Why do Generals tolerate getting grilled by senators? [Archive]

Blackjack

06-21-2009, 07:25 PM

The General Officer that testifies on various subjects is there to be questioned. Even when the questioning becomes hostile the duty of that officer remains the same. To answer the questions in a professional and honest manner. As to how you address a Senator; while sir or ma'am are acceptable so is Senator and it is really up to the senior in the situation as to the form of address he or she prefers. However the distinguished Senator from California should review Army policy as well as USG policy on protocol with her people.

Take a look at the coverage of the Senator's remarks. She came out looking like an arrogant snob with a sense of entitlement. The General came out looking like a quiet professional. Had he lashed out at her he would have probably been charged with contempt of congress, relieved for cause and who knows what else.

oblong

06-21-2009, 08:04 PM

I've seen older film, from the 1950s, of senior military officers speaking to Congress, and I swear they are wearing suits not uniforms.

Does anyone know why they switched?

John T. Fishel

06-21-2009, 08:27 PM

Naomi, I think you misinterpreted what happened there. First, a little background: Senator Graham is not only on the Armed Services Committee, in his other life, he is a USAF Reserve Colomel in the JAG corps. And he has served on Active Duty in Iraq. He is both knowledgeable and sympathetic to GEN McChrystal and Admiral Stavridis (whose confirmation hearing for Supreme Allied Commander Europe - NATO commander - this also is). Second, the president nominates for promotion (McChrystal) and command (both) those flag officers and the Senate confirms (or denies confirmation). At these hearings the officers are required to give their best military advice to the Senators - answer honestly and say what they don't know. Notice that McChrystal gave several "I don't know"s and Graham just went on accepting that or the GEN' promise to get the data. In a couple of cases, Graham knew the answer and told McChrystal and Stavridis. This served the purpose of letting them know areas they need to get smart on. I did not see Graham as either talking down to them or as being antagonistic. What I did see was an attempt by Sen Graham to communicate his concerns, see the strrengths and weknesses of the officers, enlighten them on issues they need to be well aware of, and let them know that he wanted to work with them as he said at least twice. Note that he was also time limited in the hearing and he had a lot to commuicate so he couln't waste time on deep philosophical discussions in that forum. (Frankly, I am sure that he has had those kinds of conversations with both McChrystal and Stavridis in private.) I would tell you that both men are extremely well respected by their superiors, peers, and subordinates (I was talking to one of McChrystal's former subordinates in his Ranger Battalion this afternoon and my friend, a former enlisted Ranger, remains impressed.) My sense is thal neither Graham, McChrystal, or Stavridis came off badly in the discussion I watched.

Cheers

JohnT

Ken White

06-21-2009, 09:13 PM

I've seen older film, from the 1950s, of senior military officers speaking to Congress, and I swear they are wearing suits not uniforms.

Does anyone know why they switched?The numbers went down slowly in the late 40s as strength cuts continued until Korea caused a surge and suddenly, DC seemed awash in uniforms. The Eisenhower administration loosened uniform regulations generally and put out an edict that said no more than 25% of the military personnel in DC proper should be in Uniform -- this meant that many went everywhere in civilian clothes. That only lasted a few years and Kennedy encouraged uniforms.

As the number of military personnel in general went down, so did the number in Washington and, post Viet Nam, while the services all pushed more wearing the uniform, the rule in DC has long been to keep down the number of uniforms in most cases.

It's really always been a mixed bag. On Hearings, the guidance generally has been, as it is now; "Civilian attire will be worn by personnel who attend congressional hearings; however, the Service uniform must be worn by personnel who are called as witnesses during hearings."See this LINK (http://www.whs.mil/hrd/Military/NewcomersGuide.cfm#Uniform), scroll down to Uniform.

John T. Fishel

06-21-2009, 09:57 PM

dungaree and fatigue uniforms will NOT be worn by OSD personnel. Does that include ACUs? If it does, does the ban apply to DA staff and Joint Staff?

