-
The Man With the Plan: April 2010
August 11, 2012 | 0 comments
-
A Wonk in Sheep’s Clothing
March 25, 2011 | 293 comments
-
Scapegoating Mitch Daniels
March 17, 2011 | 150 comments
-
Money Train
March 1, 2011 | 109 comments
-
The Race for Comparative Advantage
February 14, 2011 | 87 comments
Feature
Will Petraeus Be Like Ike?
As his achievements pile up, speculation grows that superstar Gen. David Petraeus will run for the White House. Our June cover story.
(Page 3 of 4)
Eisenhower started being pressed about a possible political career as early as 1943, in the thick of World War II. After the war concluded, speculation mushroomed. His diary entries and letters to close friends in the following years reflect his frustration that journalists and political figures simply could not accept that he really meant it when he said he had no desire to run for president.
“I cannot conceive of any set of circumstances that could ever drag out of me permission to consider me for any political post from Dog Catcher to ‘Grand High Supreme King of the Universe,’” he wrote to his boyhood friend, Everett “Swede” Hazlett, on March 13, 1946.
On August 25, 1947, he wrote to Hazlett, “It is difficult for many people — particularly those who have led a political life or are engaged in newspaper or radio work — to believe anyone who disclaims political ambition.”
In the run-up to the 1948 campaign, Eisenhower was recruited by both parties, and Leonard Finder, publisher of the Manchester Union Leader, wanted to lead an effort to put Eisenhower on the ballot for the state’s primary. In response, Eisenhower — who at the time was Army chief of staff but would soon leave to become president of Columbia University — issued a statement, declaring, “I am not available for and could not accept nomination to high political office.” He insisted that the “decision to remove myself completely from the political scene is definite and positive.”
After issuing the statement, he expressed his sense of relief to Hazlett, explaining, “Now that it is done, I can at least devote my mind unreservedly to a number of other important things and will not feel like I am constantly on the ‘witness stand.’”
Eisenhower continued to disclaim any interest in the presidency, both publicly and in his private correspondences, over the next several years. But eventually, a confluence of factors led him to change his mind.
His writing reflected his increasing concern that the country was moving toward a “cradle to grave” welfare state, which allied him with Republicans. At the same time, he found the party to be dominated by extremists who were too nasty and negative. There was a fear among the party establishment that if the Republicans lost the 1952 election — having last won the presidency in 1928 — it would effectively end the two-party system.
In December 1950, Eisenhower agreed to become supreme commander of NATO. He arranged a meeting with the non-interventionist conservative U.S. senator Robert Taft, who was seen as a top contender for the 1952 Republican nomination. Eisenhower was ready to issue a statement definitively removing himself from politics if Taft agreed to support NATO, but he was unable to extract such a commitment. Over time, supporters convinced Eisenhower that he had a duty to run to serve the American people who were desperate for change. He was particularly moved when a midnight Eisenhower rally attracted 33,000 backers to Madison Square Garden (a prominent supporter flew to Paris to show him a film of the February 1952 event).
THE NATURE OF POLITICS has changed so much in the 60 years since Eisenhower ran that it would be difficult to replicate such a series of events. In Eisenhower’s time, the primaries were virtually meaningless, and delegates often chose the nominee in closed-door meetings. Eisenhower managed to win the New Hampshire primary without even campaigning, while based in Europe commanding NATO. He didn’t even return to America until June 1, 1952 — just five months before the general election. He managed to win the nomination at the convention, which turned into a battle between Northeastern establishment Republicans and the conservative Taft supporters.
It’s hard to see how Petraeus could make any similar transition ahead of the 2012 election, given how modern campaigns work. Right now, several prospective Republican candidates already have political action committees set up, as well as skeleton staffs. If the schedule is similar to the last presidential election cycle, it means that candidates will begin to form exploratory committees by the end of this year and spend 2011 touring the early primary states and debating one another. It’s hard to envision any scenario under which Petraeus would abandon his post during a critical stage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so that he could barnstorm around Iowa and New Hampshire making political speeches attacking the commander in chief. And if he did, it would undermine the very qualities that make him attractive as a potential candidate to begin with. On top of this, right now, Americans are more concerned with domestic issues like the economy and health care than they are with national security matters.
Thus, if Petraeus were ever to decide to run for president, it’s unlikely to happen before the 2016 election. Even then, there are a lot of important differences remaining between a potential Petraeus candidacy and Eisenhower’s run for president — and not just the fact that his name won’t lend itself to a jingle akin to “We like Ike.”
Most importantly, Eisenhower was much more widely known in America as commander of a popular war. Taking nothing away from Petraeus’s accomplishments in Iraq given the cards he was dealt, the reality is that most Americans think the war was a mistake and many don’t even know Petraeus. In addition, even if Americans view the war in Afghanistan — as well as the broader war on terrorism —as more necessary, it still won’t reach as satisfying a conclusion as World War II.
“This is not the kind of war where you take the hill, plant the flag, and go home to a victory parade,” Petraeus said when discussing the campaign against al Qaeda, but he could have just as easily been discussing his political future.
If Petraeus entered a Republican primary battle, he’d no longer be treated with the deference typically paid to high-ranking military officers, and would be subject both to personal attacks and interrogations about his domestic policy views, which remain unknown. There was a time when Colin Powell was seen as a potential Republican candidate, but that speculation evaporated as some of his more liberal positions became known.
It’s also hard to know how Petraeus would perform as a campaigner, which requires a unique skill set that doesn’t always come naturally. In 2004, many Democrats thought they had a winner in Wesley Clark, the anti-Iraq war general, but his boomlet quickly fizzled due to his awkwardness as a candidate.
About the Author
Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein
Letter to the Editor View all comments (173) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Philip Klein
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/03/will-petraeus-be-like-ike
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Consternated Conferences
- The Continuing Crisis
- The Vast and the Tiny
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 5.3.10 @ 6:17AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Will Petraeus Be Like Ike? [spectato links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Kenny| 5.3.10 @ 6:46AM
And what are Petraeus' positions on scoial and economic issues????
Alan Brooks| 5.3.10 @ 7:00PM
Gosh, we thought Palin would be president, but now her poster is slowly being ripped from the kiosk.
Daphne| 5.3.10 @ 9:12PM
So is your brown boy's.
Alan Brooks| 5.3.10 @ 9:28PM
Women aren't mean enough to be presidents.
Remember this is AS, no one has to be politically correct-- and PC cuts both ways; you cannot say "I can gore someone's ox, but they cannot gore mine." because it wont hold for long.
