HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Petraeus v Obama
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:56 PM

Petraeus v Obama

“ ‘So what’s my option?’ the president asked his war cabinet, seeking alternatives to the Afghanistan commander’s request for 40,000 more troops in late 2009. ‘You have essentially given me one option. ….It’s unacceptable.’ …

“General David Pertaeus, the new Afghanistan commander, thinks time can be added to the clock if he shows progress. ‘I don’t think you win this war,’ Petraeus said privately. ‘This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.’ “
-- Bob Woodward; Obama’s Wars; Simon & Schuster; 2010.


This is my second essay on the Petraeus “scandal.” The first, “Intelligence vs. Counterintelligence,” posted a couple of days ago, sought to provide context for the current events by comparing them to past incidents of internal conflict in Washington. (I also enjoyed reading an O.P./thread that attempted to connect some of the players in the Petraeus case by “following the money.” )

Today I think it might be worth reviewing some of the information from Woodward’s book. This is not because I consider him a gifted source -- quite the opposite. Woodward had an agenda in writing this book: to undermine President Obama, by focusing on the military generals’ mistrust of him. A single sentence from Jonathan Alter’s book, “The Promise: President Obama, Year One” highlights the difference in approach found in a book that supports Obama:

“The president might have been annoyed at Petraeus for the foot-dragging approach to Afghanistan, but he owed him a debt of gratitude for Iraq.” (Simon & Schuster; 2010; page 387)

One could disagree with my interpretation of even the title of Woodward’s book, which suggests that President Obama “owns” the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bears sole responsibility if they are “lost.” While both of these wars were lost by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the theme of Woodward’s book is that President Obama is pursuing a dangerous policy in Afghanistan, which the patriotic generals oppose.

The quote at the top is taken from the front flap of the book. A fuller version is found on page 332-333. It documents that while he gave lip service to agreeing with Obama, that Petraeus had no intention of following orders from the constitutional civil authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief. The general disregarded President Obama’s plans for number of troops committed, military tactics, length of American involvement, and the desired outcome.

On pages 361-362, Woodward notes that the Petraeus wing thought that the “White House” tended “to leave Petraeus twisting in the wind. An aide tells Petraeus that “they knock you down every chance they get.”

“ ‘They’re fucking with the wrong guy,’ Petraeus said.

The general was not alone. Even after President Obama had laid out his commands very clearly -- on troops committed, military tactics, length of American involvement, and desired outcome -- and demanded that others either commit to support him, or to step aside, others sought to undercut him. And it went beyond the generals.

At a dinner that Secretary Clinton arranged for Karzai, Robert Gates told those gathered, “We’re not leaving Afghanistan prematurely. In fact, we’re not leaving at all.” (page 354)

More, republican Senator Lindsey Graham called General Petraeus shortly after President Obama had made his plans public, and discussed the need to “fix” it. (page 337)

There are things going on in Washington, DC, that are far more serious than jackasses like Hannity or Rush insulting Barack Obama. It is, I believe, a coordinated effort to damage his ability to institute meaningful changes in this nation. There is a group that not only wants to re-write history, they want to control events today in a manner that allows them to pre-write the future. I also think that there are loyal public servants who are working to both support and protect Obama. And I suspect that Petraeus has found that to be the case, too.

41 replies, 4134 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Petraeus v Obama (Original post)
H2O Man Nov 2012 OP
OneGrassRoot Nov 2012 #1
H2O Man Nov 2012 #21
byronius Nov 2012 #2
msongs Nov 2012 #3
Lucinda Nov 2012 #8
H2O Man Nov 2012 #9
Jackpine Radical Nov 2012 #4
H2O Man Nov 2012 #35
immoderate Nov 2012 #5
H2O Man Nov 2012 #36
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #6
coeur_de_lion Nov 2012 #7
H2O Man Nov 2012 #25
hootinholler Nov 2012 #31
H2O Man Nov 2012 #34
coeur_de_lion Nov 2012 #37
reusrename Nov 2012 #26
pacalo Nov 2012 #10
reusrename Nov 2012 #27
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #11
reusrename Nov 2012 #28
wakemewhenitsover Nov 2012 #12
H2O Man Nov 2012 #40
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #13
Caeser67 Nov 2012 #14
Auggie Nov 2012 #15
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #16
H2O Man Nov 2012 #18
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #22
H2O Man Nov 2012 #23
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #39
hootinholler Nov 2012 #32
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #17
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #19
spanone Nov 2012 #20
KharmaTrain Nov 2012 #24
bigtree Nov 2012 #29
reusrename Nov 2012 #30
bigtree Nov 2012 #33
Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #38
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #41

Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:58 PM

1. K&R Thank you, Sir. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneGrassRoot (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:52 PM

21. And thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:02 PM

2. K&R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:05 PM

3. sounds like obama did a lousy job of vetting Petraeus. everybody knew he was a whore but obama lol n

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:39 PM

8. I doubt that.

Obama doesn't really do things for no reason. You may not see why he makes a choice, but I doubt it was from a lack of vetting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:46 PM

9. I'd suggest getting

your hearing checked out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:07 PM

4. Stop by.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:20 PM

35. "Pass me that bottle,

and I'll sing you all a real song." -- Jimi Hendrix

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:07 PM

5. Thank you H2O Man.

You do good work, and it's for me. Much gratitude.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:22 PM

36. Thanks!

I like DU best when folks discuss serious topics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:08 PM

6. Yes

Petie was a thorn in Obama's side. He is no longer a pain.

This is no accident. Petie set himself up and then he chopped himself down. Obama just helped oil the chainsaw.

Further: See Petie's wife? What a fine woman. Just ask yourself, what kind of a man with a fine woman like that would do something as hideous as Petie did? He's is not to be trusted. Obama knew that.

Goodbye, Petie. You done gone and Cheney'd yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:31 PM

7. So H20

What would have happened had Obama not been re-elected?

What caused the scandal to come out in the way that it did?

Why would Obama not simply fire Petraeus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coeur_de_lion (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 08:59 AM

25. Good questions.

(1) In terms of the events with Petraeus, one can only speculate on if the story would have broke, or if it had, would it have taken the same course. What we can be sure of is that Petraeus favors a long-term comittment in Afghanistan, with counterinsurgency as the foundation for tactics. That is the neoconservative wet dream. And Mitt had employed the neoconservatives of the Cheney-Bush era for his foreign policy.

If you consider the events of the past week in the Middle East -- although Obama would still be in office -- it provides another stark example of what the differences could have been. Or in regards to Iran: the US already has had very small teams there for years, but Romney is exactly the type of freak the neoconservatives could easily convince to do more.

{2} This is directly connected to #3. At best, the public knows only about the sex bit, which is the tip of a larger iceberg that remains unseen. But the "how" is interesting: this nation still has a very unhealthy view of matters sexual. This is in no way an endorsement of adultery -- far from it. But if adultry were grounds to get rid of people in DC, both houses of Congress would be down by 75%, and there would be lots of special elections that excluded most known political figures. Yet the corporate media continues to focus on that aspect, because it is certain to entertain those who are happy to focus their gaze upon the surface of an iceberg.

{3} President Obama did not have that option. And I know that honest and sincere people -- including a friend on this thread -- believe that as Commander-in-Chief and President, he can do whatever he wants. And yes, the Constitution says he can. But that isn't always true in real life, especially since the 1960s-era. Ike recognized this in his last address, which by no coincidence, President Obama quoted from in his speech announcing his Afghanistan plan.

One of the dynamics that concerned President Obama and his team while preparing that plan, was that the top generals would not support it. In fact, there was a very real concern that the generals would unite in resigning, rather than support Obama's new policy. Had that taken place, the presidency of Barack Obama would not have survived in any meaningful way.

Woodward tells a story about when, during this period, there was an order for the generals to stay out of the news. Petraeus boldly granted a high-profile interview. When he was reminded of the order, he reacted hostally, and noted that he had reached the status of a media darling.

