sloppy and in the military, attention to detail is everything, which he doesn’t show or have. For Bo Bo the Clowns sake folks, the man has to use a teleprompter to order a pizza!!! He never speaks from the heart and always has to have everything pre-written for him. Well, I have news for all of you. He doesn’t have what it takes to be a leader among men as well as a clear leader of this country.
The bottom line is that Obama has run a superior campaign with Hillary Clinton as his opponent. When Obama finishes off the legendary Clinton Machine, he will have demonstrated great political skill, all the while appearing above the fray. McCain is a far easier trophy than Clinton because its going to come down to the issues, not rhetoric. Rev Wright? McCain has Rev John Hagee who is far worse. Rezko with no news? McCain was directly involved with the Keating 5.
So, my friends, when it comes down to the issues and the American people, most in this country want change and McCain doesn’t represent that. All of the whining and rhetoric doesn’t mean a thing.
Simply put, MCCAIN WILL LOSE.
Posted by: Common Sense | April 15, 2008, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm
“how is it that a man of such military esteem and tenure in the US Senate after 20+ years consistently misses and/or forget pertinent details surround a war the he 100% supports? … MCCAIN WILL LOSE”
Maybe he’s senile. Or pretending to be senile. But when the Democrats ever come up with a nominee, the Republican “nominee” could change . . .
Which is a really REALLY good reason to nominate John Edwards. Not that the interminable diversity-fest between two career politicians with identical positions on the “issues” hasn’t been an absolute inspiration.
Posted by: Adlai Stevenson | April 15, 2008, 3:38 pm 3:38 pm
McCain couldn’t have been there because Petraeus answered it during the house hearing the next day. Army Times said it happened during the senate armed services committee.
Petraeus has said he is for a pause in the drawdown of our troops. Of course he would be involved if a decision was to move troops out of Iraq.
Petraeus’s comments in the house hearing are being taken out of context.
McCain’s staff has rebuted by saying like I thought he was talking about Petraeus’s role in the size of our forces in Iraq.
Petraeus said he isn’t responsible where the troops go. But that is entirely different than saying he isn’t responsible for the size of our troop levels in iraq. Petraeus has to plan how many combat brigades are on the ground.
Petraeus’s recommendations about the size of our troops goes right to secretary gates and then to the president.
Admiral Mullen was said to have not agreed with General Petraeus’s strategy in Iraq but it was Petrareus’s responsibility.
Obama said in the hearing with Petraeus that it was Iraq not Iran that was helping the special groups in iraq. Ambassador Crocker had to correct him.
Obama said at another time there was no al queda in iraq.
I just wished you had contacted Petraeus’s reps or Senator McCain’s reps. This is the last time I am e-mailing back. Sorry for the inconvience.
Posted by: Jason | April 15, 2008, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm
Obama’s whole point is that before we invaded Iraq there was no al Qaeda in Iraq. [We should have concentrated on the Taliban in Afghanistan and let Saddam and Iran be at a standoff. my view] Our invasion did not make the world any better: gas costs more, terrorists took advantage of the war and now occupy Iraq, we have troops bogged down in Iraq when a good portion of them should be in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do at all with 9-11.
Posted by: Sheeza Lyer | April 15, 2008, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm
Jason, you’re right maybe Lieberman could hang out just to keep McCain in line. BWAAAAHHH
Posted by: disabledOIFvet | April 16, 2008, 1:42 am 1:42 am
Jason you’re right maybe they should get Lieberman to stay by his side and nudge him when he drifts off.
Posted by: disabledOIFvet | April 16, 2008, 1:51 am 1:51 am
Army Times is not actually an Army publication–just a private company.
Posted by: BJD | April 16, 2008, 9:26 am 9:26 am
Sheeza Lyer – Liberal Talking points to the letter!
First Al Qeada was in Iraq, but note we did not go into Iraq for that we went in because Hussein refused to follow 17 resolutions – FYI in the 90′s Pelosi, Reid and other libs were pushing for Clinton to do something, In 2003 Obama stated that he supports the actions of the President in Iraq.
How could al Qeada be in every country other then Iraq?
The terrorists are being killed in Iraq, they are the ones bogged down!
Out troops are on the verge of complete Victory at this point in time!
Posted by: spock | April 16, 2008, 1:20 pm 1:20 pm