McCain: We’ll use Petraeus’s confirmation hearing to push back against Obama’s withdrawal deadline

posted at 5:13 pm on June 23, 2010 by Allahpundit

I’ll bet they will. Remember, in his own terse, diplomatic way, Petraeus has sounded notably cool to The One’s plan to start withdrawing next July. Last week in Senate testimony he warned that “we have to be careful about timelines,” then added this:

“It’s important that July 2011 be seen for what it is, the date when a process begins based on conditions, not the date when the U.S. heads for the exits,” said Petraeus. “Moreover, my agreement with the president’s decisions was based on projections of conditions in July 2011. Needless to say, we’ll do all that is humanly possible to achieve those conditions.”

He added that of course he’ll support whatever decision Obama ultimately makes. DrewM is taking Petraeus’s appointment as a sign that The One intends to double down on Afghanistan, but I’m not so sure that’s true. There were a lot of reasons to pick him as McChrystal’s successor: He literally wrote the book on the counterinsurgency strategy that we’re following in Afghanistan; he’s deeply respected for his Iraq success, which should minimize grumbling in the ranks about McChrystal’s ouster; he’s the head of Centcom, so he already has plenty of experience dealing with the Afghan and Pakistani leaderships; and he won’t stand for the sort of backbiting among his subordinates that the White House and Karl Eikenberry had to endure from McChrystal’s team. Most of all, though, he’s the perfect political cover. If Petraeus can turn things around in a year, wonderful; if he can’t, the White House can use the fact that even Iraq’s miracle worker is flailing as proof that Afghanistan is hopeless and that we shouldn’t dump any more resources into it. Politically, for The One, it’s all upside and very little downside whereas retaining McChrystal would have been the opposite. If he had kept Mac on and things didn’t turn around, any decision down the road to withdraw would be challenged by hawks on grounds that McChrystal was too weak from this incident to stand up to Obama and make the case for extending the mission. That’s gone now. Petraeus is the face of the mission going forward, which makes it hard for anyone — except Janeane Garofalo, I guess — to object to whatever happens down the road. And whatever decision that may be, Petraeus — forever the good soldier — will doubtless defend it to the best of his ability.

Make sure to watch to the end for Lieberman’s point about how long the backbiting’s been going on within the command structure in Afghanistan. Obama said today in his speech that he welcomes debate but won’t tolerate division, but that’s palpably untrue given the longstanding tensions between McChrystal and Eikenberry. Fun fact from CNN: According to an inside source, yesterday’s assertions about not making any decisions until after the meeting with McChrystal was pure pageantry. Supposedly, Obama “had no intention of keeping him.” With Petraeus waiting in the wings, no wonder.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

John,

STFU.

BobMbx on June 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM

I think we will win this war if we start killing bad guys instead of paying them bribes that they use to fund terrorists who kill us. Just my 2 cents.

Philly on June 23, 2010 at 5:18 PM

if he can’t, the White House can use the fact that even Iraq’s miracle worker is flailing as proof that Afghanistan is hopeless and that we shouldn’t dump any more resources into it

And the rest of us in reality can use the fact that it’s hard to win a war when you handcuff your own soldiers.

Daggett on June 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM

they are going to have to start explaining in detail the mission in goals, starting with the fact that ‘nation building’ isn’t the top priority, routing the taliban and AL-Qaeda and putting pressure against Iran and Pakistan being higher priorities.

jp on June 23, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Obama said today in his speech that he welcomes debate but won’t tolerate division, but that’s palpably untrue given the longstanding tensions between McChrystal and Eikenberry.

Exactly, and tell me anybody. What he’s done to better foster relationships anywhere it counted. Was it when he dithered on troop increases or where he out and out called the Karzai Government corrupt and quit speaking with them.

(Now fess up and tell us whether soccer is your game or not, Allah)

hawkdriver on June 23, 2010 at 5:21 PM

It’s so fun when Janeane pokes her head up from the compost heap to squawk every so often.