IMO it, of couse, should apply to all mentioned but I am not at all sure it does.:eek:

Cheers

JohnT

Schmedlap

06-21-2009, 10:41 PM

How can military generals act so professional when senators tell them outright to their face "I think this is a failure, and what you've done here is a failure..."
I've always wondered the same thing about businessmen who take risks, create jobs, provide us with time-saving or in some cases life saving goods, and then go up to Capitol Hill to be interrogated by a bunch of parasites who have done nothing but take from society and harm our republic with legislation designed to win re-election rather than to further the common good of the country.

Ken White

06-21-2009, 11:06 PM

dungaree and fatigue uniforms will NOT be worn by OSD personnel.things around today and have not been for many years... :D
Does that include ACUs?Not if you're an overweight senior person who can wear the ACU to remind everyone that he or she is a soldier! (covering the oversize tum-tum is simply a totally unintended bonus...) ;)

tequila

06-22-2009, 12:03 AM

I've always wondered the same thing about businessmen who take risks, create jobs, provide us with time-saving or in some cases life saving goods, and then go up to Capitol Hill to be interrogated by a bunch of parasites who have done nothing but take from society and harm our republic with legislation designed to win re-election rather than to further the common good of the country.

Really, is this the right board for a libertarian screed?

Let's be honest. Most businessmen go to Congress not to be subjected to a horrific Star Chamber, but rather to beg and bribe for subsidies or favorable regulation. And they get it far more often than not.

Fuchs

06-22-2009, 01:14 AM

This thread had in majority comments that I agree with.
There's in my opinion nothing in the video that really needs to be mentioned.

Noteworthy is the fact hat there are many discussions in many places about this episode, though.

Here's an especially infantile example:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004894.html#comments

Many people seem to respect a general more than a senator, don't seem to understand the principle of civilian control & oversight over the forces and seem to react allergically on anything that smells feminist.
Few seem to see that generals are rarely ideal selfless warriors but more often than not uniformed politicians.
The idea that having won a senate seat by general election is a stronger achievement and legitimation than being appointed by a promotion board (and confirmed by a senate committee) is also rare.

Luckily, such pro-general/contra-MP reactions would be almost unthinkable for 95% of my country's population. So it's probably up to the U.S. citizens to worry about the foundations of democracy because of those reactions.

Ken White

06-22-2009, 02:10 AM

The idea that having won a senate seat by general election is a stronger achievement and legitimation than being appointed by a promotion board (and confirmed by a senate committee) is also rare.

Luckily, such pro-general/contra-MP reactions would be almost unthinkable for 95% of my country's population. So it's probably up to the U.S. citizens to worry about the foundations of democracy because of those reactions.Actually, in this country it is far more difficult to be selected by a promotion board and 'confirmed' by the Senate (not just a committee). In addition to being nominated, approved by the Senate, there are mandatory educational, assignment, time in grad and time in service requirements. To be elected to the Senate, all one has to do is have enough money to run a TV blitz and fool a few voters; most of whom don't really care who represents them. So you're wrong on the first item.

On the second, matter of opinion. Based on perusing a lot of English language media I see little difference in outcome with respect to overall quality of legislatures worldwide. Most leave a good deal to be desired. LINK (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3057).

Fuchs

06-22-2009, 02:52 AM

jmm99

06-22-2009, 03:12 AM

of Germany and the USA since the late 1700s, I will continue to place my bets on the USA. Where you place your bets is a matter of complete indifference to me.

Watcher In The Middle

06-22-2009, 03:31 AM

A rep for Boxer said she and Walsh later spoke and discussed their respect for each other.

"Senator Boxer called Brigadier General Walsh earlier today. They had a friendly conversation, expressed their respect for each other and talked about how they look forward to working together to protect our communities from natural disasters."

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-calling-maam/)

Didn't take very long for that phone call to occur. Whatever you may think of Senator Boxer, she's not politically stupid. There's an old political rule out there that "Friends come and and go, but enemies accumulate". No need to make "non-friends" when you don't have to - and more importantly, at the same time make your fellow senators "uneasy" about your having an elevated sense of "privilege". That second part's the real story.

It's just one of those times where all the parties involved just wish they all had a "Do Over Card" they could put down.

Surferbeetle

06-22-2009, 03:44 AM

Now you CAN think lowly of the voters and comment on how money rules in politics, but that's exactly the attitude that I consider to be dangerous for a democracy.

