General Petraeus : New Love of the Left

Thanks, Ivan. I thought they had called him that name. It should be interesting to see wht they say now. I think the old goats forget that there are clips on YouTube showing what they've said in the past.

I saw a clip, when Obama was a U.S. Senater and was 'present" during a question/answer session with Petraeus, and he basically rambled and babbled about how the Iraq war was lost, ridiculing the Petraeus surge strategy. He never really asked a question it was just another classical Obama windbag session that made everybody in the room dumber after hearing it.

But yeah, Now that Petraeus is working for Obama he isn't the baby-killing anti-Christ that he used to be. What does all of this say about Obama's judgment? Do we even have to ask? 2012 can't come soon enough...

LOL, No Jeff we don't have to ask about it, we have seen it for a year and a half now, I believe we have it figured out, but then again, next week we will be just as shocked by something new he can dream up.

Time is a funny thing in politics

Ivan
You are wrong.
The left still hates those wars and Petraeus. you so called Republican conservatives are now attacking him for us.

....you so called Republican conservatives are now attacking him for us. ...Show me.

I think it Petraeus was an outstanding pick and I am honored that Obama finally agrees with me and thinks people like Cena doesn't know what she is talking about. But then again, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Look at your article. It is you who are bringing up anything bad ever said about Petraeus.

Good job.

LMAO.....you've proved my point....NOW you'ree defending Petraeus!!!!

Do you have reading comprehension issues?

I'll restate this
I am opposed to both wars.
I don't like Petraeus.

You have posted an article that restates all the negatives said about Petraus.

This is a tactic often used by conservatives and liberals against each other.
Just politics.

Get a grip.

Cena, the Senate voted for him, 99 votes for. The one missing was Senator Byrd, he's dead. Maybe our democratic republic is too.

Does your comment have any meaning?

Are you saying that since Democrat President Obama appointed him, and both Republicans and Democrats voted to confirm the appointment,

I should like him?

Does that make any sense?
That I should adjust my thinking to match the actions and beliefs of others?

thanks!

I think I do not like very much Petraeus... but I do not know him enough and I do not want to spread bad critics over a man chosen by Pres Obama. The future will tell!

You need to get to know him, He's the new "hero"!

I'd have to cop to being a leftist ... at least is some important things, but I never called Petreus, Betray-Us and argued that it was a stupid thing to do. That was Move-On ... but you probably do not bother to listen to it or anyone else, you just attack anything you are told is leftist.

It sure is not the left that has gotten us into this mess, and it is not that left that has kept us there. The height of idiocy is to fight a war in a depression with deficit spending, while maintaining tax cuts ... remind me who is this war being waged on now ... I think it might as well be Americans, because apparently we are feeling it much worse than the Taliban.

Ditto Bruce.

Gotta' love flashback video...
The gentleman in the video is spot on about one thing, Political Party loyalty and priorities are the Party, the pursuit and keeping of yet more power.

I bet Hillary feels a bit weird having to talk to him. But then again maybe not, words mean little to a professional politician.

The major problem for the Administration is this. The gap between their military and civilian teams in Afghanistan is huge and despite the last couple of days of ass covering by the civilians in Kabul (..."we got along great, respected McChrystal etc"...) and the President needs to tighten down on them. Petreaus is likely the last shot (again) we have here; the President-just like the former one is depending on him for success.

Petreaus seems to be getting at least some surface public backing. He's likely getting rid of the Administration's ROE that was causing so much bitterness among the troops and the President has backed off from his 2011 reinforcement pullout plan. How this will square with Dems in Congress remains to be seen as some are planning on voting against the supplemental defense appropriation coming up for a vote. It will pass but as I said over a year ago, we are likely going to see Obama depending more and more on his political opposition for support on the war. I doubt he'll get it for free.

It would be interesting to get America's generals, even the retired ones such as Shinseki (sp?) to comment on the use of America's military power. It seems that most of the ones who we do not hear about know these kind of battles that we keep getting baited into are not very suited to efficient use of the military.

If that is so, I wonder what they would suggest, and whether or not they see the same threats as the politicans?

There are too many retired generals/senior officers out there now babbling. With such a small percentage of Americans now either vets or related to one, the media feels compelled to find these military talking heads to explain things.

You sure don't want the active duty ones talking though. Do you really want them highlighting the oft times ignorance of our elected leaders concerning military issues? Also think of the political damage they'd likely do to any administration.

Efficient use of the military? Well, you'd probably get a wide pattern of thought on that. How efficient would it have been as at least one senator demanded that the Navy move ships to the Gulf and the Army troops to do cleanup? How efficient is it when we send troops and equipment overseas to hand out meals and do police duty? My guess would be that you'd have some very loud schools of thought and likely a different opinion from each general/admiral.

I didn't like Shineski much when he was in. Too much of the sociology prof in uniform. There were a lot of cheers when he retired, especially from the Spec Ops community.

I don't think the military and politicians often see the same threats. Maybe the big ones on occasion but they have different backgrounds/priorities. The military tends towards middle to long term planning and politicians look at now or maybe a few months down the road. Both communities are also divided too into different blocs (not parties-interests) and concerns. It might be an interesting debate though!

>> There were a lot of cheers when he retired, especially
>> from the Spec Ops community.

To me, that's a good thing, the military, or those that do alot of
talking are almost the same kind of babble from McChrystal and
his staff.

Shineki tried to develop the technology and protocols to fight
wars like we face in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Again Bruce, you aren't very familiar with the military or you wouldn't say that. Not many GIs or vets argued what McChrystal said but the fact he did so publicly.

Shineski was a military sociology type and the chief reason many cheered when he left was this misbegotten view of his order all soldiers wear the former headgear of the Rangers would give them the same kind of outlook and spirit. For some reason he thought such can do attitudes and and determination comes from clothing.

I was serving when Shineski was in and that kind of idea was coming out of the chief of DOD (Rumsfield) and various commanders, none of them Shineski. I think they were going overboard personally as COIN is just one more mission for the services, to concentrate on it while ignoring others was a fatal focus problem that so far we seem to continuing.

I had forgotten that they called him betray us but you are right about this... Well... I have found from experience on here that the libs arent good for knowing the truth... It seems whatever suits their agenda is how they think... SO now they need this Gen.. so he will be the best think since the invention of potato chips....lol

In a way it is to bad all the Generals, LT and Col.don't just walk off and say you are the prez you go over and do something about it, seeing how we aren't doing it to your liking....this is starting to look a lot like Vietnam where our boy/girls hands were tied, "don't shot until we find out if they are the good ones or the bad ones", it ddn't work then (we lost many because of that one) and it won't work now, get in there get the job done and bring our vets back home with honor.

This is the path you follow when you let the politicians run the wars,Jackie.

Ivan, the media gives us "real" lefties a bad name (LOL). I believe that the appointment of Gen. Petreus has less to do with saving the military's honor as it is saving the President's backside. The media are willing partners in this "rescue mission".-Norman

Norman, you've got it! "saving the President's backside" is what it's all about!