The Coffeespy

David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo says:

The WaPo looks into why Margaret Chiara, the ousted U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan, made the list of the Gonzales 8–and comes up with no compelling answers.

I guess the WaPo didn’t do a thorough job researching, then.  Typical.  From the WaPo article:

In the aftermath of the surprise firing of U.S. Attorney Margaret M. Chiara, questions outnumber answers. Was she dismissed for political reasons? For poor performance? To make way for someone else? Western Michigan’s legal community does not know what to think.

The Justice Department initially announced that the reasons were “performance-related,” an explanation at odds with the current consensus in Grand Rapids. The chief federal judge firmly disputed it, as did Chiara, who said she was told her resignation was needed to clear the way for a political favorite.

Some defense lawyers speculate that Chiara, who once trained to be a nun, fell out of favor with the Bush administration over her personal opposition to the death penalty. The administration has pursued capital punishment in several states, including Michigan, that have no state death penalty or rarely use it.

A prosecutor in any office around the nation that doesn’t utilize the laws as they were appointed to has failed to perform their duties.  If a death penalty state ends up with an anti-death penalty prosecutor who refuses to seek it, that prosecutor is not fulfilling their duties as required by the state.  While this may rub the anti-death penalty crowd the wrong way, those same people would scream to high heaven if a prosecutor in a non-death penalty state announced they would attempt to have a case moved to federal court so the death penalty would apply.  Either case is a betrayal of the people they work for.

So the question is: Did Chiara let her personal beliefs color how she prosecuted?

From the Detroit News:

She did not recommend the death penalty in a 2004 murder case involving Michael and Robert Ostrander but was overruled by the Justice Department, said Phelan, who represented one of the two accused killers. They would have been eligible for the death penalty because the charges involved firearm use and drug trafficking.

DoJ had to step in on one of her cases.  In the interest of full disclosure, it is important to note the jury did not grant the death request.  That’s actually the beauty of our system - you recommend what you’re supposed to and leave it up to the people to find mercy.  But this wasn’t the only time DoJ had to step in on Chiara.  Back to the WaPo article:

There has been some turmoil in the U.S. attorney’s office. A senior prosecutor, Phillip Green, was recently upbraided by the Justice Department for “poor judgment” on a sentencing matter after a colleague complained. The Justice Department has called the office “fractured” and reported that management experts were deployed to Grand Rapids.

Seems Chiara’s office had at least two problems with their sentencing recommendations.  Since DoJ thought it was serious enough to send a managment team to fix the office I’m betting there were more.  Oh wait, I don’t have to bet… back to the Detroit News:

Chiara was in office for the federal prosecution of Marvin Gabrion, the first Michigan case since 1938 in which a death penalty verdict was returned.

Although Michigan has no death penalty, Gabrion was eligible for the federal death penalty for a 1997 Michigan murder because the killing was in a national park.

But Mitchell said Chiara had not personally sought the death penalty for Gabrion, whose case has been appealed.

Again, Chiara refused to seek the death penalty and was overruled by DoJ.  In this case, the accused was sentenced to death.  Back to the WaPo story, a Clinton appointee who preceded Chiara in the same office finds no mystery with her dismissal:

“She parted ways on certain issues that they wanted pushed, the primary issue being the death penalty,” said Dettmer, a lawyer in Traverse City. “She’s anti-death penalty. It rubbed the [Justice Department's] death penalty committee in D.C. the wrong way. I know it for a fact.”

So what’s the mystery?  Chiara was appointed to represent the people in federal cases.  She was bound by federal laws.  By not seeking the death penalty where applicable she put herself in opposition to the current body of laws approved by the people and firmly against a President who was elected with the death penalty in his platform.  Opposing the man who appointed you can get you fired pretty quickly.

One thing that I find absolutely hilarious is how the lefty blogs are already picking up on this, playing up her opposition to the death penalty, and billing it as a ‘loyalty test’ (loyalty is considered a sin to the far Left, I think).  This is based on her religious views - Chiara once trained as a nun.  Those same views, I would opine, would set her firmly against gay marriage and abortion.  I wonder how loud the Left would be if she had let those views into her prosecutorial conduct.