Forcing Petraeus out with a "sex scandal" is essentially bloodless. Had he been fired, others would have reacted. But it would be mighty difficult to resign today, to show loyalty and support for Petraeus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:58 AM

31. Was appointing the general to head the CIA a matter of keeping you enemies close?

I can't imagine that he would be providing complete intelligence or perhaps, unskewed is a better term than complete.

There is so much of the iceberg that is undefinable to us mortals, only dark waters to gaze upon and the occasional shadow barely perceptible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:19 PM

34. To a large extent, yes.

Petraeus was 100% for counterinsurgency; the CIA's big program involved drones. Neither one, of course, could possibly change the realities in Afghanistan. President Obama's focus on drones is something I'm uncomfortable with, but I do appreciate that it is done with the full understanding that drones cannot defeat the opposition ....they can only, with other actions, degrade the opposition's force and momentum.

Putting Petraeus at CI was, in a real sense, a demotion, despite claims to the opposite. It was also an attempt to get him invested in President Obama'a policies. This includes reducing the chances to drag his feet as he had been doing in the previous position.

Also, I think it's important to consider Pakistan. A real counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan would require more involvement in the mountains between these two countries. One need only remember Vietnam, as VP Biden repeatedly told Obama, to see what that path leads to. Add to that the time Cheney-Bush had sent a special operations team into Pakistan, to target a high-value "camp." (I know that I'm rambling on and on here, but put Obama's sending the exact same type of group after Usama bin Laden.) This mission, still largely not discussed by our media, failed violently and miserably. It raised tensions in the region. If I remember correctly, it was on 9-3-08. Had the Obama "raid" failed in a similar fashion, he'd have been done.

Also, keep in mind that by 2010, the neoconservative branch of the republican party was promoting Petraeus as the best possible 2012 candidate to challenge President Obama. He enjoyed having reporters ask him if he was considering running. In fact, he seemed to encourage such speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 03:46 PM

37. Thanks H seems a bit clearer now

But I want to know what is underneath the tip of that iceberg.

What are your thoughts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coeur_de_lion (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:37 AM

26. I have a theory that involves war crimes.

 

I give Obama the benefit of the doubt when he talks about moving forward, and how he is not seeking to punish war criminals from the previous administration.

Now, it has become clear that war crimes have been committed on his watch, by folks pretty high up (the policy-making level) in his chain of command.

I think he asked for his resignation because he believes him to be a war criminal.

The specific incidents are the "double tap" drone strikes which targeted wounded and first responder non-combatants in direct violation of US and international law.

These crimes are currently being investigated by the UN.

I agree with waterman's notion that the president has always been at odds with the general. This understanding makes it more plausible that the president was not involved in the decision to launch the "double tap" strikes. Their purpose could only be to foment hate and anger and is antithetical to winning hearts and minds, which truly appears to be the president's strategy.

More>>>http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021821820


By the way, although I give him the benefit of the doubt wrt his sincerity in his decision to not punish Bush era war criminals, I strongly disagree with that approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:22 PM

10. I've been curious about how the Benghazi story has been developing due to the Republicans' bizarre

behavior, the timing of the Petraeus scandal blow-up, & Karl Rove's incredulous reaction to the Ohio election returns.

I've been thinking about a possible scenario: suppose that the 9/11 Benghazi attack was orchestrated by CIA operatives & financed by Wall Street. If so, it was intended for two purposes: to cause damage to Obama's re-election campaign (fail) & as a back-up plan that could mire down Obama's presidency with a blitz of investigations that might lead the way for Republicans to orchestrate an impeachment.

Plan A was to steal the election (fail) & Plan B is currently unfolding, but is not going very well for their side because, as you've stated, there are loyal public servants (who are more astute & more capable of) supporting & protecting Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pacalo (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:05 AM

27. That's an extremely plausible scenario. It's exactly what these guys do.

 

I got suspicious when the right wingnuts began fawning over a dead peace maker. Their usual response is "good riddance" unless it's one of their own. From what I can gather, Chris Stevens was a spook of some sort, that seems fairly obvious, but I believe he was viewed as one of the good guys. Not the Ollie North prototype that the right is so infatuated with. I can easily be persuaded that they killed him. Especially if he truly was a peace maker, which seems to be the case.