Alan Brooks| 5.3.10 @ 9:31PM
But best thing is let you find out the hard way that Obama will win-- and should win to teach Repuglicans a valuable though unwanted lesson (no one wants to be told they are misguided even if it is to their benefit to be told so): that they can't expect to win general elections any more merely because of Reagan.
It's worn too thin and you are one of the last to know.
Daphne| 5.3.10 @ 10:38PM
Actually, your unhinged rants have grown thin but that doesn't stop you from puking your idiocy all over this blog.
You support traitors who have to lie and cheat to win--your liberal parents would be so proud that you've turned out to be a dirtbag just like them.
People like you have destroyed our country.
Shame on you, but I'm sure you don't feel shame because amoral liberals like you don't have a conscience.
Alan Brooks| 5.4.10 @ 10:12PM
You think you are innocent? then YOU are the liar.
gisela| 5.6.10 @ 9:40PM
all the while you Allen and Daphney argue this President is laughing his hiney off that he has acomblished to divide this country.We need to band together and find a leader that has both of our interrest at heart
Bob From District 9| 5.6.10 @ 6:16PM
You support traitors who have to lie and cheat to "win..."
OMG, you mean he suppored Bush?!?!?!
jer| 5.8.10 @ 12:48AM
You had better hope that the Rep's dont win over the congress in Nov. , or Obama (WILL ( have to show his ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIF. ) That will end him right there.....for sure.
Since him and his wife have both stated he is not a NATURAL BORN......
Soljerblue| 5.3.10 @ 10:25PM
Tell that to Golda Maier, Indira Ghandi, and Margaret Thatcher
Alan Brooks| 5.4.10 @ 10:13PM
"Tell that to Golda Maier, Indira Ghandi, and Margaret Thatcher"
AMERICAN presidents.
Name one woman who has been an American president.
My2Cents| 5.6.10 @ 7:59PM
One woman who has been President?....Barack Obama.
Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 4:07AM
Unlike Daphne, Obama has a you-know-what.
Daph's problem? penis envy.
TLS| 5.4.10 @ 12:05AM
"Women aren't mean enough to be presidents."?
Obama's giving it a go.
Paul| 5.6.10 @ 10:40PM
Wow. No wonder most of this country hates Republicans.
Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 4:09AM
Since the end of the Cold War,
Repuglicans have been their own worst enemies.
Just you watch how they screw it up in the next two years.
Dewayna Killen | 5.6.10 @ 12:59AM
Well first Philip Klein , you have such a "messaging Problem!" It's not just the use of incorrect punctuation that you use to " flip flop" a reader's mind from this "Feature/Article/Weelky Archive/Brain Teaser, it's also the incorrect Paragraph Structure and overall Topic!!!! Who the Hell is Ike??? Those of us who can read, appreciate at least being able to know what the "Archive "from The American Spectator is even about!!! Who the Helll is Ike???? If you don't know who Ike is, then how can you compare him to Petraeis? Philip Klein, if I see any more of your atricles, I don't care if they are in Homes Garden Magazine, I will definitely avoid trying to figure your Flip Flop Writing Style out? It's like -Who's on First? Nahh! Surely not Ike! Who is Ike????????
Bob From District 9| 5.6.10 @ 6:19PM
How can you not like Ike?
Ike was the last republican to win the presidency.
After that a bunch of republicans took the Whitehouse, but not because they won, but the democrat lost. Except Bush II who stole it.
Mike-N-TN| 5.6.10 @ 7:18PM
Not that again! You Libs are stuck in the past just like your fumbling messiah.
Bush won against Kerry and Gore although both of those tried to steal it. Get your facts right, you lying liberal or try to prove me wrong!
::: god these idiots... always Bush's fault.. freakin children!!!:::
Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 11:49PM
I don't dislike the Bushes. What was unpleasantly surprising was when Kemp was run as the warm-bucket-of-spit candidate in '96.
I disliked DOLE, and resent the GOP for insulting our intelligence with lesser candidates.
Most of all the GOP hurt Reagan Democrats, who trusted the GOP to give them an alternative (the GOP speaks of competition ceaselessly) to the Dems.
Ret. Marine| 5.3.10 @ 7:10AM
Having been taught at an early stage in life, never say never, I'll hold my thoughts about the good General's decision to replace king dipsheet. What a great Commander, leads by example, sets examples and then follows up on those examples. If do often wonder if the wonder-n-theif, commonly known as hussein obama, ever noticed his short comings with the likes of this General, if not he's truely a tool but, we alrady knew that about the time of his announcement to be king dip-sheet.
I think the differences between a good commander-in-cheif and a great one has always included their time spent in service to the security of this Nation. And we wonder why the little o and his team of American haters are at the top of the food chain at the moment. king-dipsheet, obama is a wanna-be, Petraus is an American both by words and deeds, also can prove it.
pjean| 5.3.10 @ 10:50PM
Can't help but be reminded that General George Washington didn't want to lead the nation either. Those were different times, but I would hope that a leader will emerge that is not beholden to any political machine, but rather to American principles that are most supported by the American people.
Bob From District 9| 5.6.10 @ 6:21PM
"the good General's decision to replace king dipsheet"
Too late, Bush already left office.
"Petraus is an American both by words and deeds, also can prove it. "
He did, by being the opposite of GWB.
Tim*| 5.3.10 @ 7:22AM
" Whaa' we got heeeah is failure to communicate ".
" I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."
Bob From District 9| 5.6.10 @ 6:22PM
" I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."
He said that.
robert| 5.3.10 @ 7:52AM
I do not understand how we have had 2 recent Presidents that could not get a secret security clearance (minimum to go to most military training courses). This endorses a lot of what the old Navy Chiefs labeled "FU civilians"
By the bye as a minimum your FATHER had to have a birthcertificate ..... in both cases I would suggest either the Father or the Mother is not confirmed. Blythe and Barry .. "One Big Ass Mistake America".
Purpleguy| 5.3.10 @ 5:16PM
That ship has sailed... get over it. Bush had to be accepted in the 2000 fiasco, and you have your birther tendencies to swallow. Swallow hard and move on.
JimE| 5.3.10 @ 6:59PM
Purpletard, always with the homo innuendo, you are one serious heterophobe.
Interloper| 5.3.10 @ 9:13PM
Purplygay is a bagger.
Alan Brooks| 5.5.10 @ 4:26PM
Purpleguy,
let these fools run another Bush or Dole or McCain-- they can't find a replacement for Reagan-- after over 21 years!