Let’s pick on the Washington Post this morning.  Early Birded story from Page 1 courtesy of the Free Internet Press:

Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

That’s what the story is about.  But we all know this, so let’s look at some of the other things in the piece:

As debate began on the bill yesterday, members of the antiwar caucus and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least four votes when the roll is called. The members promised 10.

Democrat(ic)s are holding backroom meetings?  Hm, I don’t like that.  There won’t be a public transcript.  Ok, ok, that’s low… almost as low as shifting testimony, but I digress.  Why backroom?  What are they hiding?  Sounds like paranoid ramblings, no?  That’s because they are.

Anyway, here’s the bald truth:

“You really have two options here: One is that you can vote for a change of course here and say we’re going to find a way out of Iraq, or, two, you can vote against it and hand George Bush a victory,” said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq war and co-founder of VoteVets.org, a group that opposes the war.

You keep hearing “new direction.”  It’s a euphamism for “retreat.”  It’s stated plainly above.  Whenever you hear “new direction,” insert “retreat” and you’ll understand the position better.  More:

Bush and congressional Republicans have done their best to exploit the divisions, repeatedly mentioning that the Democrats are not united.

I did some searching on Bush playing up the divisions.  I didn’t find any.  That’s not to say they’re not out there, but the characterization is false.  It looks like the writer just threw Bush into the mix because, after all, he’s the source of all evil.  Remember, this is journalism - the unbiased reporting of facts.  Heh.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned yesterday that if Congress does not pass the supplemental war funding bill by April 15, the Army may have to slow the training of units slated to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan, or halt the repair of equipment. If the funding is delayed until May, he said, the tours of Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan might have to be extended “because other units are not ready to take their place.”

Let’s be plain here.  The Dems held this bill off long enough that there’s almost no time to renegotiate if Bush vetoes.  They added strings they knew he wouldn’t like.  It’s a set up for a Bush veto so they can point the “support the troops” finger like something out of a Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd scene.  It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

• Right Wing Nuthouse talks about how hate has defeated the principles of the Democrats.  I thought hate WAS a principle to the Dems at this point…

I’ve had a very wearing week.  One of those where every aspect of your life seems to close in on you like a casket door thumping shut.  Then, just before I’m about to go to bed, I read a story in the Washington Post:

As war protesters marched toward Arlington Memorial Bridge en route to the Pentagon yesterday, they were flanked by long lines of military veterans and others who stood in solidarity with U.S. troops and the Bush administration’s cause in Iraq. Many booed loudly as the protesters passed, turned their backs to them or yelled, “If you don’t like America, get out!”

Several thousand vets, some of whom came by bus from New Jersey, car caravans from California or flights from Seattle or Michigan, lined the route from the bridge and down 23rd Street, waving signs such as “War There Or War Here.” Their lines snaked around the corner and down several blocks of Constitution Avenue in what organizers called the largest gathering of pro-administration counter-demonstrators since the war began four years ago.

To use a scientific term: “Effin’ A.”

I almost never go downtown during a rally weekend.  The District breakdown for politically registered individuals is 9 Democrat(ic)s for every 1 Republican.  This means anything liberal has home field advantage - something never mentioned in the Post.

For the Post to print this story and marvel at the numbers of pro-war, anti-demonstrators means something very significant happened in DC today.  What exactly was the shot across the bow for the sleeping patriots?

In some past antiwar rallies, the number of counter-demonstrators has ranged from a handful to a few hundred. “Our side got apathetic,” said Debby Lee, whose son Marc, a Navy SEAL, was killed in Iraq and who came to the rally from Phoenix in a caravan organized by MoveAmericaForward.org.

But the war protesters have gone too far, Lee and others said. At a Jan. 27 antiwar rally, some protesters spray-painted the pavement on a Capitol terrace. Others crowned the Lone Sailor statue at the Navy Memorial on Pennsylvania Avenue with a pink tiara that had “Women for Peace” written across it.

Word of those incidents ricocheted around the Internet.

“That was the real catalyst, right there,” said Navy veteran Larry Bailey. “They showed they were willing to desecrate something that’s sacred to the American soul.”

Recently, I’ve wondered where America’s spirit had gone.  Was I becoming a conservative dinosaur at the age of 33?  I’m all for a good flag-burning on the right occassion, but defacing national monuments and property is still something I’d never accept even as a form of protest.