The incident would have been used to ratchet up the pre-election hype to a fever pitch, providing cover for those who would steal the election by means of electronic vote flipping. Fear would be the excuse used as cover: "folks got in the voting booth and changed their minds because they were afraid."

The more you think about it, the more it fits perfectly. And it could have worked, too, if it weren't for Candy and Sandy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:26 PM

11. I think the resignation over the emails is a ruse. I dont believe that the Gen

was crazy enough to think he could fool anyone. I bet the FBI knows about a lot of emails but dont bring them out unless they need to. I think Gen P stepped into it big time and was given the easy way out.

I think the Benghazi incident was intended to be Pres Obama's Watergate and something went wrong. I think that maybe intelligence knew that it wasnt a protest but didnt want to expose that they were still investigating who knew what when. Romney got talking points very quickly.

I think Rove was involved and the plot was foiled by Anonymous (kidding, I'm kidding).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:15 AM

28. It's a ruse.

 

I posted upthread my own theory.

Now you have me thinking about it from a different angle. It makes me glad he's gone. I'm also more than a little worried, what with the shadow government and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:30 PM

12. ty for the research and analysis.

Insightful, as always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wakemewhenitsover (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:01 PM

40. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:46 PM

13. ‘They’re fucking with the wrong guy,’

Mmm, wonder if he'd like to take that back?

Good post as always, H2O Man. I wonder if the MIC are upset at the possibility of seeing an end to their profitable wars? Well, no I don't wonder about that actually lol!

This statement is something we saw even during the Bush years when people like Comey, a Republican, was unwilling to follow orders that were not in the best interests of the country:

I also think that there are loyal public servants who are working to both support and protect Obama.

There seems to be an internal battle going on for the soul of this country and we know so little about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:46 PM

14. No General Patreus It Seems Like You

"Fucked with the wrong girl."

Goodbye.

Forward. Together, or Without You.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:59 PM

15. "There is a group [that wants] to pre-write the future..." like the PNAC?

That entity may be dead but it's founders are very much alive and kicking.

Spot-on H20 Man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:18 PM

16. K&R...Woodward often sides with the neocons in his writings...

and some have linked him to the CIA. I read a detailed Asia Times OP once that illustrated how Nixon may have been brought down for all the wrong reasons. He had caught the "Peace bug" in relation to China and was about to negotiate peace between Mainland China and Taiwan. Right-wing hawks in the CIA wouldn't have this because they wanted to maintain tension in China so that they would become a cheap manufacturer of arms that could be distributed in areas like the Middle East.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #16)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:08 PM

18. Woodward is not CIA;

he "was" with the Office of Naval Intelligence. One of the things he did in ONI was to meet with non-administration officials in the Nixon White House. The most significant of these was Mark Felt, a carrer ONI officer "on loan" to the FBI. (Hoover also "traded" agents with Army intelligence, etc.) It was Felt who "recommended" that the young Woodward pursue a career in journalism, and who helped him get (at least) his first newspaper job. Odd, that, as Felt despised the media in general, and newspapers in particular.

I have read a number of people on DU saying Woodward is CIA or CIA-connected. This is a result of their correct suspicion that he is still connected, but they do not have the real facts. It is also because ONI is far, far more secretive than CIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:12 AM

22. Woodward's role in the Administration may have been very important according to some reports...

As to the downfall of Nixon, according to Russ Baker in Family of Secrets:

http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/05/07/watergate-revelations-the-coup-against-nixon-part-1-of-3/

this determined effort to conduct foreign policy in secret and exclude the entities normally charged with that function caused growing alarm, particularly within the military and the defense industry. Eventually, the Nixon administration would discover that the military had its own powerful “back channel.” That apparatus, little recalled today, was the equivalent of a spy ring inside the Nixon White House. Its operatives passed top-secret documents from the National Security Council to the Joint Chiefs of Staff without Nixon’s knowledge. On discovering what seemed to him not only disloyalty but also borderline treason, Nixon expressed his fury to aides, who convinced him that the only option was to handle the matter quietly.

...