Pure GOP cluelessness. And they think we have to respect them? Pure self-deception.
Conrad Spiracy| 5.5.10 @ 9:57PM
It's not the Republicans you need to respect, it's the CONSERVATIVES.
Con Spiracy
Excelsior!
Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 4:11AM
Don't tell it to me, tell it to the RNC.
Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 4:13AM
oh, and BTW, what sort of childishness is
"Con Spiracy... Excelsior"
JP| 5.3.10 @ 7:56AM
Modern politics and the military are worlds apart -as they should be. Success in one doesn't translate to success in another. In Ike's time, the 1952 campaign was made to order for him. In that context, Bush and Truman shared an strange semblance. Both were very unpopular presidents due to bloody foreign military campaigns (It may be hard to believe, but Truman was actually less popular than Bush we he left office). Truman also lost support of the unions due to him putting down the Steel Strike. And, the intelligentsia never really warmed to the plain spoken bumpkin from Missouri . Bush would share the same disdain. Ike easily won the election in 1952, just as Obama did in 2008. Like Obama, Ike's run could not have been better scripted.
Petraeous has no political networks, no money, and no political connections that can throw him to the front if he was to jump into the mix. The GOP in 2008 is nothing like the GOP of 1951-1952. The old families who ran the GOP lost thier clout many decades ago. Today, a candidate is on his/her own. He better be wealthy, or have a pipeline to wealthy donors; have an advisor like Karl Rove; and a network of volunteers ready and willing to put in the work. It can be done. But, the General currently has a mission to complete.
It should also be noted that Ike's presidency was bitter sweet. It was nice to have his foreing policy and military expertise. But, as far as slowing down or reversing the New Deal policies of the 1930s, he expanded them. He found out quickly that once huge entitlements are in place, they are impossible to cut. He also sponsored the Interstate Highway Act (which quickened the pace of urban decay), and he was totally tone deaf as far as race relations went. But one of his 2 biggest mistakes were the nominations of Earl Warren and William Brennen to the Supreme Court. Those mistakes would haunt this nation and the GOP into the 1990s. As it turned out, Ike could have easily have been a Democrat.
I have nothing but admiration for General Petraeous as a commander. But that doesn't mean he would make a good politicians. The last high ranking commander that was mentioned in the same light was Colin Powell. And if one goes through the list of other recent field commanders (Zinni, McPeek, and Clark), one cannot ignore that reaching the rank of field grade officer doesn't mean one is a Republican.
Vince H| 5.3.10 @ 10:23AM
Good points all, but O-7 and higher is flag grade, not field grade.
DJ| 5.3.10 @ 12:05PM
Well, in the Army and Air Force it's *general* grade. Flag grade is only for Navy, Coast Guard and Marines.
Gr0w1er| 5.3.10 @ 12:27PM
Marines have general officers, not flag rank.
Dai Alanye | 5.3.10 @ 12:58PM
Just like Ike. Another apolitical general who polishes his legacy with our highest office while holding political stances unknown beforehand. Another man all to affected by the opinions of appointees, not having developed his own. Another useful tool for RINOs to frustrate conservatives.
Ike left the Republican party weakened, and generally fouled-up domestic policies. We'd be terribly unwise to send in some hero without knowing his deeply-held political beliefs. The Presidency should not be an award for good behavior in another field whether it is "saving the Olympics" or leading some foreign war.
Further, wasn't it Gen'l Ray Odierno who was most responsible for "the surge," not to mention similar efforts by the Marine Corps during the '20s and '30s in Central America and the Caribbean?
JBobs| 5.3.10 @ 1:34PM
I echo that we should be wary of the unknowns of General Petraeus. By the way, who in charge makes the decisions on the terms of engagement for our soldiers... those are not a positive indicator.
nova9047| 5.6.10 @ 12:29PM
If he quacks like a patriot, chances are he's a patriot.
GW| 5.5.10 @ 1:35PM
For a "Rino", Ike reaffirmed the religious founding of our nation by making (with Congress of course) "In God We Trust" the National Motto in 1956. He also launched "Operation Wetback" to curtail illegal immigration. He was a staunch anti-Communist who built up nukes. His Interstate Highway system helped cut travel time down for millions.
GW| 5.5.10 @ 1:42PM
And Ike's biggest regret was his Supreme Court pick of Earl Warren. Even Reagan made a mistake (amnesty)!
nova9047| 5.6.10 @ 12:39PM
As Cal AG, Warren had been somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun: interning Japanese-Americans, busting up Red-led dock strikers, supporting capital punishment, etc. Who knew?
Jon B| 5.6.10 @ 6:41PM
I like Ike, since he was the last conservative to run as a Republican and win, but his deliberate starvation of 3/4 of a million Germans after WW2 was over in US controlled camps gives me pause (see "Other Losses" by James Bacque-fully documented)
Majito| 5.3.10 @ 1:17PM
Was not the Korean conflict under Ike's? How about our involvement in Viet-Nam? Did not the first US troops in se asia landed under Ike's? I'm not too sure about his foreign policy skills...he stopped general blood and guts to take care of stalin when we had the upper hand and could have done so...naw, this gent just happen to land during the 'i like ike' post war years but he created lotsa of headaches for the us...kind like jimmy 'malaise' carter...played a bohic on the shah of iran and thus dammed the iranis to 30+ years of mullahs rule...
Wardog| 5.4.10 @ 12:59PM
1. No, the Korean War started under Truman in 1950; Ike stopped the war after he was elected
2. No, Ike kept the military out of SE Asia, and warned Kennedy to do the same. The military build up started under JFK
3. Ike was the military commander, not the Commander - in - Chief. It was a political decision to not go after the Russians. This decision was made by Truman, who was CIC.
4. Ike was nothing like Jimmy Carter.
Get your facts straight; you just look stupid with your inane comments that show you know nothing about history.
DanMingo| 5.6.10 @ 12:53PM
"No, Ike kept the military out of SE Asia, and warned Kennedy to do the same. The military build up started under JFK"
Fact Check: In Oct 1954 President Eisenhower wrote to the then-President of Vietnam, Diem, and in his letter stated support for their (Vietnam's) fight against 'communism'.
"We have been exploring ways and means to permit our aid to Vietnam to be more effective and to make a greater contribution to the welfare and stability of the Government of Vietnam. I am, accordingly, instructing the American Ambassador to Vietnam [Donald R. Heath] to examine with you in your capacity as Chief of Government, how an intelligent program of American aid given directly to your Government can serve to assist Vietnam in its present hour of trial, provided that your Government is prepared to give assurances as to the standards of performance it would be able to maintain in the event such aid were supplied."