For the first time, I’m ashamed I didn’t head downtown on a rally weekend.  Instead, I spent the morning with my kid at a puppet show in Shirlington.  I watched a movie with my wife in the afternoon at home.  Then I finished up some work on the computer.  Finally, I read this story before bedtime.

From my window in Alexandria, under the starless expanse of nocturnal clouds and above the monuments we’ve risen in marble and brick on the hallowed grounds where walked giants like Lincoln and Roosevelt, I’d like to think I could see an eagle soar this night to the north across the Potomac.

This is an image I’m happy to carry with me into peaceful sleep.

• The Right Wing Nuthouse talks about the Gather of Eagles, media coverage, and motives behind the counter-demonstration.
• Michelle Malkin has pictures.

What’s happened at the biggest name in Army hospitals since the story broke?  Walter Reed’s commanding officer, Major General George Weightman, and Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey lost their jobs.  MG Weightman was a no-brainer, but why Mr. Harvey?  Well, Mr. Harvey laid the blame for the conditions at Walter Reed on “some NCOs [noncommissioned officers] who weren’t doing their job, period.”  Brilliant analysis, Mr. Harvey.

The former commander of Walter Reed, General Kevin Kiley, is now the Army Surgeon General.  Kiley commanded Walter Reed from 2002-2004.  Interesting to find out the problems have been there since his tenure.  From an Early Birded story in the Washington Post:

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), the ranking Republican on the committee, cited an Oct. 12, 2006, Army memo indicating that a review team found problems with billeting, staffing and other issues at Building 18, the outpatient residential facility whose substandard conditions have been at the heart of the recent scandal. Both Weightman and Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, the Army surgeon general, who previously commanded Walter Reed, acknowledged under questioning that they had been briefed on the findings.

“You knew these were problems,” Davis said. “You may not have known specifically what it looked like, and you may not have been able to put faces and stories behind it, but there was an ongoing concern.”

Kiley told Davis that his staff “informed me that the Walter Reed staff was working it, that they recognized that there were issues, and that they were taking action.”

I try not to name call in my blog because I feel it detracts from the atmosphere of reasoning.  Name calling is inflammatory and sets people who disagree in a defensive posture, almost guaranteeing no one is going to be able to see things another way.  However, Kiley is a true imbecile.  Or, to use a scientific term, a nimrod.  To hide behind “my people told me it was wrong, sure, but they said they were fixing it so it’s not my fault” means Kiley understands the position as commander of the post is not necessary.  If Kiley’s not making sure things are getting done, then what’s the purpose of his post?!  Is he just a set of ears that nods like a bobble head doll?  This is a three-star general saying things this stupid.

Fire Kiley.  He’s obviously not the calibre of soldier we need as Surgeon General of the Army.

Who, then, do you put in charge of this mess?  How about this guy:

Shannon was shot in the head during a firefight near Ramadi, Iraq, in November 2004 and has languished at Walter Reed ever since, awaiting plastic surgery so he can be fitted with a prosthetic eye. Paperwork for his retirement from the Army has been on hold.

But his ire yesterday was less about his own treatment than about the sense of betrayal he feels for younger soldiers he has tried to shepherd through the bureaucracy at Walter Reed.

“I will not see young men and women who have had their lives shattered in service to their country receive anything less than dignity and respect,” said Shannon, who at times said he is having difficulty controlling his anger.

He said some injured troops encounter so much bureaucracy that they give up and forgo benefits to which they are entitled. “I have seen so many soldiers get so frustrated with the process that they will sign anything presented to them, just so they can get on with their lives,” he said.

That’s the kind of indignant practicality I want on my side.  Find a guy like this and put him in charge.

Rapid update: I just read this… read the whole thing.  It confirms it: Kiley is a nimrod.  Weightman still deserves to be fired, but I wouldn’t say dismissed from the Army.  He has taken responsibility, apologized, and by the accounts writted, was sincere.  Kiley?  Get him out of the Army.

George F. Will sums up the Dem’s position on Iraq rather tersely:

Regarding Iraq, the Democratic-controlled Congress could do what Democrats say a Democratic president would do: withdraw U.S. forces. A president could simply order that; Congress could defund military operations in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are, however, afraid to do that because they lack the courage of their (professed) conviction that Iraq would be made tranquil by withdrawal of U.S. forces.

So they aim to hamstring the president with restrictions on the use of the military. The restrictions ostensibly are concerned with preparedness but actually are designed to prevent deployments to Iraq.

