General Petraeus, Savior: Or Is He General Betray Us?

No, I have no problem with General Petraeus। The headline reference is to that full page, Moveon.org ad when General Petraeus was nominated by President Bush to take over command in Iraq (a war Petraeus would turn around after Democrats like Harry Reid were calling it "lost"). The disgraceful ad hedline was: "General Betray Us". Perhaps never has even the left been proven so wrong so conclusively.

Remember that it is not only Moveon।org and Harry Reid who TRASHED General Petraeus. The Democrats in Congress--including Barack Obama--openly questioned the competence and integrity of General Petraeus. Hillary Clinton virtually called him a liar. You will remember how Democrats basically refused to condemn the Moveon.org ad, and virtually endorsed the content of the ad (if not the disgraceful headline). Yes, I did articles at the time condemning Democrats for that trashing of General Petraeus. As usual, I have been PROVEN right, and the left PROVEN wrong.

Think how much General Petraeus must be savoring the irony. President Obama is part of the group in Congress that tried to trash him, mainly for political reasons. Now President Obama is relying upon Petraeus to SAVE his ass. Irony does not get any more delicious than that. Yes, Petraeus is also trying to again help his country, and in that I hope he succeeds---even if that could be regarded as helping President Obama politically. Believe it or not, I don't put politics above my country. I do wonder, however, how some of these hypocrites on the left--including n the media--can sleep at night. Don't they suffer from WHIPLASH at the violent and contradictory shifts in their positions for POLITICAL reasons?

Once Obama and Clinton questioned the integrity of General Petraeus, and suggested he was not being honest with them about Iraq. Now General McChrystal is bein condemned for being candid--he and his staff--about their opinions on Obama and Afghanistan, and Petraeus is being praised as the guy who can be relied upon not to undermine his Commander-in-Chief (not matter what he may privately think). You can cut the irony with a knife.
Yes, the mainstream media has called Obama "brilliant" for this move--as if he had any choice and as if the BRILLIANCE was not tat of President Bush in appointing General Petraeus to take charge in Iraq IN THE FACE OF OPPOSITION FROM OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS। Now the corrupt mainstream media is totally "in the tank" for Obama, and thus they are falling over themselves to try to get him out of this McChrystal mess by calling him "brilliant". Some on the left, however, have not forgotten that they OPPOSE the ear in Afghanistan, and wanted us to lose in Iraq. When not trying to rescue Obama, the mainstream media pretty much shares these positions. Thus, Rolling Stone and the left surely wanted Obama to use this as an opportunity to start GETTING OUT OF AFGHANISTAN--of beginning to end that war. After all, Petraeus was already in command in Afghanistan--just at a higher level than McChrystal and with responsibility for the entire region.

Look at what Petraeus has agreed to do--partly because he is a true patriot and partly, in my opinion, because he has to appreciate the irony। (I would guess the "patriot" in Petraeus is the primary motivation, since Petraeus is probably not as petty as I am.) It is like Eisenhower stepping down as Supreme Allied Commander and replacing Patten as head of the Third Army (perhaps because Patten slapped that soldier). Or what if Grant gave up command of all Union armies, and went back to only command of the Army of the Potomac. That is essentially what Petraeus is doing. You could almost regard it as a demotion. Hey, could Obama really be that devious? No, to start thinking in that kind of conspiracy manner is the way to becoming as mad as most leftists.

How can it be "brilliant" to put the man already in overall charge in direct charge? Ask the corrupt sycophants in the mainstream media that one. It was just the only choice Obama had, UNLESS he was going to appease the left and start the process of abandoning Afghanistan--of getting out and accepting defeat like Obama, Clinton and the Democrats wanted to do when Petraeus was given the task of turning around the Irawq war. The only person who looks really good here is Petraeus. As stated, he has to appreciate the irony, even with the assumption that he is much less petty about that than I would be.

P.S. What is really funny here is the attempt--by Obama, Democrats and the media--to bolster President Obama by getting General Petraeus to express support for the way Obama is handling Afghanistan. What is the one thing we KNOW after the General McChrystal fiasco? Right. A good general does not contradict or undermine his Commander-in-Chief in public--no matter what his private opinions. So what are General Petraeus; expressions of "support" for President Obama's policies really worth? Obviously, not much. Nope. I am not saying General Petraeus will tell direct lies. But the McChrystal fiasco shows that a good general is EXPECTED to evade and rationalize--in public--to avoid criticizing his Commander-in-Chief. I DARE any of you hypocrites on the left to exlpose your hypocirsy by telling me how wrong I am on this, when I am obviously right. Indeed, it is something like this that Clinton, Obama, Reid and the rest were accusing Petraeus of during his confirmation hearings on being appointed to command in Iraq. You simply CAN'T--unless you are a hypocritical leftist or mainstream media person--say that you expect generals to be completely candid, and then fire General McChrystal for being candid. Yes, I think General McChrystal had to go, but the fact he was forced out proves that NO presently serving general can be candid in what he says publicly.