Democracy is in peril if the respect for its institutions is gone - look at Germany in the 20's. 'A republic without republicans'*.
It's especially in peril if an officer has more respect in the public than a representative of the people.

Other countries have gone through such mistakes and phases. Is it too much if one expects that the U.S. doesn't repeat dumb mistakes that were already demonstrated by others? How about limiting yourself to dumb mistakes that don't have the not-invented-here sticker? There's already enough of those.

...for all of my life we Americans (Amei's? in Deutsch) have been publicly grumbling about the various failings of politicians who inhabit our system. This shouldn't be misconstrued as a desire to switch systems, instead it is an example of our ability to articulate our desire for better outcomes and for accountability of those politicians who do not measure up to public opinion. It can appear chaotic from the outside, in particular if one believes in ordnung and a more formal way of doing things. :wry:

America's military is an example of one of our institutions in which a higher standard is routinely demanded of it's members and strict accountability for failures is publicly demonstrated. This is why it gets the respect that it does in our society.

There is a firewall in America between politics and the military and both sides have and will continue to police the line. No worries ;)

Best,

Steve

Ron Humphrey

06-22-2009, 03:52 AM

Of course as is so often the case there may be a slightly different Americanesk view of such things.

1-4 star general:
Limited edition. About 300 in the army alone.
Had to convince a couple dozen people, at most a few hundred to support him to get his rank.

Senator:
Limited edition. 100 (well, 99 as of today)
Had to convince several hundred thousand voters (in this case several millions) to get the seat.

Many here might be more likely to look at such a comparison from perhaps a sales standpoint

Such as which is harder; for a door to door salesman to sell a couple hundred vacuums a year or for a conglomerate to sell a couple million in a month.

Or Legal- Is it easier to win a case in mass media to create mass outrage thus tainting the pool or to convince twelve jurors to rule the way you think they should.

Or (oh well I hope you get the point):)

Now you CAN think lowly of the voters and comment on how money rules in politics, but that's exactly the attitude that I consider to be dangerous for a democracy.

Democracy is in peril if the respect for its institutions is gone - look at Germany in the 20's. 'A republic without republicans'*.
It's especially in peril if an officer has more respect in the public than a representative of the people.

One of the most amazing things about this particular model we love and call American is that we the people can and feel like we should have opinions about it and how its working. Thus we have this nasty tendency to react somewhat personally whenever we feel that the responsibilities laid at the feet of those whom we elect are not being carried out in such a way as suits our varied and multiplicitous ideas about what they should be. Neat thing about that is its ok cause more often than not someone else feels differently then we do and therein is found that which makes us strong.

As for the military since only a very small percentage serve there is a given level of respect that exists for all service members and thus the expectation is that as long as they are serving honorably they should be treated as such. On the other hand I think you will find that when this is not the case they are subject to the same if not harsher criticisms then you seem so concerned about our political leaders receiving. [/QUOTE]

Other countries have gone through such mistakes and phases. Is it too much if one expects that the U.S. doesn't repeat dumb mistakes that were already demonstrated by others? How about limiting yourself to dumb mistakes that don't have the not-invented-here sticker? There's already enough of those.

*: no party meant here

P.S.:
Someone who would suggest that a German general deserves much respect by a German member of a parliament would be rated as almost or certainly fascist in Germany.

On the first I'm sure most would agree with you

on the second considering the history I guess that probably makes sense it's quite interesting however how much of the rest of the world still finds that it could learn from those historic German warrior/scholars.

You get the bad with the good, not sure there's ever a way to completely avoid that. Still; kinda like what we got going so appreciate your concern that we keep it:)

PS: MAn you guys are fast, or maybe I'm just a slower typist:o

Schmedlap

06-22-2009, 05:20 AM

Really, is this the right board for a libertarian screed?

Let's be honest. Most businessmen go to Congress not to be subjected to a horrific Star Chamber, but rather to beg and bribe for subsidies or favorable regulation. And they get it far more often than not.
I love it. In law school, people think I'm part of the religious right. In business school, people think I'm for big government. Now at SWJ I'm a libertarian? Please.

I agree with your "most businessmen" statement. But I wasn't talking about "most" businessman. I had in mind businessmen who get subpoenaed.