I hadn’t thought about it in those terms.  They “could” exercise their powers, but won’t because deep down they know it’s a bad idea.  So instead, they’ll keep forces there but make sure it remains a difficult fight by curtailing operations.

Looks like General Weightman is doing the two-step over his failure as a hospital administrator.  From an Early Birded story in the Washington Post (page 8, it’s behind a log-in or I’d link to it):

The White House and congressional leaders called yesterday for swift investigation and repair of the problems plaguing outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, as veterans groups and members of Congress in both parties expressed outrage over substandard housing and the slow, dysfunctional bureaucracy there.

Top Army officials yesterday visited Building 18, the decrepit former hotel housing more than 80 recovering soldiers, outside the gates of the medical center. Army Secretary Francis Harvey and Vice Chief of Staff Richard Cody toured the building and spoke to soldiers as workers in protective masks stripped mold from the walls and tore up soiled carpets.

At the White House, press secretary Tony Snow said that he spoke with President Bush yesterday about Walter Reed and that the president told him: “Find out what the problem is and fix it.”

Snow said Bush “first learned of the troubling allegations regarding Walter Reed from the stories this weekend in The Washington Post. He is deeply concerned and wants any problems identified and fixed.” The spokesman said he did not know why the president, who has visited the facility many times in the past five years, had not heard about these problems before.

For anyone who’s been in the military and spent time preparing for a VIP visit, you know the drill.  Make the areas he’s going to step in look pretty, don’t ask any questions other than those your CO or First Sergeant know about, and, for God’s sake, don’t complain about anything.  We’re getting to the good part now: 

Walter Reed’s commander, Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, said in an interview that the Army leadership had assured him that all the staff increases he had requested would be met. “This is not an issue,” he said. “This is their number one priority.”

…

Weightman said case managers have been ordered to call each of the 700 outpatients to ask about problems they may be encountering. He has also put half a dozen senior enlisted officers from the hospital in charge of the outpatients’ companies normally in the hands of lower-level platoon sergeants. Also, a medic will be stationed 24 hours a day at the Mologne House, the largest residence on the 113-acre post, to help soldiers with medical or psychological problems.

Personnel shortages?  Ok, I’ll give you personnel shortages on the beauracracy and medical staffing side of the house, but simple contractor work like snow removal and wall maintenance?  Plumbing?!  That’s not a shortage in personnel, that’s a shortage in attention to detail.  It’s a shortage in oversight on your own post.  It riles me that General Weightman is using this to get more people when he’s failed to use the ones he has effectively. 

Harvey said he was surprised and disappointed by the conditions and the bureaucratic delays. “In the warrior ethos, the last line says you should never leave a fallen comrade, and from that facility point of view we didn’t live up to it . . . and it looks to me we may have not lived up to it from a process side,” he said, adding that conditions at the building are “inexcusable.”

“It’s a failure . . . in the garrison leadership . . . that should have never happened, and we are quickly going to rectify that situation,” he said.

“We had some NCOs [noncommissioned officers] who weren’t doing their job, period,” Harvey said. He said he and Cody will report regularly to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on a plan to fix the conditions.

And there you have it…  we’ll blame the NCOs.  Great work, officers.  You’ve managed to shunt the entire blame upon the working corps of the Army.  Can someone explain how the top brass can claim personnel shortages, immediately bring in contractors to start fixing things, and then blame the NCOs completely?  Still more:

Several senators, including presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former presidential candidate John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), announced they are co-sponsoring legislation to simplify the paperwork process for recovering soldiers and increase case managers and psychological counselors. The bill would also require the Army to report more regularly to Congress and the inspector general about the living conditions of injured soldiers.

Jeff Miller (Fla.), the ranking Republican on the House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee on health, said: “The neglect being experienced by some wounded service members is outrageous. The Defense Department is never shy about asking for supplemental funds for operations and equipment; I cannot imagine why housing for recuperating wounded would not be a similarly high priority.”

Good luck fighting the beauracrats.  Entrenched civilians are the bane of government work.  You want proof?  Look at the intelligence community restructuring (more on this later - tomorrow at the latest).  That one will be an uphill battle because of the legal tenacity government employment possesses.  Still, the bill is a good first step - and one I hope isn’t used as political ammo (how’s that for wishful thinking).

