And this ain't coming from MoveOn.org: This may put Petraeus' report in some context. If he is indeed a sycophant who is willing to say whatever the Bushies want him to say his statements should be taken with a grain of salt
May? Hell, this president has made the DOJ an arm of the Republican party, so why the heck not the Pentagon? It's no secret the Pentagon and Republicans share the same sort of moral-make-money-while-blowing-up-foreigners value system, but there are people that take the no-politics-in-uniform mantra seriously. Unlike, apparently, Patraeus. (And the military people in those new support the war commercials.) Look, right now we're in a war that no one is sure why we went into, everyone is sure that 3-4 years were wasted by horrific mismanagement, and nobody knows why adding 30,000 troops to calm things down for 6 months, then bringing them home is called a 'success.'
I like your bolded segments, but frankly I thought this is the most significant issue and every time I bring it up in a thread it dies as if it spreads malaria: The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran." By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists. Obama was called naive for stating what our policy SHOULD be towards AQ, Wazirastan and Pakistan. Musharaff is losing his grip and our whole policy seems to be not to step on the guys toes.
This article is further proof that dubya does not listen to the polls but instead makes decisions based on information that he gets from his ass kissing little chickenshits on the ground.
I predict zero right-wing blogosphere noise claiming Fallon is "anti-American" or "invested in defeat", unlike the silly "General BetrayUs" flap. Instead, there will be complete silence. (Takes a quick tour of major righty blogs...) Yep. Complete silence.
so two people who work together don't get along all that well, hmmm. I hate my c*nt of a superior, and have gladly told this to friends. but does it stop me from working with her? no.
Fallon has earned the right to call him an ass kissing chicken shit. MoveOn has not. Simple. I regret sending them money during the impeachment. Had I known what this organization would become I would have acted differently.
I'm glad to see at least one person high up in the military knows our priority should be Afghanistan/Pakistan and not Iraq.
A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works. Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love. Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake. But I... I do deny them my essence.
I'm beginning to think that dubya got a bad rap for his comments in Australia. It is clear to me now that he was misquoted and actually said: "We are kissing ass over there in Iraq."
The "source" is not named in the article; I strongly doubt that Navy Admiral William J. Fallon used those words or anything like those words... In any event, someone with no background in land warfare, i.e., Fallon, criticizing someone that does; i.e., Petraeus? Sorry... Got a named source? Got anything at all besides an "Inter-Press Service" (?) allegation cited to an unnamed source?
I feel a little dirty making the same point as InTheNet, but it's important--this is essentially hearsay. You have an unnamed Pentagon sources who are allegedly citing reports of a meeting between two 4-star officers. And they leak it to a media outlet called "ISP"? No offense, but I read a ton of news--across the political spectrum--and I've never come across anything in ISP. I don't even know it's political leanings, if any (although the "neo-cons" tab gives me a hunch). Anyway, why wouldn't a senior Pentagon source with such a potentially major story go the the AP, NYT, Reuters, etc.? Sorry, but this just doesn't seem that believable. Maybe you're dealing with two officers that don't like each other personally (hey, it happens) and words were exchanged. Or maybe there's no story at all. Either way, there's certainly not enough for conservative bloggers to speak out--either by attacking or supporting Fallon--since there are no direct quotes. That's why this is different from MoveOn, which paid for an ad, and some elected Democrats, whose quotes are on the record. Also, if Fallon--who was just recently appointed to head CENTCOM by Bush, I might add--is such a dissident, remember that he's a commissioned officer and can be called to testify by any of the relevant Congressional committees whenever they so please. In other words, if there's any substance at all to these claims, then this will play out more.
That was my first thought. Get him up to the hill and raise that right hand. I have never heard of ISP either and I am always leary of annonymous sources. Still, Patreaus just looks like as ass kissing chicken shit so I will go with the story until it is refuted. EDIT -- I wasn't clear. Get him up to the hill to talk about Pakistan and the more urgent threats and why we should get the hell our of Iraq. I don't really care of he called Patreaus an ass kissing chicken shit or not. I just want this guys opinion on whether he is george bush's lotion boy to the detriment of other military objectives.
That's a valid point, but it's not exactly like right-wing blogs have let the fact that something is hearsay get in the way of their excellent airchair punditry. Hell, recently Quinn said on his XM radio show "The War Room" that an unnamed "unimpeachable source" said Ohio Gov Ted Strickland said some openly racist stuff about Obama at a union meeting, and there isn't a rightwing blog in Ohio that isn't fully believing the story (despite the fact it's the ONLY evidence). At least Fallon's alleged statements fits the facts already "in the wild". Right wing blogs have a long documented history of making shit up absent all facts (and sometimes in direct opposition to them) and running with it. Heck, I'm pretty sure that no single right wing blog that slammed the MoveOn ad actually read it. I'm not interested in slamming Petraeus to "score points" against the GOP. I ********ing hate that game. I'm only interested in the truth. I'm 100% convinced that the right wing blogosphere by-and-large is only interested in "scoring points" politically.
Well you don't have to take IPS's word for the problems between them. The Washington Post has also reported (from unnamed sources mind you, which the media uses all the time) a great deal of tension between these guys: Now given the bad relations ("Armageddon"-like) would it be surprising if harsh words were exchanged between them. I guess you could also regard this as hearsay but there wouldn't be much reporting in Washington without "unnamed sources"
Thanks, I appreciate it. I get about 50 Iraq stories emailed in a full document each morning and this WaPo one was one of them--just don't get to read them all fully! And no, a great deal (or any) tension between the two generals that led to harsh words isn't surprising. And no, Washington wouldn't work with unnamed sources (I would just be surprised if they went to "ISP" rather than a place like WaPo). I don't disagree with either point. That being said, tension, professional disagreement and, yes, even personal animosity exist between co-workers, even in the officer corps. So that much isn't surprising and probably happens all the time. I have a lot more I'd like to say on this topic (regarding both Fallon's and Petraeus' views and how both conservatives and liberals react to things like this), but I feel (well, I know) it crosses into the realm of things that deal with Presidential campaigns, so I'm going to refrain.
Understandable... Does this have something to do with the report in the guardian that Iraqi leaders who asked Gen Petreus "Are you gonna run for president?", and his answer "not yet" ?!?!?!?!?! That should certainly question his "impartiality" Heck, generals often get the idea in their heads that they would make good presidents (Ike, Clark, Musharref, some argentinians, etc etc). Ergo, any high profile general should be seen not as a military leader of unimpeachable credentials, but a politician-to-be....and thus deserving of any mud thrown against them (ala MoveOn's ad). Face it - becoming a high-profile general is all about politics, not patriotism.
At the very least, if the reports are true, it deeply challenges the quote by the general where he says no input was made in his report by COngress or the White House (or something to that effect) ...when in reality, you 've been actually pitching a quite one-sided view of the war and its developments....even having done so from the comfort of a COngressman's office...None of this does allows for lots of room for "impartiality"....or at least a more "common sensical" approach to things....