John the Libertarian on June 23, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Who cares what McCain says or does,
what is important is :
does Karzai support Gen Patraeus ?

macncheez on June 23, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Janeane Garofalo called him General Betray Us???

Janeane! You low-down racist teabagging redneck, you!

Daggett on June 23, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Like them or not, the people in the villages will pay attention to the military that will still be there five or ten years from now, and that ain’t us. Probably not Karzai either.

RBMN on June 23, 2010 at 5:24 PM

It’s on!!!

pseudonominus on June 23, 2010 at 5:26 PM

McCain doesn’t even know what succeed means. What a hack…

RightXBrigade on June 23, 2010 at 5:26 PM

With Petraeus waiting in the wings, no wonder.

Perhaps, ‘Petraeus in the wings’ instead of ‘waiting in the wings’ is more accurate?

(not sniping, is a great post)

Spirit of 1776 on June 23, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I’m not a conspiracy nut but there is something not right here.Last month two nasty stories about McChrystal and Petreus, and then the rolling stone. Who sent them?Somethings up.

sandee on June 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM

John,

STFU.

BobMbx on June 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM

We should probably cut McCain some slack here. Even though his Presidential campaign was horrible, and allowed Obummer to be elected, he WAS right about the surge in Iraq, and knows that telegraphing a withdrawal date to the enemy just encourages them to hide without fighting until we leave.

Petraeus knows that McCain knows the military, and would probably back him on this effort, if it would give Petraeus more time to kick Taliban @$$ once and for all. Who knows, maybe McChrystal and Petraeus planned it this way, to tell Obama whose @$$ he needs to kick in Afghanistan.

Steve Z on June 23, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Well, I was wrong. I thought McChrystal could grovel his way back into Obama’s good graces. He was clearly the wrong man for the job…Obama actually did the right thing.

VDH has a great post-mortem about why McChrystal needed to go…I agree:

A McChrystal Endnote

AUINSC on June 23, 2010 at 5:28 PM

OT: Did you guys check out Chris Christie on Cavuto? QOTD material for sho.

John the Libertarian on June 23, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Ugh, I don’t particularly care for Congress making military decisions once the use of force has been authorized.

We have, for good or bad, one Commander-in-Chief. Not 435.

SteveMG on June 23, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Not a good day for MoveOn.

pain train on June 23, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Hey Mac… Tell us again about how an Obama presidency won’t be so bad…

RalphyBoy on June 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM

If there is one thing that McCain should be applauded for, it’s on his military stances. So all these calls for McCain to STFU etc. are ridiculous.

portlandon on June 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM

The Liberal Progressives Effect!!

Elena Kagan is up to bat in 5 days!!

She will extended Hopeys Social Justice
and all things Anti-Military as SCJOTUS!!

Just a reminder,so,keep her stuck at Harvard
where she can only do damage on her campus!!

canopfor on June 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM

OT: Did you guys check out Chris Christie on Cavuto? QOTD material for sho.

John the Libertarian on June 23, 2010 at 5:29 PM

I didn’t, but I’m hoping to get some Chris Christie porn tonight now!!

deidre on June 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM

He’s going to tie Petraeus’ hands, send him to do the job without the proper resources, declare the mission over on the withdrawal date, and there will be leaks from the WH about Petraeus being ineffective and incompetent.

He’ll use Petraeus as a scape-goat to look tough while not actually winning the war. Even today The Messiah couldn’t utter the word “victory”.

amerpundit on June 23, 2010 at 5:31 PM

I will have more confidence when the president starts to use outlandish terms such as “win” or “victory”.

rob verdi on June 23, 2010 at 5:35 PM

He’ll use Petraeus as a scape-goat to look tough while not actually winning the war. Even today The Messiah couldn’t utter the word “victory”.

Define “victory” and “winning the [undeclared] war”.

