President Petraeus?
2009 October 4
HT: The Most Dishonest Newspaper In America
10 Responses
leave one →
“He was guilty of nothing, except that he earned his own fortune and never forgot that it was his.“ The concept contained within that phrase is what has set America apart, and made her the greatest nation on Earth. And it is the systematic attack on that concept, that this website is dedicated to fighting. This website is NOT devoted to making people “wealthy”, but rather to fighting the notion that the “wealth” they DO have needs to be “redistributed”.
Stay Updated
Get the latest and the greatest news delivered for free to your reader or your inbox:
RSS Feed Email Updates
[1]
NOTHING in the NY Times is reliable…NOTHING. I assume everything in there is well-spun bullshit…and then move on.
Still, I think it IS time for another General as President. At least the odds are better that one of them won’t sell us out. Then, of course, there IS Weasely Clark…
[2]
I’m with Justrand. This is the Times sticking a knife in the back of Petraeus to make sure he stands no chance of being listened to in Washington. The quickest way of doing this is to paint him as having political ambitions to make sure that “everything” he says from here on out is discredited.
[3]
“President Petraeus?”
—
I’ll repeat myself again stop this.
[4]
Where does Patraeus stand on any issue? As was pointed out with Wesley Clark (and Joke Leaf for that matter), not all military officers are conservative. Some are very liberal.
We have had generals who have been great presidents (Washington), mediocre presidents (Eisenhower) and horrid presidents (Grant). Until we know where Patraeus stands on the issues, it’s foolish to tout him for any office.
[5]
Let’s say Petreaus does retire. What is the protocol for retired generals speaking out against thier former CiC? Aren’t they still “active” for a certain time?
Petreaus was one of the “possitive” peopleof the previous adminstration, which is most likely the reason why the Obama administration has been trying to keep him out of public view.
[6]
Why can’t he be considered for President?
Proven leader
Proven winner
If he’s a conservative he’ll hand Captain Bullshit his Communist ass in 2012
Why not Petraeus…???
[7]
Why not Petraeus…???
MFG, I believe the word “if” in your previous statement answers your own question. First, let Petraeus first of all decide himself if he indeed has political aspirations. Then, let him serve up his conservative credentials for examination before we jump on the band wagon.
[8]
MPT in #7 said it all, but let me add speculation on the right about him even thinking about running does not help him his current post.
[9]
What does it matter? Captain Bullshit has made up his mind to lose both Iraq and Afghanistan and blame the losses on Bush, Petraeus & McCrystal in order to gain enough support from liberals to pass HellCare
Both Petraeus & McCrystal will need to resign soon anyway to avoid being connected to the Super Clusterfuck Disaster to come
If the Communists won’t let us win (and they won’t) I see no reason why Petraeus shouldn’t resign soon and start exploring a Presidential bid…
[10]
If he want to do that fine, but he has indicated no such desires or intent, quite the opposite to date actually, so forget about it till that actually happens, until then it just start dragging more politics in to areas that already have enough.