Prior to this letter, sent in Oct. 1954, the US in May of 1954 was providing 78% of the military/financial assistance following France's surrender:
"When the French surrendered at Dienbienphu on May 7, 1954, the U.S. was footing 78 percent of the war's financial burden. We had offered, and the French rejected the idea, to use an A-bomb to relieve Dienbienphu."
Not exactly 'keeping the military out of SE Asia".
In fact, military 'advisors' began arriving in 1950.
Kennedy did subsequently increase our military involvement, but the program had begun years prior to his election.
Bob From District 9| 5.6.10 @ 6:53PM
"1. No, the Korean War started under Truman in 1950; Ike stopped the war after he was elected"
Ike stopped the fighting. The war goes on.
"2. No, Ike kept the military out of SE Asia, and warned Kennedy to do the same. The military build up started under JFK"
Ike did send the first US forces to Vietnam. He got us in there.
Purpleguy| 5.3.10 @ 5:19PM
You don't reach flag rank , generally, without being a politician. Whether D or R, they all can function in the political arena.
Bob From District 9| 5.6.10 @ 6:27PM
"And, the intelligentsia never really warmed to the plain spoken bumpkin from Missouri ."
Truman was actually quite intellectual, highly literate, and an accomplished musician.
He was also plain spoken. Those are not contradictory.
Oh, and black people loved him.
JimH| 5.3.10 @ 9:18AM
How about 'We crave Dave'?
Interloper| 5.3.10 @ 9:15PM
Purplygay would love that!
SteveC| 5.3.10 @ 9:45AM
Petraeus is the perfect candidate to break the mold of creating campaign organizations and fund-raising many years before the election. We now think of this as a necessity. Why?
He has precisely the type of resume that makes a "late" start the perfect start. And, unlike our current President, he can paint a legitimate picture of a President who did not grow up in the despicable political vineyards we call Washington.
It seems a guy like this, without a ledger full of debts owed for past favors, is precisely the type of (you'll pardon the expression) "change" candidate we've all been looking for.
A successful Petreaus candidacy would encourage others without millions in the coffers and the requisite Washington resume to run for national office, perhaps the most useful contribution the General could possibly make.
Lawrence D. Cannon| 5.3.10 @ 9:46AM
He recalled driving in Cambridge visiting his son at MIT a few years ago, and seeing a sign that declared, "Hate the war, love the troops." He said, "50 percent ain't bad, and they got the right 50 percent." He thanked the audience for supporting soldiers both at the outset of his remarks and as he concluded.
The anti-war left has changed tactics on opposing the troops. During the Vietnam War, they'd lie in wait in airports and spit on them and call them "baby killers", because they thought they would get the most support for their anti-war activities that way. Unfortunately for them, the combination of the millions slaughtered in SE Asia after the War, and the revelations that those soldiers were doing the best job they could under difficult circumstances, put egg on their faces.
For the Iraq War, they understand they can't spit on the troops anymore- the combination of unit rotations, and too many of us supporters ready to kick their a$$es, and they don't dare. However, what I've found is they're trying to make the troops "objects of pity" or "victims", like they're helpless cripples being forced against their will to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, this flies in the face of the troops who've had 2, 3, up to 5 tours in the War Zone since we began liberating the Middle East in 2003.
Ironically, a fanatic anti-war, anti-American freaks should be trying to denigrate THESE troops if they had a hair on their a$$. In Vietnam, many of them were draftees who didn't want any part of the military, much less combat. Here, EVERY soldier-sailor-airman-Marine is a volunteer, going into conflicted wide-eyed and knowing the consequences of war. The anti-war Left say they "Support our troops" and "Support our heroes"....how? Do they support the way they've defeated a 3rd Rate Dictator and a bunch of retarded mullahs? Support the way our snipers can make head-shots at over a mile? Support how well our troops can kill insurgents while keeping civilian casualties at a minimum? No, they want our troops to become quivering, fetal-positioned whineybabies, just like the average Obamabot.
J Lee| 5.3.10 @ 1:04PM
Precisely.
Gr0w1er| 5.3.10 @ 1:22PM
Ditto.
Purpleguy| 5.3.10 @ 5:22PM
Obama's policies have killed more Al Qaeda and Taliban since he's been President than your boy did in 8 years. Conflating Viet Nam era and Iraq era is stupid at best.
Interloper| 5.3.10 @ 9:18PM
The only reason Obowmao has been successful is because of GWB's policies, moron.
You wussies on the left suck at defending the country--Willy Clinton caused September 11, 2001!
Soljerblue| 5.3.10 @ 10:34PM
I invite you to cite the numbers and facts that prove your point. I don't think you can. From your posts I've seen on TAS, I conclude you are a blowhard. And the exit point isn't your mouth. Capice?
Bob From District 9| 5.6.10 @ 6:41PM
"The anti-war left has changed tactics on opposing the troops. During the Vietnam War, they'd lie in wait in airports and spit on them and call them "baby killers", because they thought they would get the most support for their anti-war activities that way. Unfortunately for them, the combination of the millions slaughtered in SE Asia after the War, and the revelations that those soldiers were doing the best job they could under difficult circumstances, put egg on their faces."
And an awful lot of those soldiers became the anti-war element of today. Don't make the mistake of thinking all the anti-war are left, Ron Paul opposes that war. And a lot of conservatives opposed Vietnam.
"For the Iraq War, they understand they can't spit on the troops anymore- the combination of unit rotations, and too many of us supporters ready to kick their a$$es, and they don't dare. "
How fortunate for you the veterans of that era and that war are now pushing and over 60. Otherwise you might be the one needing to worry about which way the kicks are going.
"However, what I've found is they're trying to make the troops "objects of pity" or "victims", like they're helpless cripples being forced against their will to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, this flies in the face of the troops who've had 2, 3, up to 5 tours in the War Zone since we began liberating the Middle East in 2003."
When do we finally liberate the Middle East? And why did the military have "stop loss"? Why has the Air Force been compelled to transfer men to the Army? Why are those soldiers serving 3-4-5 tours?
And why did they need to up the age for enlistment to over 40? And accept so many who would be rejects in better times?
"Ironically, a fanatic anti-war, anti-American freaks should be trying to denigrate THESE troops if they had a hair on their a$$. In Vietnam, many of them were draftees who didn't want any part of the military, much less combat. "
And those draftees and many enlistees are the ones who denounced the war and wanted our people back.
...