The inexperienced Poppy <Bush> was again being offered something for which he was ill-prepared—an important diplomatic post at a time of global turmoil. Among the hot-button issues on which he was expected to hold forth were the China-Taiwan dispute, Vietnam, and the Middle East conflict. Some of his closest friends were astonished. Congressman Lud Ashley, an old chum from his Skull and Bones days, put it this way: “George, what the fuck do you know about world affairs?” To which Poppy replied, “You ask me that in ten days.”

...

Not only did Nixon appoint Poppy to the U.N.; he also upgraded the post to that of full ambassador, a title previously conferred only upon envoys to foreign states. He even made Bush a member of his cabinet. This was most unusual, but it put Bush in a unique position: although he traveled to Washington regularly for cabinet meetings, he was “a Washington outsider” by dint of his being based in New York. Whatever Nixon’s ultimate purpose in continuing to mollify him, these decisions clearly worked to Poppy’s advantage. When the Watergate scandal erupted, nobody thought to include George H. W. Bush in the circle of blame. He was literally out of sight, out of mind. But not necessarily out of the loop.

...


http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/05/08/watergate-revelations-the-coup-against-nixon-part-2-of-3/

That Nixon could actually have been the victim of Watergate, and not the
perpetrator, will not sit well with many, especially those with a professional
stake in Nixon’s guilt. Yet three of the most thoroughly reported books on
Watergate from the past three decades have come to the same conclusion:
that Nixon and/or his top aides were indeed set up. Each of these books takes
a completely different approach, focuses on different aspects, and relies on
essentially different sets of facts and sources. These are 1984’s Secret Agenda,
by former Harper’s magazine Washington editor Jim Hougan; 1991’s Silent
Coup, by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin; and 2008’s The Strong Man, by
James Rosen.

...

Others, however, were more curious. After Charles Colson met with Senator
Howard Baker and his staff—including future senator Fred Thompson—
he recounted the session in a previously unpublished memo to file:

The CIA has been unable to determine whether Bob Woodward
was employed by the agency. The agency claims to be having difficulty
checking personnel files. Thompson says that he believes the
delay merely means that they don’t want to admit that Woodward
was in the agency. Thompson wrote a lengthy memo to Baker last
week complaining about the CIA’s non-cooperation, the fact that
they were supplying material piecemeal and had been very uncooperative.
The memo went into the CIA relationship with the press, specifically
Woodward. Senator Baker sent the memo directly to <CIA Director> Colby
with a cover note and within a matter of a few hours, Woodward
called Baker and was incensed over the memo. It had been immediately
leaked to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 08:15 AM

23. Right.

In the first essay I posted, I wrote about Nixon's intelligence & counterintelligence operations, and how at the same time, the military was conducting intelligence on the White House. Part of that was Woodward and Felt in the White House, meeting with individuals such as Al Haig. When Woodward and Felt would later meet in a dark parking garage, that was counterintelligence.

Felt alone was not "Deep Throat," of course. It wasn't one person. Woodward's description of the delivery of a coded message in the newspaper, or the flower pot on the balconey, were not messages that an AD of FBI could have sent or received. The decision to kneecap Nixon had become operational, and involved a team. Woodward had previously been assigned the only public role on the team, as a "reporter."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 03:55 PM

39. What is also interesting...

they seem to be playing on Nixon's paranoia about the JFK assassination which, again, he likely wasn't directly responsible for planning. (He was, however, responsible for making published remarks that humiliated JFK enough to have the bulletproof shield removed from his convertible in the Dallas parade route, and also was likely to cause JFK to request that his Secret Service personnel keep their distance, so that it didn't appear that he was afraid of any right wing detractors. The infamous "umbrella man" was there to protest JFK's unwillingness to go to war with the Soviet Union.) I wonder if counterintelligence planted the photo of the 3 hobos in Daley Plaza?

Anyway, Poppy went on to become the Director of the CIA and the rest is history. Woodward continues to make regular appearances on CNN, even commenting on the latest developments between Israel and Gaza.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:07 PM

32. Nixon's generosity towards Poppy is no mystery

Consider that Nixon was Prescott's hand picked man, Nixon was simply paying it forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:03 PM

17. If Pres Obama won't even prosecuted openly admitted war criminals, why should Petraeus

 

have had any "intention of following orders from the constitutional civil authority of the President"?