RightXBrigade on June 23, 2010 at 5:37 PM

The reason McCain is a better choice than JD Hayworth is because McCain is right on military issues and on “stimulus,” and he’s also clever enough to formulate and execute very effective political strategies, to get his way. JD Hayworth can vote. McCain can lead. Hayworth can vote.

RBMN on June 23, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Let me give you the talking point John… ‘It has come to this, a top general has refused to serve under the CIC, Obama, and he has used Rolling Stone Magazine to announce it. The world is truly upside down.’

RalphyBoy on June 23, 2010 at 5:38 PM

He’ll use Petraeus as a scape-goat to look tough

amerpundit on June 23, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Petraeus is no fool.

John the Libertarian on June 23, 2010 at 5:38 PM

A two-year Senator vrs. a Military General,
*shakes head*,*rolls eyes*,*stares off into space*,

glad to see,that Afghanistan has been used POLITICALLY,

by the Democrats!!

Obama is a Anti-War Activist,never mind this crap,that he is
Commander-In-Chief,its only in title of,just like his strong
and stellar remarks when the Green Party in Iran was being
slaughtered,

LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD WAS DOA ON JANUARY 20TH 2009!!!!!!!

canopfor on June 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM

I’m not a conspiracy nut but there is something not right here.Last month two nasty stories about McChrystal and Petreus, and then the rolling stone. Who sent them?Somethings up.

sandee on June 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM

BINGO!

Lourdes on June 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM

So what are the odds of the NY Times having an ounce of integrity and runnign another “General Betray US” ad?

malclave on June 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM

If Petraeus can turn things around in a year, wonderful; if he can’t, the White House can use the fact that even Iraq’s miracle worker is flailing as proof that Afghanistan is hopeless and that we shouldn’t dump any more resources into it.

Except that he won’t be allowed to turn things around. It’s all starts at the top and the top doesn’t want success.

SouthernGent on June 23, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Define “victory” and “winning the [undeclared] war”.

RightXBrigade on June 23, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Victory? Establishing a stable regime capable of beating back individuals who seek to utilize Afghanistan as a base for terror attacks.

amerpundit on June 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Obama said today in his speech that he welcomes debate but won’t tolerate division, but that’s palpably untrue

Unusually Good Liar.

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM

If there is one thing that McCain should be applauded for, it’s on his military stances. So all these calls for McCain to STFU etc. are ridiculous.

portlandon on June 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Except when he’s not up on military “stances” and starts ridiculing Americans who ask for national defense.

McCain is, unfortunately, a career politician and he sways with the winds per what his political wants are. If that means throwing Americans and national defense under the bus, he does it. I thank him for when he doesn’t do that and when he stands up for national defense and national security, but face it, McCain’s track record is one of “whimsy” at the expense of national security.

Lourdes on June 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Except that he won’t be allowed to turn things around. It’s all starts at the top and the top doesn’t want success.

SouthernGent on June 23, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Indeed. His hands will be tied, his resources restricted, and his time allotment short.

It’ll be like fight fighting a war in handcuffs and in a room with 20 minutes of air. And then being blamed when you can’t win.

amerpundit on June 23, 2010 at 5:43 PM

John McCain | Washington, DC
The three amigos together again… http://yfrog.com/74ifjpj about 1 hour ago

Connie on June 23, 2010 at 5:47 PM

I didn’t, but I’m hoping to get some Chris Christie porn tonight now!!

deidre on June 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Don’t get me wrong…I really,like this guy.
But can’t you find another euphamism? Please?

Gunslinger on June 23, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Obama said today in his speech that he welcomes debate but won’t tolerate division, but that’s palpably untrue

Meaning that if he wins the argument, it’s debate. If he loses the debate, it’s division.

“Lets debate why I’m right on subject X”

BobMbx on June 23, 2010 at 5:54 PM

This can’t be the same man who would drive the war in Iraq to a defeat?….The same General Betrea us?…the one with the mission that then candidate Obama say “is not working”?…If this man is the same David Petraus from the Bush administration someone in the White House and in the State Departmen must be eating a lot of crap or at least a mexican hat.