"The anti-war Left say they "Support our troops"
What does the anti-war right say?
"and "Support our heroes"....how? Do they support the way they've defeated a 3rd Rate Dictator and a bunch of retarded mullahs? "
What is there to chear about that? Esp since that country never attacked us? Never was any threat to us?
"Support the way our snipers can make head-shots at over a mile?
Our snipers have been doing that for generations.
" Support how well our troops can kill insurgents while keeping civilian casualties at a minimum? "
Not that you give a damn about minimizing civilian casualties.
"No, they want our troops to become quivering, fetal-positioned whineybabies, just like the average Obamabot."
Like I said, fortunately for you those Vietnam era vets are pushing or over 60.
During all the hue and cry about getting our people out by the end of the year, in the middle of the war, the Marine Times published an article citing a survey showing 70% of our service people over there wanted the US out within a year. That didn't matter to you, now did it?
Gen Jay Garner, the first Iraq administrator wanted elections immediately and out people out soon.
Rumsfeld screwed all that up, and screwed up so much more that he has the blood of those thousands of American troops on his hands.
Majito| 5.3.10 @ 9:53AM
Sorry folks, I'm not sold on military folks...specially in modern times...what happened with the prior general that entered politics, you know powell? how did this exercise ended? let the gen gen go by the way of the old soldiers...just fade away...thank him for his military service and leave it at that...an individual who is used to say...pick that cigarette butt and 100 folks bend over usually can't build consensus...he's not used to this...just look at our current admin...majority on both houses and they still can't get a bill passed unless strong arm tactics, intimidation and bribery are used. compare this situation with old ronnie that actually got legislation passed sipping on irish spirits with ol' tipp...naw...we need young blood untainted by the power elite...let some young lions and lioness in there and shake this whole putrid bushel that the congress/senate chambers have become...we need young blood..the old is stale, too accustomed to back handed deals and more interested in their ego than american well being. ..the old book does state the new wine need new wine skins..in our case, we do not have wine, we're getting vinegar and the wine skins have become too old and tainted to be of any good...it can't get any worst...experience? hmmm...let's see how has that experience worked? they're all acting like 'gee gosh miss molly, we never saw it coming'...
Bob From District 9| 5.6.10 @ 6:44PM
"Sorry folks, I'm not sold on military folks...specially in modern times...what happened with the prior general that entered politics, you know powell?"
What happened with Powell? You mean why didn't he run? He got death threats against his family.
Quite certainly from people on the far right.
yarrrr| 5.3.10 @ 10:04AM
Petraeus is not going to run for president... and to tell you the truth it wouldn't be right for a (major) general to run against someone he served under...
Purpleguy| 5.3.10 @ 5:22PM
What makes y'all think he'd run as a Republican? Wishful thinking if you ask me.
Interloper| 5.3.10 @ 8:00PM
Of course Petraeus will run as a republican, there's no way the General would run as a Marxist, fool!
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.3.10 @ 10:09AM
I have been re-reading Vince Flynn's "Mitch Rapp"
series of novels.
Why?
Because two weeks ago my wife came back from a business trip.......... by herself, darn it. She grabbed one of the early books in the series to read on the plane...came home...walked into my study to ask very very seriously..."Is there really a guy out there like Mitch Rapp?"
My response was very serious too. I replied: "Well, Mitch is a sort of composite character ...of LOTs of splendid guys out there!"
Folks,
The General is one of them!
One more major "foreigner" attack on American soil could very well FORCE the General to re-consider, just like Ike did vis a vi the Korean War.
Ray| 5.3.10 @ 10:30AM
He shouldn't run, both parties just want to use him to help themselves. A guy can be brilliant in war and clueless about politics and corruption, it'll be like Ulysses S. Grant all over again.
Also Ray| 5.3.10 @ 1:17PM
Generals and Flag Officers don't make it to their position without lots of politics. I'd be reluctant to vote for any former General Officer without some prior indication of his political views, esp. one who got his first star at the end of the Clinton era (he was promoted to COL in 1995 and BG in 2000).
That doesn't mean for certain that something is wrong with him, but it does mean that you should be cautious.
Ben| 5.3.10 @ 11:03AM
The Eisenhower in the GOP comparisons may be a non-starter. Both Ike and Petraeus are great men, but I'm pretty sure Eisenhower would be teabagged out of today's Republican Party.
Howard| 5.3.10 @ 11:08AM
Valid points. But I'm sure JFK would be shown the same consideration as Joe Lieberman received from his party. The parties are much more ideological than before, and electoral districts are much more politically homogeneous than 60 years ago.
Ben| 5.3.10 @ 11:18AM
Not sure about JFK, but you could say that about quite a few Democrats from that era. BTW, I've got to refrain from the term teabagging when talking about the Tea Partiers. Its tempting when you're about as mature as most 14 year olds.
Eisenhower| 5.3.10 @ 3:36PM
I agree about Eisenhower, but I disagree about Kennedy. If he had survived he may not have been well loved by the base and perhaps he would've suffered politically like LBJ. However, todays liberals have been more willing to embrace their Democratic leaders even if they do "stab them in the back." For example: Obama on the Public Option, the Patriot Act, Off Shore drilling, and the "surge" in Afghanistan. Bill Clinton has been called by liberals "the Best Republican President ever", I've heard the same said about Obama. They may not have like some of JFK policies, but he's a Democrat so they would've embraced him anyway. As for Joe Lieberman.......well there's always the exception to the rule, not mention if he did this: http://politicalwire.com/archi.....t_bid.html
I think they'll eventually forgive him, especially if Crist wins and caucuses with the Democrats.
Bob From District 9| 5.6.10 @ 6:49PM
"Bill Clinton has been called by liberals "the Best Republican President ever", "
Nope. Just the best republican president in a long time.
After all, there was Lincoln. And Teddy Roosevelt.
Howard| 5.3.10 @ 11:05AM
While Ike was a very good president, he failed in working to enhance GOP influence from the grass roots. This allowed both six or eight years of Democratic control of Congress, and bringing us Richard Nixon, to our detriment. I think with the Democrats much more ideologically leftist; we need a GOP president who is fully vetted as a conservative. I can visualize Gen. Petraeus morphing into David Souter. Not a good choice.
Prickly Thorn| 5.3.10 @ 6:08PM
Ditto that brother,...
Siegfried X| 5.3.10 @ 11:38AM
The liberals who run the Republican Party are looking for another McCain, a "maverick" RINO who votes like a Democrat but still gets Republican votes because of his military service.
