Health bill would cost $829B, cover 94 percent
Report: McChrystal Wanted 50,000 Troops
Report: Secretary Of State Leaning Toward Accepting Request; Biden Opposed It
Sources tell Reid that McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, considers the lower number to be a firm bottom line McChrystal believes anything short of 40,000 increases the risk of failure, Reid reports.
Why No Testimony From McChrystal?
War Strategy: When Bush and Petraeus proposed the surge in Iraq, Democrats demanded that the general testify before Congress. So why has the Senate blocked a similar invitation to our commander in Afghanistan?
Those with memories longer than the 24-hour news cycle recall that in the dark days of the Iraq War, David Petraeus was summoned to Washington to explain the surge strategy that would eventually lead to victory in Iraq.
Democrats hoped for a show trial. MoveOn.org took out a full-page ad in the New York Times labeling the commanding general of our efforts in Iraq "General Betray-us." Then there was Sen. Hillary Clinton telling Petraeus, "I think that the reports that you provided to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is on record boasting of how he "forced" Petraeus to testify before the Senate on his plans for Iraq, a war he had declared we had already "lost." Back then, the goal of Democrats was to embarrass a Republican president and make Reid's statement a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sen. John McCain wants to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal, our embattled commander in Afghanistan, the same opportunity. He offered an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would have required McChrystal to testify before the Senate on his Afghan counterinsurgency plan.
The amendment was defeated Monday on a straight 40-59 party line vote. This time it was a Democratic president who might be embarrassed by testimony from a general he picked to fight what his commander-in-chief called a "war of necessity."