Party Affiliations?

Yesterday, an exchange on FOX News Sunday was a surprising reinforcement of my perception that the military tends to be Republican while the Washington bureaucracy tends favor Democrats.  It would seem that the partisanship so obvious with the CIA during the Bush administration, has reached new heights.  The Pentagon may have joined the fight. 

Chris Wallace had just turned the discussion with his All Stars to the leak revealing General McChrystal's urgent request to Obama for more troops in Afghanistan.

LIASSON: I don't know if it's gotten to the point of Truman and MacArthur, but it was extraordinary to have the Pentagon or to have somebody leak this incredible report in an attempt, it seems, to force the president's hand...

Wallace turned to Dana Perina who was the White House Deputy Press Secretary and then Press Secretary during the Bush administration when the CIA was leaking like a sieve.

WALLACE: I want to ask you just one more question about this. I don't know that you had military leaks, but you certainly had CIA leaks in President Bush's White House. How do presidents react when they suddenly see top secret advice to them on the front page of the Washington Post?

PERINO: Oh, I'm sure -- well, it makes them very angry, in one instance. I don't know about the current occupant of the White House...

Now we have a Democrat in the White House.  We hear hardly a peep from the CIA, but the Pentagon is chiming in.  Does this grand entrance into the information business by the Department of Defense mean that Democrats don't have a political lock on all of the Washington agencies?  Either way the tail is trying to wag the dog.

(Emphasis in the quotation above is mine.) 

Comments

[CaptDMO]

Thanks to the apparent Prime Directive of Ms. Pelosi et al, and the machine that has taken it upon themselves to castrate the actual competent career CIA folk, there's no surprise that information "leaked" to the press via traditional means (ie. inform a Congressional panel of ANYTHING) it's no surprise that the well has dried up there.
How refreshing that someone with actual military expertise, and apparent comprehension of military history, as well as a practical experience in Middle Eastern political/sociological science (as opposed to "classroom" time, delusional CAIR duplicity, or a "fact finding" junket or two)has pointed out the turd in the punch bowl...well..in
"code" speak that some of us call diplomacy or decorum...

There's no dickin' around with folks that don't play by "the rules". Either set out to win, or quit wasting time, treasure, and lives with an unwinnable Hearts and Minds campaign.
*sigh* Yeah, like Viet Nam with the guidance of "other" foreign "specialists".
(Someone feel free to tell me ONE strategy that Mr. Kissenger was ultimately correct about)

One would think that someone who was eligible to be President by virtue of being born and raised in this country (ahem) wold at LEAST have retained a modicum of the public school taught American History of the successes and failures of Minute Men et al against the "British "rules of war".

[Tom Bowler]

Cap, you obviously haven't been to school in a long time. The kind of American History you describe has virtually disappeared. Nowadays it's all the rage to look at history through the eyes of America's victims. Anybody who was never a white male of European descent qualifies as a victim.

I certainly agree that Kissinger was vastly overrated.