NEVER AGAIN.
htconserv| 5.3.10 @ 12:42PM
This general is exactly who the progressives want to run for president. Because of his uniform, he gives the impression that he is a conservative, patriotic American. Progressives are trying to get in to the conservative psyche so we are fooled in to voting for someone who will not correct our course back to limited government and eliminate many of the insane progressive institutions.
Remember with progressives the ends justify the means so any McCain type candidate will lie and pretend to be American Apple Pie to get in to office. Look at McCain now on immigration. He was all for Amnesty up until he is up for election and his state has taken matters in to it's own hands due to his failure to protect AZ citizens. Notice the RINO progressive flip flop on policy during an election year. We must elect leaders based upon their track record, stance on issues and potential standing on upcoming issues that we can PROVE, not because they make us feel good.
Q: If a loss in November 2010 and 2012 is imminent for the progressives, what would be their next course of action? A: To ensure that as many RINOs and progressives in hiding as possible are elected and will not go against the legislation and programs they have created over the decades. The progressives want gridlock so we can not return to limited government. Mark my word, the progressives know what is going to happen at the ballot box so they will do everything possible with planting RINOS to prevent a strong conservative administration.
Once things are in gridlock, the progressives will start to turn up the heat with a compliant media and in coordination with their largest campaign contributor: Goldman Sachs manipulate the stock market. This will lead to them beating on the drum we need a “new presidential candidate that breaks the mold.” Then we are back to a progressive in 2016. Progressives are far too easy to read and understand if you can get in to their warped power hungry minds.
Mr. Mojo Risin| 5.3.10 @ 1:07PM
A cardboard cut-out of Gen. Petraeus in the oval office would be more effective than that jug-eared schmuck there now!!!
xcon| 5.3.10 @ 6:29PM
"Amen" and "I hear you" to that.
Gr0w1er| 5.3.10 @ 1:29PM
There have been two presidents elected without ANY type of military service (Militia, National Guard,Reserve or Active Duty): William Jefferson Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. Need I say more?
canuckistani| 5.3.10 @ 3:17PM
And Bush 43....unless you include weekends in Mobile when daddy wasn't covering his back.
And John Adams, his son, too, and Cleveland...oh yeah and all between Taft and FDR.
So yes, you need to say more....and what is your point exactly?
All other presidents either had a national call to service during a declared war or fulfilled their selective service onus a la Bush 43. He had to since 41 was a strong military supporter. Cheney dodged as did Clinton. Obama, whether you like him or not, was thankfully raised during peacetime and was enabled to seek other ways of serving.
Reagan: fought on the homefront, no action
Nixon: saw action, was a crook, resigned in disgrace
LBJ: saw action, blew the Vietnam War
41: excellent service, won desert storm, lost like Churchill to a populist.
John Navratil| 5.3.10 @ 5:13PM
Bush 43 service 6 years in the Guard flying F-102's over the gulf at a time when it was considered a potential weak spot. Weekends in Mobile occurred while he asked for and received permission to work on the Senate campaign of Winton Blount.
Regardless of what one thinks of Bush, one doesn't obtain flight status without working for it.
Still, he earned over six years more points than he was obligated to earn and was honorably discharged at a time when the services were eager to release people after the end of the Vietnam war -- not much call for jet jockeys in 1974.
JimE| 5.3.10 @ 7:05PM
Obama "seek other ways of serving" you are one funny retard. LBJ was BS. The most you can say about Lyndon Johnson and his Silver Star is that it is surely one of the most undeserved Silver Stars in history, because if you accept everything that he said, he was still in action for no more than 13 minutes and only as an observer. Men who flew many missions, brave men, never got a Silver Star."[
GavInTucson| 5.4.10 @ 1:34AM
It's important to note that LBJ put HIMSELF in for that Silver Star.
Never in military history has an unearned medal been so proudly worn.
Daphne| 5.4.10 @ 9:23AM
I don't know about that, Gav; John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry wears THREE unearned medals.
Puking liberals.
JP| 5.4.10 @ 7:29AM
Cheney's medical deferrement in hindisght appears legit. Afterall, he had open heart surgery before he was 32.
Jose Mendez| 5.3.10 @ 6:40PM
You needn't say any more. Just saying their names (BJ bill and the mocha messiah) makes me want to spit to get the bad taste out of my mouth.
canuckistani| 5.4.10 @ 5:01PM
....from too much time on your knees?
Ohiolad| 5.3.10 @ 1:32PM
Right now his politics are unknown, but from what I am reading Petraeus seems to possess the one quality that would make him a suitable candidate – he doesn’t really want to be president and doesn’t really desire to have the power that comes with. George Washington didn’t either. But he was pressed into service because he alone was in a position to unify the country. And like a latter-day Cincinnatus, Washington stepped down and retired to his farm as soon as he could. It is a great irony that we often wind up with leaders who are tirelessly self-promoting, seek power merely for the sake of possessing it, and stay in power as long as possible to gratify their own egos when these qualities alone should have disqualified them.
Herman King| 5.6.10 @ 12:46PM
Whoever the Wizard behind the curtain wants as puppet-in-chief will be anointed.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.3.10 @ 1:59PM
Ohiolad,
Welcome to our conversations here. Please remember that perhaps a half million patriotic Americans read these comments day to day. Your posts should be your best thoughts.
Thank you for your thoughts above. Splendid!
Occam's Tool| 5.3.10 @ 5:12PM
As usual, magnificent, Old Texican.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.3.10 @ 2:01PM
Growler,
Thank you for your thought above. Welcome also.
Mark MacInnis| 5.3.10 @ 3:39PM
Oh, man....it would drive the Liberals absolutely NUTS to have a military man in the white house again.....
canuckistani| 5.3.10 @ 4:00PM
A military man like Ike or 43?
There is a difference.
I prefer Ike. He had patience and a willingness to address sacred cows. No man is an island.
Any top brass today has been brought up in a socialized environment: medical, education, living quarters, uniform codes, a professional military.
They have also witnessed the treatment of veterans, the abhorrent stop-loss programs and the forced retirements of good peers due to dissent that was known to be honest and then proven to be correct.
Most retired generals value life, become doves in retirement, and are less apt to beat the drums whenever a local gets a bloody nose.
Be careful what you wish for, folks.
If Petraeus was Prez in 2003, he likely would have not pushed the "stupid" button like 43 did, and would have chosen to listen to top strategists rather than pentagon suits with political agendas.
Red Sox Native| 5.3.10 @ 6:10PM
Vote for a Damn Yankees' fan.
