Generals Seek To Reverse Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Decision

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post



WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 18 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/generals-seek-to-reverse_n_163070.html

[rateyes]

1. If Petraeus and the other Generals don't want to follow orders of the CinC...

The CinC should demand they retire or resign their commissions, or fire them.

[EFerrari]

35. Petraeus is a corrupt mofo. Maybe we need to pay closer attention

to how he spends his free time.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

56. Morning sexypat!

:pals:

Had to get that in one more time :evilgrin:
I like the new nick just fine too. :)

[EFerrari]

61. You've blown my cover!

:hi:

[pasto76]

57. I dont understand what they want, the SOFA bush signed says...

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/CGs_Messages/security_agreement.pdf

Article 24 clearly states a withdrawl by 31DEC2011.

President Obama wants us out, maybe a year earlier. I doubt there is much that will happen in that year that will make a difference.

Besides, Ive been told by my Freeper-esque friends that a timeline "just tells the terrorists how long they have to wait." So they can fuck themselves now.

This kind of dissent troubles me. It is not how I was trained. I would disagree with my leaders, but would always go behind closed doors to voice them. And when the decision was made, I obeyed. Thats my job.

I was not happy to see Gen Petraeus at the superbowl. It seems now that he thinks he is a celebrity instead of a soldier. Obama should make his punk ass do push ups on a fresh grave of a fallen soldier. One for each troop killed in Iraq. in Cadence.....excercise.

SGT PASTO

[Aristus]

66. Of all the idiotic memes the Freepers came up with, "they're just gonna wait until we're gone..."

horseshit is the worst! They're going to wait us out whether we set timetables for withdrawal or not. Our troops want to come home; the Iraqi resistance fighters ARE home. And they want us gone. It's like the Vietnamese general, Giap, I think, who said: "America will never defeat us unless your soldiers are prepared to stay here and eat rice for the next thousand years."

You think if the British had set a timetable for going back to England during our Revolution that it would have changed our resolve one whit? If they hadn't set a timetable, do you think we would have said: "Oh well, looks like they're not going home after all. May as well let them stop our commerce, close our ports, burn our ships, spill our blood, quarter their troops in our private homes, deny us trial by jury, give us incompetent governors, and open fire on public gatherings any time they like."?

[awoke_in_2003]

73. Yep...

if that were to happen, I am sure Obama could do it just as well as Truman did.

[Avalux]

2. Mutiny? Is that what these bastards are proposing?

If so - Obama needs to publicly reprimand Gates and Petraeus, then promptly fire Gates and demote Petraeus (that little fuckhead).

[TwilightGardener]

3. They must be confused: they don't set policy, they implement it.

Obama and the American people want out of Iraq--it's their job to make it happen, end of story.

[KansDem]

49. "...they don't set policy, they implement it."

Maybe they're still stuck in Chimp mode...

[BlooInBloo]

4. No coups here, please. Fire them all immediately. With armed escort out of their former offices.

[ensho]

5. way back when Obama started to run I said that if he got the prez

the power neo cons would start pressuring him to do their bidding.

now is when we will see if Obama and team has enough wit and courage to stand up to them.

the neo cons fight dirty, which I'm sure the Obama team knows.

these first battles with the neo cons will set the stage.

may Obama's team win.

[loudsue]

46. Plus Rahm Emmanuel is one of the neocons in sheep's clothing.

Obama has no idea who he is dealing with, I don't think.

[surrealAmerican]

53. Do you really think Obama has underestimated Rahm Emmanuel?

I think he knows exactly who he's dealing with. They've worked with each other for a long time.

[loudsue]

58. I don't think Obama understands how deep this mess goes.

No. I don't. The neocons still plan to have a military take-over of the U.S. That's why blackwater, that's why the "containment camps" put up on so many military bases & different isolated areas of the country since the republican take-over of congress in 1994.

This country is on the brink of a helluva lot more shit than people realize. Either Obama is clueless (which I think is the case, having read both of his books & watched him these last 2 years), or I think he's part of the problem.

Given that the military plans an open coup against their commander-in-chief in order to continue these VERY profitable wars, I would say there is a battle coming, or Obama is going to have to cave due to threats against himself & his family.