The idea that having won a senate seat by general election is a stronger achievement and legitimation than being appointed by a promotion board (and confirmed by a senate committee) is also rare.
While some Generals may be political, that is a far cry from having a political machine pushing your career forward.

In regard to the promotion board versus election, consider that the people on the promotion board tend to know something about the profession. How much do you think the average voter knows about any of the issues that their elected representatives will tackle?

In regard to election being an "achievement" consider how heavily voters weigh factors such as party affiliation, race, gender, sex, "good looks" and name recognition.

Ken White

06-22-2009, 05:47 AM

Now you CAN think lowly of the voters and comment on how money rules in politics, but that's exactly the attitude that I consider to be dangerous for a democracy.You may do that. Given the fact that we've been a democracy for over 200 years and you have less than 70 years at it, you'll forgive me if I pay little attention to a concern that is overstated -- and fails to realize that Americans always slam politicians. They may be respected by some in Europe but here they generally are not. They're just fellow citizens who have big egos and enough money to get elected. They are no more endowed with wisdom than are any politicians anywhere. :(
Democracy is in peril if the respect for its institutions is gone - look at Germany in the 20's. 'A republic without republicans'*.
It's especially in peril if an officer has more respect in the public than a representative of the people.I doubt either has an excess of respect from most Americans. THAT is as it should be. They're people, no more, no less -- some are good and some are not. Over here, for most people, respect is accorded only if earned by a person, not by his or her job (military excluded; 'respect' must be and is proffered by law -- but even in the Armed Forces, true respect is still really given to seniors ONLY if earned).
Is it too much if one expects that the U.S. doesn't repeat dumb mistakes that were already demonstrated by others? How about limiting yourself to dumb mistakes that don't have the not-invented-here sticker? There's already enough of those.We don't, we make our own; that's enough without copying any other nation's. Been doing that for those 200 years I mentioned and probably will for another 200 or so. Enjoy. We mostly are enjoying it. :D
P.S.: Someone who would suggest that a German general deserves much respect by a German member of a parliament would be rated as almost or certainly fascist in Germany.That's scary. Weird even. Really. Was that not sort of the case there back in the 30s? The Generals were derided, sidelined and the Politicians took over. How did that work out?

Politicians are generally crooked to one extent or another, worldwide, nearly as I can tell. Goes with the job. They bear considerable watching, distrust even. Some Generals are crooks also and bear watching -- in the end both are people and they should be judged as individual people, not as job holders.

Respect is an earned commodity; it does not automatically accrue to any job.

John T. Fishel

06-22-2009, 02:40 PM

1. US citizen (natural born or naturalized - makes no difference)
2. Not less than 30 years old.
anybody who meets those 2 qualifications can run for Senate - not a very high bar.:wry:

Cheers

JohnT

tequila

06-22-2009, 03:15 PM

I love it. In law school, people think I'm part of the religious right. In business school, people think I'm for big government. Now at SWJ I'm a libertarian? Please.

Just by way of explanation, I wasn't implying you were personally a libertarian --- just that your statement had a marked political lean in that direction.

Also, which businessmen have been subpoenaed lately that you thought were being subjected to an unfair hearing?

Steve Blair

06-22-2009, 03:25 PM

Actually, all told, I'd love to see some senators or representatives hauled into a no-holds-barred Q&A session with a group of unscreened "real folks" (televised live, of course, with no editing or tape delay) and see how long they'd last. Moderators would be on hand to make sure the august personages would actually *answer* the questions. Never gonna happen, but it would be interesting.

And that's not a political message...more an idea. Now if we made it a pay-per-view we might be able to make some coin off it....

Blackjack

06-22-2009, 05:06 PM

I personally found the exchange between Senator Graham and the three flag officers enlightening and professional and honorable all around. I also found it interesting as to the alleged failings of Germany and Italy regarding their NATO commitments to the ISAF regarding police and judiciary reconstruction. This was something I was not aware of before watching the hearings.

Rather it is a Congressperson or General Officer testifying in the hearing one should respect the position and the individuals merits first and foremost.

Civilian control and oversight while very important to me personally, does not ensure an ethical, component, fiscally responsible, or well trained fighting force. Civilian control does not necessarily mean the aims will always be toward a democratic republic either. Many of the elected leaders use the annual defense authorization bill to line their own pockets, or shore up pet projects for their states every year for example. Should I blindly respect such behavior, should anyone? Some elected officials are little more than bullies, or worse, criminals.

