View Full Version : The real reason for sticking Petraeus in Afghanistan
AmericaFyeah92
07-04-2010, 02:34 PM
Rumors have been circulating that Petraeus is being vetted to run for the Republican nomination in 2012. Prominent neoconservatives are pushing for it, and he might have a good chance of success against Obama. tThis would be verging on a coup, since The General would be running against his own commander-in-chief during a time of war (unprecedented in American history).
Obama is certainly aware of these rumors. So how does he neutralize the threat? Stick Petraeus in Afghanistan, where he has direct command of the war rather than as a CENTCOM commander. Since he now has a mission and duty, Petraeus would have very little excuse or justification to run in 2012, since it is obvious we will still be in that hellhole by then. And since Obama knows we can't win, Petraeus will be "the guy who lost in Afghanistan" rather than the hero of the Iraq surge.
The Rolling Stone article was the perfect opportunity for Obama, who is a master politician.
my 2 cents :)
Danke
07-04-2010, 03:33 PM
Rumors have been circulating that Petraeus is being vetted to run for the Republican nomination in 2012. Prominent neoconservatives are pushing for it, and he might have a good chance of success against Obama. tThis would be verging on a coup, since The General would be running against his own commander-in-chief during a time of war (unprecedented in American history).
Pretty sure he would have to resign his commission first. So no, not "verging on a coup."
awake
07-04-2010, 03:50 PM
There is your man on the white horse... he is a dictator in Iraq, why not America.
TheBlackPeterSchiff
07-04-2010, 03:59 PM
That would be a major W for Obama.
AmericaFyeah92
07-04-2010, 04:12 PM
Pretty sure he would have to resign his commission first. So no, not "verging on a coup."
Not sure if that's true, but even so he would now have to resign his commission while in charge of the war effort, which would be a big no no since it would make him look like the politically ambitious snake he is.
Original_Intent
07-04-2010, 04:25 PM
If that is why he did it, he certainly played into Petraeus' hands.
Petraeus just needs to make moves to "win" and get us out.
If he is allowed to proceed AS HE WANTS and wins and gets us out he is a HERO and would easily win the White House.
If Obama or anyone else tries to interfere with his execution of the war, he very publicly resigns and exposes how Obama kept him from doing what was necessary to win. He is a HERO for resigning on principle and Obama catches the heat for the war dragging on. Petraeus easily wins the White House.
In other words, if this is really the reason Obama put Obama in Afghanistan, he was either guided into making a serious error in judgment, or he made one himself - or he is not worried about Petraeus running and put him there for another reason.
lynnf
07-04-2010, 06:17 PM
Rumors have been circulating that Petraeus is being vetted to run for the Republican nomination in 2012. Prominent neoconservatives are pushing for it, and he might have a good chance of success against Obama. tThis would be verging on a coup, since The General would be running against his own commander-in-chief during a time of war (unprecedented in American history).
Obama is certainly aware of these rumors. So how does he neutralize the threat? Stick Petraeus in Afghanistan, where he has direct command of the war rather than as a CENTCOM commander. Since he now has a mission and duty, Petraeus would have very little excuse or justification to run in 2012, since it is obvious we will still be in that hellhole by then. And since Obama knows we can't win, Petraeus will be "the guy who lost in Afghanistan" rather than the hero of the Iraq surge.
The Rolling Stone article was the perfect opportunity for Obama, who is a master politician.
my 2 cents :)
unprecedented? not quite:
from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._McClellan
...
General McClellan also failed to maintain the trust of Lincoln, and proved to be frustratingly derisive of, and insubordinate to, his commander-in-chief. After he was relieved of command, McClellan became the unsuccessful Democratic nominee opposing Lincoln in the 1864 presidential election.
...
Kregisen
07-04-2010, 06:32 PM
Why does everyone think a general has what it takes to be president?
Sure, he's an expert on military and maybe foreign policy, but.....
That's one small slice of America.