I sooner see another 4 years of Dumbo followed by the modern iteration of Margaret Hamilton.
Northern Rebel| 5.3.10 @ 7:03PM
I don't know all of the General's political views, but I do know he was attacked by socialist democrats, so he's got that going for him!
Bob K.| 5.3.10 @ 7:41PM
Today, by coincidence, David Goldman, Conservative Columnist for "ASIA TIMES," who writes there under the Pen Name "Spengler;" has an Essay on General Petraeus. It is entitled "GENERAL PETRAEUS' THIRTY YEARS WAR."
It does not leave one feeling confident about the General's ability to lead our nation. You can access the article here:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE04Ak01.html
USMC| 5.3.10 @ 9:03PM
"Petraeus Won't Betray Us!" That's a slogan & it counters what those punk progressives said of him in an ad.
Frank Natoli| 5.3.10 @ 9:43PM
Would Petraeus be like Ike? Would Petraeus be like Nelson Rockefeller?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....idate.html
Keep in mind that the Telegraph's Spillius is as left wing bigoted as a "reporter" can get. But if Petraeus looks in the mirror and sees Nelson Rockefeller, then I don't see candidate Petraeus getting my vote.
Fred Dardick| 5.3.10 @ 9:56PM
Petraeus sold out Israel this past winter - he basically said that it was Israel's fault for everything bad that happens in the Middle East. Once this becomes common knowledge in the conservative community, which I guarantee it will, his support will dry up.
He is a great military leader and will surely be remembered as such, but he doesn't have the chops to be a Republican President.
Jeremiah| 5.3.10 @ 10:42PM
I'm not feelin' it--the General is moderate at best.
No thanks.
FeralCat| 5.4.10 @ 2:13AM
He has become an Arabist and like the Arabs blames 'The Jews".
bc3b| 5.3.10 @ 11:15PM
Patreus is, by his own admission, a Rockefeller Republican. He probably would be another Ike, who gave us Justices Warren and Brennen.
When Philip Klein quoted incompetent Nicole Wallace, his credibility went down the tubes.
Janice| 5.4.10 @ 9:25AM
Nicole Wallace is a backbiting loser.
FeralCat| 5.4.10 @ 2:02AM
Will Petraeus be like Ike? You have got to be kidding me!
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America
Pingback| 5.4.10 @ 2:04AM
The American Spectator : Will Petraeus Be Like Ike? capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
FeralCat| 5.4.10 @ 2:06AM
Yahweh, David Petraeus
Won’t okay the way you do your thing
Ding ding ding, ding, ding, ding
And you’ll get yours, David Petraeus
Codlin' and even sidin’ with that Islam stuff like you do
Boo hoo hoo, boo hoo hoo
Where have you gone, General George S. Patton?
Our nation turns its longing eyes to you
What’s that you say, David Petraeus?
You have sent Blood and Guts far away
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey
Coo coo ca-choo, David Petraeus
Mohammad appreciates you more than you will know
Woo woo woo, woo woo woo
Allah blesses you, yes, David Petraeus
He may grant some mercy to those infidels who their own betray
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey
FeralCat| 5.4.10 @ 2:10AM
“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests… Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas….”
The above , which is a Blood Libel against Israel, is from a “Posture Statement” filed by Petraeus's staff. If it’s his staff’s, it’s his. That’s the way it works in civilian life and it’s certainly true in the Army.
Petraeus’s staff would never have dared to put anything in there that he didn’t want in there, and I would certainly think he read it [only 56 pages], unlike congressman not reading the 2,000+ page ObamaCare bill.
Pingback| 5.4.10 @ 5:01AM
Is Sexy Lingerie An Essential Must Have For American Women Today? | Lingerie Beauty W links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.4.10 @ 5:04AM
WILL PETRAEUS BE LIKE IKE? | RUTHFULLY YOURS links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.4.10 @ 6:06AM
Will Petraeus Be Like Ike? : USACTION NEWS links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.4.10 @ 7:37AM
See baby as a gift, even if the relationship fails | beijing weather october links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Derek Leaberry| 5.4.10 @ 8:20AM
Petraeus has surrendered on the cultural wars to the detriment on not only American society in general but with regards to the military. He is pro-homosexual and pro-feminist and both influences are detructive of the military culture and the American culture. He will never get my vote as he is not a conservative.
Yosemeti Sam| 5.4.10 @ 9:47AM
The Joint Chiefs of Staff - is looking for a few good men!
Patraeus, in 2012 - under Republican President
Gingrich.
Gingrich can bury BHO polemically - and shame
this great black and white dope and his cynical allies in Congress and the LBSM PEN1 in
their collaborative designs to centralize power
amongst their societal strata.
Fit a triangle into its' fitting place.
John P.| 5.4.10 @ 10:41AM
Petraeus 2012 - I'd vote for him if the other guy is the Marxist. I really like the General and his credentials are impressive, but I wouldn't wish the presidency on him.
northern Rebel| 5.4.10 @ 4:20PM
I have bad memories of Colin Powell being thrust onto us, without examining his philosophy, so I am going to wait and see what the General's political views are, before I become a lemming, and fall in line.
Sorry.
Richard Baker| 5.4.10 @ 4:39PM
Northern Rebel:
Agreed.
da monk| 5.4.10 @ 7:37PM
All this Republican talk about whether Patraeus will be a Republican candidate for president only emphasizes the lack of potential legitmate candidates the GOP can offer voters.
Pingback| 5.4.10 @ 7:37PM
LG Display awaits US patent ruling | Cell Phone Choice Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Mike| 5.4.10 @ 8:34PM
It would be completely unethical for a serving officer to declare his intent to run for office. MacArthur behaved very badly by allowing his candidacy to proceed while still in uniform.
His oath to support and defend the Constitution demands loyalty to his Commander in Chief. Challenging the CinC for his job doesn't qualify.
General P will continue to deny it as long as he's still serving in uniform. If he opts to run, I suspect he'll arrive at that press conference in a business suit to announce he has resigned his commission and is ready to serve in a new capacity.
Pingback| 5.5.10 @ 12:57PM
Rethinking Petraeus in 2012 | FrumForum links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Brian| 5.6.10 @ 12:22PM
Well, if he lauches his own Operation Wetback, then he will be like Ike. And that would be an excellent start.
Dorrie| 5.6.10 @ 12:23PM
To quote a great philosopher of some 350 years B.C.: "Politicians are not born, they are excreted. Some things never change!
antodav | 5.6.10 @ 12:39PM
I might consider voting for David Petraeus if he ran for President, although I have this nagging suspicion that he might choose to run as a Democrat (in which case, it wouldn't be in 2012). I'd much rather see him in some un-elected cabinet or high-ranking official position, such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or even Secretary of Defense.
