Rep. Wexler Diary: My exchange with Petraeus

[FourScore]

Dear Friends,

I want to thank you for the overwhelming response we received to my request for questions for General Petraeus. Thousands of emails poured in from all over the nation. My staff and I examined every suggested question and we were truly impressed with the passion, sophistication, and knowledge of the submissions. Choosing a few questions out of so many excellent entries was an extraordinarily difficult task.

One of the most commonly suggested questions centered on how General Petraeus defines victory in Iraq. This question struck a chord with me - as it no doubt did with so many of you - because it demands that the Administration actually define its goals (which, as you'll see below, are totally unrealistic).

Underscoring the tragedy of the Administration's failed policy, one of my constituents died in an attack on the Green Zone on Monday. I spoke with his parents yesterday, and they asked me to ask General Petraeus a simple question: For what? For what had they lost their son?

I asked him this question, and then asked him to define "victory."

I did not expect General Petraeus to answer either directly, but he did.

He stated that we were fighting for national interest, including region's "importance to the global economy." (In my mind, a stunning admission of the true motives behind this war.)

He stated that they were trying to achieve a country that is "at peace with itself and its neighbors," "could defend itself" that was "reasonably representative of and broadly responsive to its citizens."

These are not reasonable objectives. Half the countries around the world are not able to defend themselves. Many have internal and external conflict - and few - including our own, are broadly responsive to its citizens.

(I find that last objective sadly ironic, as the Bush Administration, by continuing this misguided war, is broadly unresponsive to American citizens.)

I was out of time before I could ask a follow up… but if you read between the lines, his answer is vast in its scope. Clearly, their goals for Iraq and interpretation of "national interest" are wholly at odds with a swift redeployment of forces.

It has been a year and a half since the 2006 elections - more than enough time for us to have required, through provisions attached to funding, a phased withdrawal. At the least, we could have forced a genuine showdown with President Bush that would have forced him to defend his policies.

There is no excuse for even one more American casualty in Iraq. Our troops must be redeployed. The Bush/Petraeus policy that denies reality must not carry the day.

I urge you to remain active and steadfast in your opposition to this open-ended, vaguely guided war.

Please read my exchange with General Petraeus below.

Congressman Robert Wexler


TRANSCRIPT AT:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/10/11529/7875/4/493243

www.wexlerforcongress.com

[fascisthunter]

1. Essentially He Admitted the War was Unhonourable and Immoral

and all about ripping off Iragis for their oil.

[superkia]

5. Yeah, I have noticed that even McCain keeps repeating that we...

need to protect our interests in the M.E. and then bush today says the same thing. They know that most Americans know it is about oil and they are going to slowly brainwash us with their media and have us all just skipping past the lies and the illegal war as they slowly tell us what we already know so we can go back to worrying about food and shelter.

Move along, nothing to see here.

[FourScore]

2. Here is the videolink...thanks to Hissyspit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x116795

[EFerrari]

3. K&R

[FourScore]

4. kick