One of the wonderful things about the people of the US, and the institutions that make up the USG is this. Even if one gains office, or appointment or government service position they must continually prove themselves capable of holding such a position for the most part. Now some offices and positions may be about who you know, but that is only good for getting one's foot in the proverbial door. Once a person is in the system they will be judged on their deeds, or lack thereof. One thing that struck me in this thread was the idea of a people who view their political leaders as being superiors deserving of respect based upon their election alone, without regard to merit. That my friend is extremely dangerous thinking. Simply because some one puts on a uniform and wears the rank of General does not assure respect, nor does being elected assure respect. It is more about the merits of the person holding the office and less about the fact that they hold an office.

As I write this there is a congressperson in rehab for second time for abuse of drugs and alcohol. A few more are up on charges ranging from fraud to bribery. Yet these 'distinguished gentlemen and ladies' are allowed to remain in office in spite of being an alcoholic and a pill head. Now, if a General Officer was doing the exact same thing he would most likely be relieved for cause immediately and his career would be over. In fact is anyone holding the rank of Sergeant is found abusing drugs in the US Army, they can kiss their career goodbye. As some one mentioned before, military leaders are held to higher standards of conduct than elected leaders. That may be the reason the military leader gets a bit more respect in some situations.

yamiyugikun

06-22-2009, 05:23 PM

Thank you, everyone for enlightening me. I really didn't understand the context of the clip I posted, nor the background of Senator Graham. Learning about civilian control of the military is still very new for me. I can appreciate more how our democracy works, and the intersection of politics/military at those hearings.

Fuchs

06-22-2009, 05:46 PM

Why, Fuchs, I didn't know you cared...

I care because the USA is (still) an ally of my country and it's - in modern terms - too big to fail.
The sheer size means that any major failure hurts more than your own country.

The alliance also means that we can be (and are) held responsible for your failures. The alliance and friendship is a connection that can hurt is if your country does dumb things.

That's why I care.
I don't care about Luxembourg's politics - it's a great country, but simply too small to hurt us in any way.

The (in my opinion very poor) U.S. foreign policy in the Near and Mid East has already hurt my country. We've had dozens of dead civilians and soldiers.
The U.S. foreign policy has overall degraded - not improved - my country's national security despite and because of the alliance.
An U.S. that runs into even worse waters with a poor political culture and poor priority system can hurt us even more.

I believe the reactions to the senator/general affair that despise the senator and are in love with the rank of the general display a very poor political culture. Americans may be used to it, but that did never and will never make things right. You're used to a lot of stupid things that would ruin our lives if more countries would get used to them as well.

Steve Blair

06-22-2009, 06:21 PM

I believe the reactions to the senator/general affair that despise the senator and are in love with the rank of the general display a very poor political culture. Americans may be used to it, but that did never and will never make things right. You're used to a lot of stupid things that would ruin our lives if more countries would get used to them as well.

I don't think you quite grasp the subtle nature of the reactions, but then again I'm not sure if you're really aware of the internal context of these reactions, either. Boxer is cordially disliked by many, and anyone who got grilled by her in anything approaching a rude manner would likely get some sympathy. I personally know plenty of military people (both current serving and retired or out of the service) who believe that you have to in essence sell your soul to make general rank, and would consider them not much different than Boxer. Feel free to read some dire prediction about the future of America into those reactions if you wish, but also understand that there are many in this country who would have exactly the opposite reaction (despise the general and love the senator). That's one of the interesting things here, and one that seems to confuse a great many people.

Uboat509

06-22-2009, 06:48 PM

1-4 star general:
Limited edition. About 300 in the army alone.
Had to convince a couple dozen people, at most a few hundred to support him to get his rank.

Senator:
Limited edition. 100 (well, 99 as of today)
Had to convince several hundred thousand voters (in this case several millions) to get the seat.