The President is, of course, the Commander in Chief.

If he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, he can order all or any number of the generals who are now sitting in the pentagon to be reassigned to Afghanistan. He doesn't have to re-assign them all at once. Start with the first 10. Then send another 10 in the following month. Then add 10 more.

If they don't get the message, then start sending over all of the colonels in the pentagon.

Sooner or later, they'll catch on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:35 PM

19. Great insight...

and analysis.. thanks. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:52 PM

20. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 08:27 AM

24. Fills In Some Very Interesting Holes...

As always H2OMan your insight offers much to think about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:35 AM

29. I posted this in 2011, lol

Petraeus Did Not Consider Quitting Over Afghan Draw Down, Author Says

from NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/12/29/144429635/petraeus-did-not-consider-quitting-over-afghan-draw-down-author-says#commentBlock


December 29, 2011

The lede on an Associated Press report this morning: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=144416056

"Four-star general-turned-CIA director David Petraeus almost resigned as Afghanistan war commander over President Barack Obama's decision to quickly draw down surge forces, according to a new insider's look at Petraeus' 37-year Army career."

Has led the author of the book to say this on her Twitter page: http://twitter.com/#!/paulabroadwell/status/152354866730254337

"#Petraeus did NOT consider quitting, though mentors/friends encouraged it..."

The book — All In: The Education of General David Petraeus — is by Paula Broadwell from Harvard's Center for Public Leadership. Vernon Loeb, metro editor at The Washington Post worked with her on it.

According to the book's webpage:

"While conducting research over the past three years, Broadwell was afforded extensive access by General Petraeus, his mentors, his subordinates, and his longtime friends. Over the course of Petraeus's command of ISAF-Afghanistan from July 2010 through July 2011, Broadwell embedded with the general, his headquarters staff, and his soldiers on the front lines of fighting across Afghanistan."

The AP, which says it was given an advance copy, writes that "Petraeus decided that resigning would be a 'selfish, grandstanding move with huge political ramifications' and that now was 'time to salute and carry on.' "

Broadwell just tweeted, though, that: (twitter.com/#!/paulabroadwell/status/152412104878587904)

#Petraeus did not consider resigning over drawdown because: "such an act would be considered selfish...and after all troops can't quit!"


Update at 11:12 a.m. ET. An AP Correction, Sort Of:

Without labeling its new version of the story a correction, the AP just retooled its account — telling editors in the process that it "changes headlines, adds CIA statement saying Petraeus did not consider resigning, minor edits." Here's how the top of the story now reads:

"Four-star general-turned-CIA director David Petraeus was urged to resign as Afghanistan war commander over President Barack Obama's decision to quickly draw down surge forces, according to a new insider's look at Petraeus' 37-year Army career.

"Conservative writer Max Boot had urged he take that course of action, but Petraeus decided that resigning would be a 'selfish, grandstanding move with huge political ramifications' and that now was 'time to salute and carry on,' according to a forthcoming biography.

" 'Director Petraeus has publicly stated that he never contemplated resignation,' CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood said Thursday."


read: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/12/29/144429635/petraeus-did-not-consider-quitting-over-afghan-draw-down-author-says


post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100284752

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:54 AM

30. snicker...

 

"Broadwell embedded with the general, his headquarters staff, and his soldiers on the front lines of fight"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:15 PM

33. I wonder if her bio still lists her 'embedded' service

. . . under the general?

I remember that it was still up for some time after the disclosure and resignation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 03:54 PM

38. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:09 PM

41. Petraeus = 1st U.S. General to be called an 'ass-kissing little chickenshit' by

 

his commanding officer (Admiral William Fallon of CentCom).

Harry S. Truman fired MacArthur for far less. Petraeus should be facing a general court martial for actions unbecoming and gross insubordination. Instead, he gets to retire with full pension and benefits.

Whatever. This country allows 1 in 5 children to live in poverty, so it deserves to go the way of the Roman and British empires. And it will. Only question is when.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread