The young Turks reports how Petreus and other war Generals have refused to give Obama any exit strategy our of Iraq and Afghanistan.....
Petreus "the adminstration is ing with the wrong guy!"
Bush/Cheney can tell the Pentagon to find evidence that Iraq has WMD and is a clear and present threat to US security, but Obama can't ask the Pentagon find a way out of Iraq/Afghanistan? That's in' hilarious BUT makes no sense, therefore it's not true.
Try to think up better Liberal conspiracies!
"Bush/Cheney can tell the Pentagon to find evidence that Iraq has WMD and is a clear and present threat to US security"
... aka "Let's start a bogus war" MIC always supports that. War is BIG MIC BUSINESS.
"Obama can't ask the Pentagon find a way out of Iraq/Afghanistan"
.. aka "Let's stop the wars" MIC, sucking in the 100s of $Bs, will always be against stopping wars.
MAKES PERFECT SENSE, therefore, it's true.
Try to think better.
How Gen. Petraeus Deceived Obama
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/092410a.html
Petraeus Cons Obama on Afghan War
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/092010b.html
Obama appointed Petraeus!
My God man.
There is not exit strategy that would constantly change as conditions change.
This is a non-issue.
In your opinion, how has the lack of an exit strategy positively affected your life in such a way that you aren't concerned with an exit strategy and believe the generals lack of one to be a non-issue, especially now when it's clear there is NOTHING there for our country?
Here's that perennial asshole Kristol saying Iran is inevitably next
"I think the more you put force on the table, the more you might encourage those within Iran to say ‘wait a second we’re heading towards the precipice.’ That’s not his style, he keeps to door open to negotiations, but I’ve got to say that if you look at the way this is playing out, it’s playing out toward use of force against Iran."
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/26/...war-with-iran/
Like Yoni, this er Kristol has been wrong on everything.
Is the Military Undermining the Cons ution?
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148308
"General David Petraeus, who commands American forces in Afghanistan, recently stated that he would not preside over a "graceful exit" from that beleaguered country and that he might oppose withdrawal (The New York Times, August 16th, 2010). His words echoed the sentiments expressed time and again by Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon about Vietnam. These presidents, too, did not wish to lose a war that could not be won."
http://readersupportednews.org/opini...in-afghanistan
Boutons, take it one step further.
Who are the financiers of war? Who stand to be paid with interest? Becasue it damn sure isnt the American People who will pay it...
The wars are totally debt-financed, meaning the US deficit in a very large measure due to the Repug botched/bogus wars.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
The govt goes into debt to pay the MIC cash. The govt then has to pay cash to bondholders to meet interest payments, letting the principal slide.
Continuous neo-c*nt/Repug wars are just another way to starve the beast and transfer taxpayer wealth to the corporations.
The MIC never liked the idea of one super-power...you can't make money unless there is the next enemy to prepare for...this is why the Clinton administration was able to balance the budget because of the peace dividend....9/11 and the Bush administration took care of that...Continuous neo-c*nt/Repug wars are just another way to starve the beast and transfer taxpayer wealth to the corporations.
St Ronnie had Casey and Gates hype the Soviet threat, even as the Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan, to justify huge military buildup (MIC welfare).
After the USSR collapsed, the conservatives went a nutty without an external threat, so they tripled up domestically by demonizing, polarizing against anybody who wasn't conservative.
Then they created the Iraq threat, with the bonus of oil.
Paranoia, lies, fear-mongering about enemies, about , about anything. Conservatives are huge impediment to American civilization and world peace.
From the Washington Post
'He later told his staff, "I'm not going to leave this to my successor." The military's plan "compromises our ability to do anything else. We have things we want to do domestically. We have things we want to do internationally."
Obama turned to Gates. "You have essentially given me one option," he said."It's unacceptable."
Gates replied, "Well, Mr. President, I think we owe you" another option.
It never came. '
More from the Washington Post today
"Mr. President," Tien said, "I don't see how you can defy your military chain here. We kind of are where we are. Because if you tell General [Stanley A.] McChrystal [the U.S. commander in Afghanistan], 'I got your assessment, got your resource constructs, but I've chosen to do something else,' you're going to probably have to replace him. You can't tell him, 'Just do it my way, thanks for your hard work.' And then where does that stop?"
The colonel did not have to elaborate. His implication was that not only McChrystal but the entire military high command might go in an unprecedented toppling - Gates; Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Gen. David H. Petraeus, then head of U.S. Central Command. Perhaps no president could weather that, especially a 48-year-old with four years in the U.S. Senate and 10 months as commander in chief.
Lute could see that Obama had reached a fork in the road and was pausing.
If the democrats and Obama are so intelligent, why can't they come up with their own exit strategy?
And yes, this will be his VietNam if he doesn't listen to his advisers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