How much one has to play politics to become a general is debateable. I doubt most senators can name any general they confirmed who wasn't named in the press for one reason or another, ie. General Petraeus. For the most part, I imagine that they just confirm whoever the services nominate unless there is some glaring problem. What is not debateable, however, is that in order to be nominated for your first star, you have to get there. You have to serve 20+ years (or there-abouts) from O1 to O6, and you have to do it with out any major mistakes. Conduct that has become routine for some of our elected officials is an automatic no questions asked career killer for military members. IMO the three biggest things that a politician needs to A) get elected and B) stay there, are political saavy, charisma, and money. Having more of one generally means that you need less of the others but you still need them. On the other hand, for a GO, money gets him nothing and charisma and political saavy will only get him so far, especially at the company and field grades. By the time someone has reached the point of consideration for his first star, he has commanded troops at different levels, held multiple staff positions and been to multiple schools, the purpose of which is to teach him to be a better officer, and he has to be successful at every level. If you fail at any level you are done. So yes, a politician has to politic millions of voters to get and keep his seat vs. the General's "few hundred," but that is all he has to do.

Now you CAN think lowly of the voters and comment on how money rules in politics, but that's exactly the attitude that I consider to be dangerous for a democracy.

And pretending that money doesn't buy a disproportionate amount influence is even more dangerous. It's also, IMO, willfuly naive.

Democracy is in peril if the respect for its institutions is gone -

I agree whole-heartedly, respect for our institutions, including the military is very important.

look at Germany in the 20's. 'A republic without republicans'*.

If memory serves, it was politicians not soldiers built the Nazi Party.

It's especially in peril if an officer has more respect in the public than a representative of the people.

I completely disagree. I fully expect military members to command more public respect than politicians for the same reason that I expect Police, Firefighters, Paramedics and Teachers to command greater public respect than politicians. They dedicate their lives to service to the nation. They often endure great hardships and poor pay to serve. Police, Firefighters, Paramedics, and military members in particular are routinely expected to face mortal danger. Nobody joins these professions to get rich.

Someone who would suggest that a German general deserves much respect by a German member of a parliament would be rated as almost or certainly fascist in Germany.

I have seen, first hand, how some segments of German society view/treat the military. It's certainly not something I would choose to brag about.

SFC W

Ken White

06-22-2009, 07:38 PM

The (in my opinion very poor) U.S. foreign policy in the Near and Mid East has already hurt my country. We've had dozens of dead civilians and soldiers.
The U.S. foreign policy has overall degraded - not improved - my country's national security despite and because of the alliance...I think that in view of our mutual history since 1917 I'll forgo any comment on that line of thought. :rolleyes:

On this
...An U.S. that runs into even worse waters with a poor political culture and poor priority system can hurt us even more.It is probably superfluous to point out that your objections to a culture and priority system reflect merely your opinions. It is not superfluous to say that the ill informed arrogance thus shown does your net credibility on any topic more harm than good.

Fuchs

06-22-2009, 08:12 PM

I guess it's equally superfluous to remind you that the U.S. ran into disasters during the past decade only when it ignored advice and objections from continental Europe and emphasized that it is used to follow its own way.

Ignorance about details is once thing, and easily cured; the repeated inability to grasp the value of foreign warnings is far worse.
You got into the financial world economic crisis like that and you got into the Iraq war mess like that.

jmm99

06-22-2009, 08:23 PM

post # 17 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=75002&postcount=17).

Some children do not play well with other children.

Some adults are disruptive of discussions.

J Wolfsberger

06-22-2009, 08:25 PM

A couple of observations.

First, the ruckus over Boxer's behavior has little to do with general vs. politician. It has, I think, much to do with the American sense of fair play. The general was appropriately courteous and polite to Boxer. Her remarks were an entirely inappropriate cheap shot. (At least one person I know observed that she worked even harder to earn another title, and she wouldn't have to change any monograms to use it.) She knows it, and is backing down. But being the person she is, I expect her to blame the general for her embarrassment.

Second, in the points you raise about your own country, ask yourself who were the better men: Hitler and the political leadership, or Guderian, von Keselring, von Manstein, and several hundred others who behaved professionally and as morally as the situation permitted. Soldiers, and generals, are innocent of the crime of war. Politicians are not. If modern Germany is holding the generals responsible for WW II, then modern Germans have a serious problem.

Steve Blair

06-22-2009, 08:31 PM

A couple of observations.

