I sure do.the General’s track record on dishonesty and service as a right-wing hatchet man go back to 2004, when he wrote op-eds in favor of the Bush strategy in Iraq (how did that end up working out?) as well as when Petraeus coasted by on his supervision of the nascent Iraqi security force. This program, dubbed the Multi-National Security Transition Command, was so badly mismanaged that the Washington Post estimated in 2007 that roughly 30% of the weapons provided to the force were missing.Much of Petraeus’s career was spent pontificating in favor of, propping up, or outright directing the sprawling, wasteful, and immoral military apparatus in Iraq, a war that turned into a national nightmare for both Americans and Iraqis.http://www.policymic.com/articles/18950/petraeus-resignation...Jack
So why did Obama put him in charge of the CIA, to bring it down too?99
So why did Obama put him in charge of the CIAGood question. Well Petraeus is obviously brilliant and has a one-of-a-kind resume. So he's a little sleazy. In Washington, who's going to notice? ;o)Jack
Why is this coming out now? Has the media known Petraeus is a right wing hatchet man all along and just ignored it in recent times, e.g. during his command in Afganistan? I know there were people in serious media outlets talking about the incompetent military operation in Iraq while it was happening, but I don't think we've heard much in the last 4 or 5 years.What is wrong with our military--I mean besides fulfilling Eisenhower's prophecy as a military industrial complex? The people in power don't seem very competent to me. Power hungry and perpetuate wars that they most certainly don't seem to die in. I think there was one colonel in Afganistan, but other than that, they let our youth die for their ambition and what--a job? Why?
I know there were people in serious media outlets talking about the incompetent military operation in Iraq while it was happening, but I don't think we've heard much in the last 4 or 5 years.It is as important not to report with Obama now as POTUS as it was to report with Bush as POTUS.99
Why is this coming out now? Has the media known Petraeus is a right wing hatchet man all along and just ignored it in recent times, e.g. during his command in Afganistan? I know there were people in serious media outlets talking about the incompetent military operation in Iraq while it was happening, but I don't think we've heard much in the last 4 or 5 years.I think that as soon as we start talking about the military, EMOTIONS take over for a lot of people. Generals tend to be WORSHIPPED!Eisenhower, Patton, McArthur, Powell, etc. Do you think that it was an accident that our first president was a General?You must remember the anger generated by this:http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/nytmoveonbetra...In the minds of some, we "won" in Iraq. And General Petraeus deserves a lot of the credit. But what if we didn't "win?"And......when (if) we get out of Afghanistan, will we look back and say,"gee, that was worth it"? Why is this all being looked at now? Well, the fact that Petraeus resigned under fire is certainly one reason. Then there is the whole Benghazi thing.But mostly, I think, it's because we keep wanting somebody to be a HERO. And that term is constantly being applied to military personnel, including generals. So when a "hero" gets caught with his pants down, our society freaks out.Jack
It was Thomas Ricks, I believe, who pointed out that Petraeus is a political general, along the lines of Powell, Haig and Eisenhower, as opposed to war fighting generals, such as McCrystal or Patton. Perhaps, that explains some of his public personna.Or, as an old Zen saying goes, where you stand depends on where you sit.Schvitz
So why did Obama put him in charge of the CIA, to bring it down too?To get him out of Afghanistan. It may be remembered that Obama wanted to get out earlier, but there was a whispering campaign that put public pressure on Obama to 1) stay in and 2) mount a "surge" and actually increase troop strength as had been done in Iraq (not Petraus' strategy at the time, he was 'all in' with the earlier Bush strategy of 'mow 'em down and don't worry about the rest.'Contrary to popular belief, Presidents don't operate in a vacuum on these sorts of things. Nixon couldn't convince people to stay the course in Vietnam, so he invented his 'secret plan'; Bush I couldn't get Congress to approve Iraq I without putting together the coalition including Arab states, and we remember how long and how hard Bush II beat the drums for the Iraq II adventure.Petraeus is widely acknowledged to be one of the Generals who leaked over and over to the WSJ, Fox and other spear carriers to gin up support for a wider, not smaller war in Afghanistan. And he got what he wanted, more dead Americans and increased troop levels.It wouldn't be the first time someone got promoted to get them out of the way. Heck, that's how Teddy Roosevelt ended up in the White House, because the power brokers in New York wanted him out of the Governor's chair and handed him the VP slot. Oops, McKinley got assassinated.And not a terrible move, either, given that the WoT is unsuited to conventional warfare, and the CIA is the type of place you go to do the nasties that some of it, at least, requires.
So why did Obama put him in charge of the CIA, to bring it down too?To get him out of Afghanistan.________________LMAO, who put him in Afghanistan in the first place and what were the circumstances that required him to take the position?99
To get him out of Afghanistan.Redonkulous.Next you are going to tell us that Obama got elected POTUS to get him out of the Senate.
Next you are going to tell us that Obama got elected POTUS to get him out of the Senate. Actually to get him out of Chicago. That town isn't big enough for him and Rahm.99
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.