Travlyr
07-04-2010, 06:34 PM
Why does everyone think a general has what it takes to be president?
Sure, he's an expert on military and maybe foreign policy, but.....
That's one small slice of America.
One should at least have to be a community organizer first. :)
heavenlyboy34
07-04-2010, 06:57 PM
One should at least have to be a community organizer first. :)
I giggled at that. :D
Aratus
07-05-2010, 01:06 PM
if gen'l petraeus eventually runs and tries to one-up wesley clark
--- wouldn't this flush mcChrystal out of his early retirement ...?
Anti Federalist
07-05-2010, 01:11 PM
General Grievous for President...great, just fucking great...
puppetmaster
07-05-2010, 02:07 PM
There is no win in Afghanistan. Maybe a media black out. .
YumYum
07-05-2010, 02:20 PM
McChrystal in 2012??
Romulus
07-05-2010, 02:25 PM
Tested and failed.. he doesnt have it.. he's a fainter. I dont think they'll put him in the mix for a run.
krazy kaju
07-05-2010, 02:35 PM
Why does everyone think a general has what it takes to be president?
Sure, he's an expert on military and maybe foreign policy, but.....
That's one small slice of America.
I, for one, would prefer a President who just sticks with foreign policy and leaves fiscal and economic matters to others.
Petraeus voted for Obama.
AmericaFyeah92
07-05-2010, 04:33 PM
unprecedented? not quite:
from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._McClellan
...
General McClellan also failed to maintain the trust of Lincoln, and proved to be frustratingly derisive of, and insubordinate to, his commander-in-chief. After he was relieved of command, McClellan became the unsuccessful Democratic nominee opposing Lincoln in the 1864 presidential election.
...
AFTER being relieved of command. That's the big difference
AmericaFyeah92
07-05-2010, 04:34 PM
If that is why he did it, he certainly played into Petraeus' hands.
Petraeus just needs to make moves to "win" and get us out.
If he is allowed to proceed AS HE WANTS and wins and gets us out he is a HERO and would easily win the White House.
If Obama or anyone else tries to interfere with his execution of the war, he very publicly resigns and exposes how Obama kept him from doing what was necessary to win. He is a HERO for resigning on principle and Obama catches the heat for the war dragging on. Petraeus easily wins the White House.
In other words, if this is really the reason Obama put Obama in Afghanistan, he was either guided into making a serious error in judgment, or he made one himself - or he is not worried about Petraeus running and put him there for another reason.
Huh? You must have a lot of faith in Petraeus if you think he can win as long as Obama stays out of the way....you realize this is Afghanistan right? McCrystals been playing by Petraeus's handbook for 2 years and got nowhere
GunnyFreedom
07-05-2010, 04:47 PM
God save us if Petraeus runs in 2012. :(
He's the right-ward Obama, even worse than Obama. If you take the right and left false paradigm and rate it 1 to 10, with 1 being not so bad and 10 being really bad, you end up with a stair-step pattern...
Given the false paradigm rightward meaning neocon corporatist, and leftward meaning progressive corporatist.
Reagan was a rightward 2 Bush1 a rightward 3, Clinton a leftward 4, Bush2 a rightward 5 Obama a leftward 7, and Petraeus a rightward 9.
So as much worse Obama is than Bush, Petraeus will be that much worse than Obama, but the neocon version.
:mad:
God help us if that bugger runs for POTUS. If he gets the nod, and especially if he wins POTUS I'll be resigning from the GOP even if I am seated in the State House at the time.
No way will I be associated with that madman
no way
phill4paul
07-05-2010, 04:53 PM
God help us if that bugger runs for POTUS. If he gets the nod, and especially if he wins POTUS I'll be resigning from the GOP even if I am seated in the State House at the time.
No way will I be associated with that madman
no way
And that Gunny is why I support ya! I don't doubt you one bit! I know why your in the position that your in. I know that you would rather American politics were different.
You just keep doing what your doing. Your a good one. One of the few.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.