First, the ruckus over Boxer's behavior has little to do with general vs. politician. It has, I think, much to do with the American sense of fair play. The general was appropriately courteous and polite to Boxer. Her remarks were an entirely inappropriate cheap shot. (At least one person I know observed that she worked even harder to earn another title, and she wouldn't have to change any monograms to use it.) She knows it, and is backing down. But being the person she is, I expect her to blame the general for her embarrassment.

This is really the main point to be understood here. Without some background in the current US political system and its players (and knowing those who annoy people more quickly than others), the discussion won't make much sense. Much like needing to hear an interview in its original language, if you don't understand the context of this discussion with an American audience, you will reach the wrong conclusions.

Fuchs, you're simply reading too much into a discussion about a single senator's behavior. For every rude politician we have one who is courteous and proper during hearings. You don't seem to understand the reaction Boxer can generate in people. That's all.

Ken White

06-22-2009, 09:29 PM

I guess it's equally superfluous to remind you that the U.S. ran into disasters during the past decade only when it ignored advice and objections from continental Europe and emphasized that it is used to follow its own way.memory. I've been here all that time and was not aware we had any disasters -- other than the random hurricane or tornado. :D
Ignorance about details is once thing, and easily cured; the repeated inability to grasp the value of foreign warnings is far worse.I think you're confusing deliberately ignoring -- which we did and do with great regularity; something about considering the validity of the source -- with "inability to grasp."
You got into the financial world economic crisis like that and you got into the Iraq war mess like that.Actually, as you say the financial crisis is a world (actually just a European hearth. Greedy bankers will be greedy bankers where ever located *) phenomenon; Iraq was a mess mostly because the US Army erred, not due to US policy error. You may think the end result is not worth it. I disagree. Too early to tell in totality but indications thus far are that it accomplished what it was supposed to and did the world more good than harm.

Though it admittedly did mess up the EU Constitution and a few cozy commercial arrangements some in Europe had in the area. Both probably good things for many. Sorry about that.. :D

* Except in Canada -- with more lax regulation than in Germany or the US, the Canadian Banks did not let their greed get ahead of their common sense.

Schmedlap

06-23-2009, 08:21 AM

... just that your statement had a marked political lean in that direction.

My bad. I just assumed that lack of respect for politicians was fairly common amongst all ideologies and parties. I probably should have clarified why I commented. My thought at the time was that military officers are nothing special in this context. Congress bring people from all walks of life up to their committees and do it for shameless political points as often, if not more often, that they do for legitimate reasons. Even those who do not have a professional obligation to remain respectful and courteous - such as businessmen - do remain so. It is rare to see someone rightfully dish it back to the Congress at these hearings.

Also, which businessmen have been subpoenaed lately that you thought were being subjected to an unfair hearing?

When the subpoena is part of a political stunt to play populist politics, that is unfair, imo. The most unfair instance that comes to mind was the subpoenas for Exxon-Mobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Chevron, and Royal Dutch when gas prices were high (there's probably a better example, but that's the one that comes to mind). The most absurd, imo, was the big tobacco fiasco (smokers don't know that cigarettes cause cancer, the execs don't believe that cigarettes cause cancer, and Congress wants to get more tax money). Reasonable people can disagree, but I also think it was more theater than concern when Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard came under scrutiny. The Yahoo subpoena might have started out reasonable, but it turned into a joke when a Congressman called Yang a moral pygmy (pot, meet kettle).

Thank you, everyone for enlightening me. I really didn't understand the context of the clip I posted, nor the background of Senator Graham.
If you get a chance, go to your state supreme court and watch two lawyers argue a case. You will see very tough questions, fired rapidly, that may come off as having a hostile tone. After you watch the first lawyer, you will think, "wow, the court had it in for him. He just lost." Then the other lawyer gets up and faces the same treatment. The tone and intensity of the questioning should not always be mistaken for hostility, disrespect, or some other ill intent. A panel of judges has a limited amount of time hear answers to their questions before they can make an informed decision. There is little patience for someone who is unprepared and cannot answer questions that the person should be prepared for. If a Congressman cares about the country and takes the job seriously, then the same is true at these hearings for the Congressman as for the judges at oral arguments.