The comments by Representative Miller are most telling, though.  Who at Walter Reed is responsible for requesting funds and equipment?  Is it the NCOs?  No.  Is it the soldiers, themselves?  No.  Well, who’s left?  Officers and civilians?  BINGO!

After seven years in the Army, I can tell you how to get results.  You either know the person who can pull the strings or you raise the issue to a level where it can’t be ignored.  The first way is the best.  The second way is the quickest but has more pain for the soldier on the back end.

Yesterday I wrote my thoughts on the WaPo article concerning Walter Reed.  Today, the Post has a follow up that includes progress in short order:

The facility’s commander, Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, said Army staff members inspected each of the 54 rooms at the building and discovered that outstanding repair orders for half the rooms had not been completed. He said that mold removal had begun on several rooms and that holes in ceilings, stained carpets and leaking faucets were being fixed.

…

Yesterday, Weightman said a broken elevator in the building had been repaired and soldiers were working to improve the outside of the building, including removing ice and snow. The slippery conditions have kept some soldiers in their rooms. A garage door that has been broken for months will soon be repaired as well.

Spec. Jeremy Duncan, whose room has a moldy wall that was featured in one photograph in the Post series, has been moved to another room while workers make repairs. Duncan will be able to return to his room when the work is completed, Weightman said.

This reminds me of one of my early learning experiences with the Army.  My first duty station was with the First Infantry Division in Würzburg, Germany.  The Army hospital in the area also issued the ID tags to soldiers to ensure your blood-type was correctly placed on the tags.  I also needed an additional red tag that warned medics not to give me penicillin due to an allergy.  I was at my first posting about a month before they gave me orders to attach to the Southern European Task Force (AIRBORNE) and to make sure I had the proper tags before I went.

I went down to the hospital and got the runaround for about a week.  The problem basically amounted to lazy NCOs.  My solution, since my First Sergeant didn’t want to hear about the problem, was to write an editorial to Stars and Stripes about how soldiers need to be supported by soldiers in support (go figure) and described my situation - under orders and unable to comply because someone’s not doing their job.

The day the editorial ran I received a call from a major at the hospital asking why I hadn’t raised the issue to her.  Apparently, she had no idea that the NCO behind the counter would have taken it the wrong way if I had asked for the name of his boss’s boss’s boss.  I was also asked into my commander’s office for some “counseling,” had to speak to the battalion XO, and was told by my First Sergeant never to write an editorial without his approval in the future (the only order I ever recall ignoring).

Problem solved, but a lot of pain on the back end.

So I see that the Walter Reed issue is being looked into and I wonder about that Specialist with the moldy wall or the soldier who’s NCO told him to “suck it up.”  I wonder if these “superiors” are doing the right thing and taking responsibility for their shortcomings or if they’re giving their soldiers problems on the back end.

It seems to me the NCO in charge (NCOIC) should have been reporting the problems with these rooms AND FOLLOWING UP.  It seems to me General Weightman should know what state his facilities are in and fix them BEFORE they make the Washington Post.  It also seems to me that if these service members can’t meet the requirements of their duty positions, they need to be removed and replaced with competent soldiers.

I’m not speaking out of school on this.  I was a soldier, I know how it works.  Get it done, SIR and SERGEANT, and stop shaming service members who have gone the extra mile for your country.  Also, stop shaming the nation with your shoddy, uncaring, and, in my opinion, NEGLIGENT performance.

Mold doesn’t grow overnight.  Walls don’t fall down by themselves within a week.  It shouldn’t be news to any of the facility staff that ice and snow need to be removed.  Touring your facilities at reasonable intervals would have avoided every problem the WaPo pointed out.  Why wasn’t this being done?

Lastly - To those using this as a launching point for Bush’s tax cuts… tax cuts haven’t been repealed and repairs are being done.  Wow… I’d feel kinda foolish, not to mention sleazy, for trying to link the two.

The Washington Post has an investigative report on the treatment our wounded soldiers are receiving when they return home.  Here are some excerpts:

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan’s room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

… 

Disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked case managers fumble with simple needs: feeding soldiers’ families who are close to poverty, replacing a uniform ripped off by medics in the desert sand or helping a brain-damaged soldier remember his next appointment.