Falz on June 23, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Victory? Establishing a stable regime capable of beating back individuals who seek to utilize Afghanistan as a base for terror attacks.

Never going to happen. We’d all be a lot better if the Taliban did set up shop again in Afghan! Now we know where those motherfu****s are and can light them up w/ drone attacks. Fact of the matter is; these people don’t like us, will never change, and will never adopt “democracy”. It isn’t in their cards. They aren’t civilized enough. No American life is worth the price to democratize the afghan people.
This is a winning war for the anti-family neo-cons because the family structure has broken down in the last 8 years spiking divorce rates and children without dads for what? “Okay, okay. So our families are all but broken down at home but look what we’ve done for the Afghans!!!”
This is just adding on to the debt and any “small government” conservative who supports it is a fraud.

RightXBrigade on June 23, 2010 at 5:57 PM

What about Sec. Gates? Is his job secure?

Cindy Munford on June 23, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Afghan leaders warn against Obama firing General McChrystal
AP, Jun 23, 2010, 07.51pm IST
==============================

KABUL: Afghan officials said Wednesday that firing General Stanley McChrystal would disrupt progress in the war and could jeopardize a pivotal security operation underway in Taliban strongholds in the south
———————————–

While McChrystal, who met with Obama on Wednesday, was harshly scolded by his superiors in the United States, officials in Afghanistan rallied to his support, saying he had increased cooperation between Afghan and international troops, worked to reduce civilian casualties and gained the trust of the Afghan people.
—————————-

“The president believes that we are in a very sensitive juncture in the partnership, in the war on terror and in the process of bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan, and any gap in this process will not be helpful,” Omar told reporters.
——————

“We hope there is not a change of leadership of the international forces here in Afghanistan and that we continue to partner with Gen. McChrystal.”
=============================================

And comments from the ENEMY

Taliban spokesman Zabeehullah Mujahid, however, said McChrystal should resign because his strategy had “clearly failed.”
———-

“The problems between American leaders over Afghan issues very clearly show that the policy and the strategy of America has failed,” he said. “They cannot win this war because the Afghan nation is united and they are committed to defeating American forces in Afghanistan.”

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Afghan-leaders-warn-against-Obama-firing-General-McChrystal/articleshow/6083255.cms

canopfor on June 23, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Having gotten that out of the way…time for a concert or some golf!

scalleywag on June 23, 2010 at 6:04 PM

What about Sec. Gates? Is his job secure?

Cindy Munford on June 23, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Cindy Munford: As long as he keeps his thoughts to himself!
_:)

canopfor on June 23, 2010 at 6:06 PM

What about Sec. Gates? Is his job secure?

Cindy Munford on June 23, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Sec. Gates remains as SECDEF simply because he was appointed by Bush. Obama keeps him on staff for the occasion when Obama orders a withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan, and our Army once again comes home in disgrace.

Obama will then sacrifice Gates by saying “I blame Sec. Gates for this failure. I followed his advice on military matters, and it failed. By the way, Bush appointed Gates, not me. Its his fault.”

BobMbx on June 23, 2010 at 6:06 PM

This is what the left gets for electing a fake “anti-war” president.

Spathi on June 23, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Did I just hear a squirrel fart ?

cableguy615 on June 23, 2010 at 6:08 PM

scalleywag on June 23, 2010 at 6:04 PM

heh
+1

cmsinaz on June 23, 2010 at 6:09 PM

The three amigosstooges together again… http://yfrog.com/74ifjpj about 1 hour ago

fixed

cableguy615 on June 23, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Most of all, though, he’s the perfect political cover. If Petraeus can turn things around in a year, wonderful; if he can’t, the White House can use the fact that even Iraq’s miracle worker is flailing as proof that Afghanistan is hopeless and that we shouldn’t dump any more resources into it. Politically, for The One, it’s all upside and very little downside..

.