MattZ| 5.6.10 @ 1:43PM
If he has such a reputation for competence, then he's probably more viable as a third party candidate - certainly not a Democrat and *definitely* not a Republican.
MZ
Walter H. Steinlauf| 5.6.10 @ 1:56PM
Petraeus would be a GREAT president ... provided there is even a Republic remaining after Osama is done with us. We have now witnessed the death of “representative democracy” and the “Republican form of Government” [**] guaranteed to the States by the US Constitution. I wonder how much more tyranny People will stand for.
** “Article IV: Section 4 / The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
drawlr| 5.6.10 @ 2:07PM
The last thing we need in the White House is a warmongering neocon. With the exception of Washington, the former generals that we've had as presidents have been disasters. Eisenhower was manipulated and controlled by John Foster Dulles and other pro-communists in the government. (See "The Actor: The True Story of John Foster Dulles" by Alan Stang.) Judging from his warning about military industrial complexes, he obviously learned something, but too late to do any good, nor did he have the spine to do anything. One of the few generals to understand the true nature of the "war on terror" was William E. Odom, who said, "“Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It’s a tactic. It’s about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we’re going to win that war. We’re not going to win the war on terrorism. And it does whip up fear. Acts of terror have never brought down liberal democracies. Acts of parliament have closed a few.” No one listened to him. Amen.
Jay Borne| 5.6.10 @ 3:15PM
Petraeus is too decent to run for the presidency. Washington has become one big, embarrassing reality show, and the gen. appears to have too much class to want to jump in that muck. Also, he's private about his personal life. Anything that he has ever done that he wouldn't want known, would become known. He's wise enough to know this.
Pingback| 5.6.10 @ 4:33PM
» Links To Visit – 05/06/10 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
William W. Wexler | 5.6.10 @ 5:28PM
LOL
What makes you clowns think that Petraeus would run as a Republican? Ike despised the "military industrial complex" and he would be a far-left radical by the GOP's standards of today.
Petraeus is a thinker, a soldier, and therefore would have nothing to do with the party of brainless slogans, poll-driven values, and chickenhawks. The party that puts a "war hero" up for President in one cycle and then primaries the guy in the next. What the fuck would General Petraeus want with you losers?
Hilarity!
-Wexler
PS Please get that pop-up of Cuntservative whore Michelle Malkin off your website. I almost puked when it displayed its she-man self.
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 6:22PM
Go away, jackass Wexler.
Why are you so afraid of a petite, gorgeous, Jersey girl, moron?
Bob From District 9| 5.6.10 @ 7:10PM
Patraeus would not have a chance as a republican candidate. Esp once you realize his entire success in Iraq clearly showed the preceeding debacle was due to republican management of the war.
He turned around the Rumsfeld/Bush philosophy completely. He made alliances with the people Rumsfeld wanted to kill, he turned to protecting the Iraqi people as his first priority, and even the surge was a repudiation of the Rumsfeld theory of war on the cheap.
Rumsfeld could not believe it would be harder to hold the country than to take it. Petraeus knew full well it would be.
ONTIME| 5.6.10 @ 7:28PM
Petraeus sounds mighty good at the present, not only a proven warrior but displays a great deal of subtle tact and better than all of that he is a American by birth and will willingly prove it to be so.......Beats the hell out of what we have now.
RobertFounder@Gmail.Com | 5.7.10 @ 1:35PM
Petraeus would be a good pick for President.
He is sufficiently Conservative and imminently electable. I prefer someone like Sarah who is like Reagan in being a very ordinary person who has been a mayor and governor, and did good jobs at both. She is also electable, though risky in her own way, as they all are.
Petraeus is a Special Forces General which is completely and totally different from the armchair Democrat leaning un-Special regular brass.
He served George Bush well, at great career risk, in turning the war around. Bush totally supported his insurrectionary fight with the Pentagon, 110% to his credit. To do so, Bush installed a shadow Pentagon in the basement of the WH staffed with very Conservative retired generals, that allowed Petraeus and Bush to completely bypass the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense all of whom opposed the Surge. It is a gripping tale that has yet to be told that turned the tide of the war, and altered history.
So, Petraeus would be fine, BUT no matter who we elect WE "organized" Conservatives are going to have to do the heavy lifting if we want to save the Republic. WE didn't support Bush and he was pushed to the Left. No President we elect can save us, unless WE take the lead and protect him, and watch over him, and indeed, direct him.
RobertFounder@Gmail.Com
www.ConservativeVictory.WordPress.Com
William W. Wexler | 5.7.10 @ 2:35PM
"He is sufficiently Conservative and imminently electable. I prefer someone like Sarah who is like Reagan in being a very ordinary person who has been a mayor and governor, and did good jobs at both. She is also electable, though risky in her own way, as they all are. "
LOL
Sarah Palin has been deemed to be unqualified to be President in polls. Consistently she polls as unqualified from 60 to 75%, even across party lines. Please, please, PLEASE work as hard as you can for her to run! While you're at it, why don't you include crackpot Glenn Beck on the ticket as VP? The Perfect Storm of stupidity!
Your notion that Petraeus is "conservative" is unfounded. He is certainly not conservative in any way that Palin is. You are obviously ignorant of the fact that the GOP does not "own" the defense issue any more. You blew it. You sucked it. You trashed it. How? By lying the US into 2 illegal and unnecessary wars that have nearly destroyed us as a world power. Our economy is in the toilet, our national deficit/debt is at record levels, and the country is falling apart. That's because of conservatives. Neoconservatives like Palin. They wanted to project American power around the world so the picked a war with Iraq and blew an invasion of Afghanistan (remember Tora Bora or have you guys already written that out of your history? LOL).
Americans are not satisfied with the Dems but they are outraged by the GOP. So you can look for a slaughter in November, but it's not going to go down in any way that will make you happy.
-Wexler
Pingback| 5.8.10 @ 2:33AM
Can an electronics high school grad take chemical engineering at … | Chemical Enginee links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.9.10 @ 8:48AM
» Don’t Look To Generals To Revitalize The GOP - Big Government links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.12.10 @ 12:34AM
In New Hampshire no one will be prosecuted for possessing up to 1/4 oz of marijuana f links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.14.10 @ 3:08AM
President Petraeus? | PowerTowneDistro.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
fjdk| 7.1.10 @ 2:42AM
beijing massage