…

Yet at a deeper level, the soldiers say they feel alone and frustrated. Seventy-five percent of the troops polled by Walter Reed last March said their experience was “stressful.” Suicide attempts and unintentional overdoses from prescription drugs and alcohol, which is sold on post, are part of the narrative here.

…

Soldiers, wives, mothers, social workers and the heads of volunteer organizations have complained repeatedly to the military command about what one called “The Handbook No One Gets” that would explain life as an outpatient. Most soldiers polled in the March survey said they got their information from friends. Only 12 percent said any Army literature had been helpful.

I think that’s enough.  I encourage you to read the whole thing.  What you won’t see is who’s the person accountable for this mess.  The Lefty blogs are taking shots at Bush’s tax cuts, of course, but we all know the money is there.  The beauracrats in charge of shunting funds to the right places are where I’d begin looking, then I’d take a gander at the Commanding General’s budget requests.

This needs to be fixed immediately and it will take people talking about it to get it done.  Write your congressman and urge them to really look at why the hospital is in such dire straits, remind them this isn’t political ammo, and assure them you’ll vote for an effective lawmaker rather than a shifty, party-yes-man who’ll stoop to using wounded soldiers as political tokens.

I’m sorely tempted to file this under the tag-line “torture.”

Just read the correction, please…  The Washington Post has confused the Pentagon’s Inspector General with Senator Carl Levin.  It happens.  They’ve both been in Washington about the same amount of time.  Ba dum bum.

After you read the correction, please, feel free to continue the McCarthy-esque witch hunt for the conspirators.  As a note: Story was run on the front page.  Correction was run… I don’t know.  It’s an internet find from a buddy at work.

In an Early Birded story from the Washington Post, writer Stephen Dinan claims the link between resolutions condemning the Iraq strategy and troop morale has been removed:

The Defense Department’s top civilian and its top military officer, undercutting the White House and other senior Republicans yesterday, said Congress doesn’t endanger troop morale by voting on nonbinding resolutions opposing President Bush’s Iraq reinforcement plan.

“From the standpoint of the troops, I believe that they understand how our legislature works and that they understand that there’s going to be this kind of debate,” said Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, effectively taking out of play an argument that had been made by Mr. Bush’s spokesman and other top Republicans, who had warned resolutions disagreeing with the troop increase plan would send bad signals.

Interesting opinion, unfortunately, this is a news story.  Opinions aren’t supposed to appear.  The argument has, by no means, been taken “out of play.”  From the same article:

“Our political will is directly related to the morale of our troops,” he said on the Senate floor. “Those who seek to, for rhetorical purposes only, assert their support of the troops while communicating their opposition to their mission cannot sever this natural connection between political will and morale.”

Mr. McCain last month raised the question about resolutions and morale with Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, during a Senate hearing.

“It would not be a beneficial effect,” answered Gen. Petraeus.

Well, that’s interesting.  I wonder what kind of comments the WaPo journalist will follow that up with:

The division over U.S. troop morale aside, Mr. Gates, Gen. Pace and others all agreed that the debate could send wrong signals to al Qaeda and other enemies the United States is fighting.

Hmm, so there’s yet another down-side to this proposed resolution.  Well that doesn’t jive well with the WaPo headline attached to the story, does it?  How do you reconcile “War Foes Will Not Hurt Morale” with “our enemies may be emboldened?”

“We have a house that’s burning, and we’re putting gasoline on it by sending more troops to Iraq when what we need to be doing is trying to put out that fire,” Rep. Hank Johnson, Georgia Democrat, told Gen. Pace and Mr. Gates yesterday. “I think that’s what the American people want to hear.”

No, Mr. Johnson, the American people don’t want to hear that their soldiers are the cause of the problems.

Now I may not be the head civilian-in-charge or the officer at the pinnacle of his profession, but I can tell you from the junior non-commissioned officer’s perspective that myself and my team were pretty much unanimous that debate was fine, grandstanding protests and votes of no-confidence weren’t.

McCain and Biden arguing over their views?  Fine.  Cindy Sheehan using her dead son as a propaganda piece?  Not fine (and I told my own mother as much).  Bush vs. the Media?  Fine.  Congress losing its backbone when the soldiers need it the most?  Not fine.  Dialogue is good, it keeps the nation honest.  Speaking out of both sides of your mouth isn’t, by definition, honest.