Bingo. That’s it exactly. But the upside’s for today. It’s transitory. The downside comes tomorrow or the next day/week/month when Petraeus balks at executing Øbama‘s preemptive withdrawal and submits his resignation, triggering a crisis that will dwarf anything so far.

Trading Mac for Petraeus has bought him time, but not a lot of it and at a very dear price. Today Teh Won jumped from the skillet into the fire.

petefrt on June 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM

canopfor on June 23, 2010 at 6:03 PM

yowser

cmsinaz on June 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM

OK! I have a feeling, yes I said feeling, that this will work out no matter what the reasoning behind it. Genl. Petraeus will do the right things because he simply knows what he’s doing. Granted, the situation is not the same as Iraq but he has shown that he knows how to take the situation at hand and work with it.

He knows that the main thing is killing and putting the enemy out of business and then letting the locals take care of the local, political stuff.

Vince on June 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM

This is what the left gets for electing a fake “anti-war” president

Candidate Obama was a full-throated supporter of the Afghanistan war.

SteveMG on June 23, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Last time we had a McCain thread it broke out into a huge flame war and Allah shut it down. Hope it has better luck this time..:)

Dire Straits on June 23, 2010 at 6:18 PM

If John McLame and O’Dumbo allow Gen. Petraeus to fight this war the way it should be fought then he will succeed, if not-then he will be hanged out to dry.

hawkman on June 23, 2010 at 6:18 PM

This is a winning war for the anti-family neo-cons because the family structure has broken down in the last 8 years spiking divorce rates and children without dads for what?

First of all, Neo-Conservatism has nothing to do with social conservatism and domestic policy.
That being said, they’re definitely not “anti-family.”
And no, the family structure in America hasn’t “broken down” and frankly, I don’t know what you’re talking about.
“Okay, okay.

So our families are all but broken down at home but look what we’ve done for the Afghans!!!”
This is just adding on to the debt and any “small government” conservative who supports it is a fraud.

RightXBrigade on June 23, 2010 at 5:57 PM

We’re not supposed to be in Afghanistan to do anything but kill the jihadi bad guys, i.e. the Taliban and AQ.
If we wanted nation-building, we need to call the Peace Corps and other NGOs.

Jenfidel on June 23, 2010 at 6:20 PM

petefrt on June 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Should have added that, even if Petraeus were a miracle worker, Øbama will not give Petraeus the resources he needs to turn things around, but will insist on preemptive withdrawal. Hence the resignation.

petefrt on June 23, 2010 at 6:21 PM

This is what the left media gets for electing a fake “anti-war” president.

Spathi on June 23, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Someone needs to grow a pair in the GOP, else they will all turn into women, mama grizzlies are cool..

tarpon on June 23, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Candidate Obama was a full-throated supporter of the Afghanistan war.

SteveMG on June 23, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Yes, but do you think his support for the Afghanistan war was anything more than a contrived campaign ploy to counterbalance his surrender position for Iraq, to keep him from looking like a total wuss on foreign policy?

If you do, then I hope you’re right. But I can’t buy it.

petefrt on June 23, 2010 at 6:30 PM

I just don’t get why McChrystal would willingly talk to this little weasel at the Rolling Stone, unless he wanted people to know how he felt about the situation in Afghanistan and was frustrated he wasn’t being heard any other way. But to lose his post over it makes no sense.

scalleywag on June 23, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Ain’t buyin’ it, McCain. You had your chance; you blew it.

Don’t trust no RINO.

davidk on June 23, 2010 at 6:37 PM

What a crock of sh-t.

Obama is using a general that he personally treated like sh-t as a prop in his political kabuki show, and it further illustrates how shameful, dishonorable, disreputable and cowardly Obama really is (and his regime, with him). In spite of his big talk, Obama has no interest in unity or coming together; all he cares about is his political career, and being looked upon favorably by history. He’s nothing more than a petty bureaucrat, just like the rest of the America-hating, New Left 60s radicals that he grew up with, that lied, cheated and stole their way into political power.

McCain needs to shut his dumb ass up, too. Every time I hear him open his yap, all I can hear is one of his stupid, misleading campaign commercials. If he was so worried about national security, he could’ve been doing a lot more about the Southern border, than pontificating about how hawkish he becomes on it, during election season.

Open letter to McCain and Obama: “Kiss my ass“.

Virus-X on June 23, 2010 at 6:39 PM

canopfor on June 23, 2010 at 6:03 PM
===========
yowser

cmsinaz on June 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM

cmsinaz: Reeks of sabotagy!!:)

canopfor on June 23, 2010 at 6:43 PM

If you do, then I hope you’re right. But I can’t buy it

Well, his speech today underscored the commitment he made during the campaign.

One thing to position yourself during a campaign; quite another in office.

SteveMG on June 23, 2010 at 6:44 PM

The bright side for the far left is that they can re-run most of their hit pieces with just a few changes. Such as

General Petraus?????

Obama Betrayed US!!!!!!

I should invoice ‘em.

Wind Rider on June 23, 2010 at 6:57 PM

SteveMG on June 23, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Yup, you may be right. Hope so. Time will tell.

petefrt on June 23, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Obama only used the Afghanistan war to portray it as the “right” war. He used it to attack Bushes Iraq war decision. I’ve heard numerous tapes today of Obama attacking Bush on this. Stupidly saying the war is lost to Petreaus himself. Obama is nothing but a fraud.

sandee on June 23, 2010 at 7:01 PM

I like this take:

Next Up: Holbrooke and Eikenberry [Alexander Benard]

It is difficult to see how General McChrystal could have remained effective in his post following the publication of the Rolling Stone article — chock full of derisive comments made by McChrystal and his staff about his civilian counterparts and superiors. President Obama was right to relieve him of his command.

And President Obama was right to choose General Petraeus as McChrystal’s replacement. Petraeus knows COIN inside and out and, as the commander in charge of CENTCOM, is fully up to date on developments in the Afghan theater. The transition will be seamless. There will be no learning curve.

But sacking McChrystal and reassigning Petraeus merely controls damage. If President Obama wants to use this opportunity to actually enhance our Afghanistan policy, he will also replace Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry. Neither Holbrooke nor Eikenberry has a functional working relationship with President Karzai — Holbrooke because of his early efforts to find a replacement for Karzai during the Afghan election, and Eikenberry because of leaked cables in which he stated that he did not believe Karzai to be an adequate partner. So Eikenberry and Holbrooke no longer have any sway over Karzai, and they are not capable of effectively serving as intermediaries between him and President Obama. Furthermore, Holbrooke and Eikenberry are at best lukewarm about the COIN strategy the administration is implementing and have not been proactive in making sure that civilian personnel in Afghanistan are taking the steps necessary for the surge to succeed.

How to implement this shake-up? Obama will not of his own volition institute such sweeping change. But Petraeus, who will be stepping down from a higher post in order to take command in Afghanistan, will now have enormous latitude with President Obama. If Petraeus pushes for the removal of Holbrooke and Eikenberry — on the grounds that he needs a fresh team with a more collaborative mindset and a stronger relationship with Karzai — then it will happen. And our war effort in Afghanistan would be much better for it.

— Alexander Benard, managing director of an investment firm, has worked at the Department of Defense and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Let’s get some smarter power over there. And let’s adjust those ROEs to protect our troops and get the mission completed with honor. The strong horse is revered in the ME.

onlineanalyst on June 23, 2010 at 7:03 PM

VDH has a great post-mortem about why McChrystal needed to go…I agree:

AUINSC on June 23, 2010 at 5:28 PM

So all you guys also think we should have gotten rid of Patton, McArthur, Eisenhower, Chennault, and a host of other generals and military leaders…
Obama is a thin skinned brat working with warriors who generally do not answer to boys.

right2bright on June 23, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall in the editorial offices of Rolling Stone? I wonder what the magazine’s reaction is to the brouhaha it created.

I would imagine that McCain is within his rights to weigh in because of his position on the Armed Services Committee. However, instead of his efforts to weasel into the good graces of ObaMao with his snide inclusion that he (McCain) had to push policies counter to Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s, he could have used his time at the microphone to push for more aggressive ROEs and less bribery for safe passage of our troops.

onlineanalyst on June 23, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Unable to maintain his momentum, Patton blamed his shortfall in fuel and supplies on Eisenhower’s need to placate the demanding, if sluggish, Montgomery.

Douglas MacArthur displayed high levels of arrogance throughout his career. His handling of the Bonus Marchers in 1932 was typical; he ignored orders from the White House to cease pursuing the marchers because, according to his aide Dwight Eisenhower, “said he was too busy,” did not want to be “bothered by people coming down and pretending to bring orders,”.

right2bright on June 23, 2010 at 7:27 PM

This is what the left media gets for electinginventing a fake “anti-war” president.

Spathi on June 23, 2010 at 6:06 PM

fixed

cableguy615 on June 23, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Great military leaders, are by definition, leaders. They are arrogant, and they are full of a lifetime of successful achievement…achievement born of hard work, intelligence, political savvy, and born to lead people in the most adverse conditions…almost the opposite of what they face when they face Obama.
Historically warrior Generals, are outspoken (even Eisenhower criticized Roosevelt), and they are given latitude because they have earned that right to question…Obama does not understand true leadership, and the journey required to achieve that role.

right2bright on June 23, 2010 at 7:31 PM

As I mentioned elsewhere, I would like Gen. Petraeus to bring with him to the hearing video from a previous hearing, in particular the footage of then Sens. Obama and Clinton. And a copy of the General BetrayUs ad, full-sized. If it’s not a firing offense, that is.

SukieTawdry on June 23, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall in the editorial offices of Rolling Stone? I wonder what the magazine’s reaction is to the brouhaha it created.

Are you kidding? They live for this.

SukieTawdry on June 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM

There were only one senator supporting the surge at the beginning, Joe Lieberman. Every one of those sobs were running for the tall grass, including McCain. It took a Wall Street Journal editorial to publicly shame them into supporting the surge. For that alone, this country should thank Senator Lieberman. Great efforts sometimes hang by very thin threads.(Oh, and McCain. I wish I could tell. Let’s just say it wasn’t printable.)

flackcatcher on June 23, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Obama said today in his speech that he welcomes debate but won’t tolerate division, but that’s palpably untrue given the longstanding tensions between McChrystal and Eikenberry.

It’s never been true before, but it needs to be now. Of course, Obama will never admit the first part of that sentence…

tom on June 23, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall in the editorial offices of Rolling Stone? I wonder what the magazine’s reaction is to the brouhaha it created.

Are you kidding? They live for this.

SukieTawdry on June 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Well, I know that RS is reflexively anti-military, but I wonder what they think that they accomplished with the article. The writers certainly put their cream puff in the WH in a tight spot.

onlineanalyst on June 23, 2010 at 8:00 PM

A little follow-up interview with the RS article does not paint a very flattering picture of ObaMao.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/06/23/rolling-stone-runaway-general-reporter-aloof-obama-didn-t-really-understa

onlineanalyst on June 23, 2010 at 8:48 PM

He [Petraeus] literally wrote the book on the counterinsurgency strategy that we’re following in Afghanistan

He wrote a book on COIN. And it is to Petraeus what AGW and An Inconvenient Truth is to Al Gore. They are both delusional.

Tav on June 23, 2010 at 11:32 PM

For Al Gore it is “See no science, hear no science, speak no science, know no science”.

For David Petraeus it is “See no islam, hear no islam, speak no islam, know no islam”.

Both Al Gore an David Petraeus are obsessed fanatics.

Tav on June 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM

Props to Obama. Whether this is evidence of a hertofore unsuspcted competence or sheer blind luck, he has made the right decision at last. Kudos.

JackOfClubs on June 24, 2010 at 4:05 PM