[Ian David]

6. General Betrayus strikes again! n/t

[MidwestTransplant]

7. Generals trying to mobalize public sentiment against a CIC sounds like a jailable offense.

[Mari333]

44. treason . n/t

[14thColony]

59. There are words for this already

They are 'insubordination' and 'failure to follow a lawful order' and are chargeable offenses.

Treason, defined as giving comfort and aid to the enemy, might feel good to say but isn't applicable here.

[loudsue]

63. More like mutiny.

I'm pretty sure that's jailable.

[liberalmuse]

8. It looks like Bush left his diseased policies all over the government.

Fire them all and put the generals who opposed this war in their place. Enough!!!

[Hubert Flottz]

9. You play with snakes sooner or later you're gonna get bitten.

[azul]

10. Is that smacking of a military coup?

Treason?

Military officers have a definite conflict of interest in policy decisions promoting conflict and their unsolicited advice is insubordination. They should be toast.

There is a reason that the congress is imbued with war powers and calls upon the president to act as commander in chief only when necessary: peace and prosperity.

For congress to have self-interests in promoting war would have devastating effects upon the US. Like bankruptcy and loss of the rule of law: suicidal madness.

[surrealAmerican]

54. That's just what it sounds like.

It's one thing to try to convince the president to change his mind, but "pressure"? They should be fired for that.

[Xipe Totec]

11. Give Petraeus the corncob pipe award of arrogance

[14thColony]

62. I was just thinking of Truman vs. McArthur

Here comes the sequel, 60 years in the making...

[2Design]

12. He needs to get back the Generals Bush fired for wanting to stop or withdraw or not do the war to

start with - right now he has the war mongers and he needs those guys who called this bS to start with

[StarryNite]

16. Exactly my thoughts!

Yeah, what you said!

[Towlie]

13. I wonder who arranged for Petraeus to flip the Super Bowl coin.

[MilesColtrane]

14. Yikes

Obama's got to know that Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam against the wishes of the powers that be. Right?

If so, he's got some huge ones. Be safe Mr. President.

[JaneQPublic]

15. If they want to stay longer, let them pay for it.

Perhaps they don't read civilian newspapers, but the U.S. economy is in the crapper, and our Government doesn't have any more spare cash to throw down this Iraq rathole that has taken longer than WWII. We've already spent more money there than the entire bailout will cost.

If they want make a lifelong career out of Iraq, then fine, they can pay for it.

[byeya]

17. The fact that these generals' statements made

it to the press is reason enough to retire them immediately. Will you do it Obama?

[Kber]

48. If they are currently in uniform (and they are)

then I entirely agree with you.

Once you retire, feel free to criticize the President to your heart's content. Until then, you need to keep your "advise" to to CiC private.

KBer

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

98. What statements did they make to the press?

[bottomtheweaver]

102. Jan. 21, PBS Newshour interview; Jan. 29, New York Times interview.

The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was "open to alternatives".

The Times reported that Odierno had "developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama's campaign timetable" and had suggested in an interview "it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly".

The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama's withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama's pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months". He asserted that it would jeopardise the "stable political situation in Iraq" and called that risk "not acceptable".

The assertion that Obama's withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus's strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45640

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. I don't think you can charge a retired General with anything.

[merh]

78. Petreaus can stay as long as he likes - he just can't keep our

troops there - he needs to resign and then take over the Iraqi army. There he can continue his mission and go with that Christianity thing he likes too.

[whistle]

18. These fascist generals want perpetual war

[Gregorian]

34. That's the reply i was trying to come up with.

It's a job. It's big business. What'll they do without their War president?

America just has to have it's monster truck rally.

There seems to be no sense of humility in this pathetic country. However, Obama knows humility.


I don't think Obama is going to last long. That's how I feel about this country. Like a drunk that can't do what is best for him. Like stop drinking.

Just say no. God I could type all day. But you said it in one sentence. The drug war was just one of their sneaky little ways of making them seem legitimate. Now look at them. Yes, I lump "them" into one big group. The aggressors.

[whistle]

50. This Bush policy of preemptive perpetual war has failed and has brought

...the U.S. economy to the brink of bankruptcy now yet here we are standing right on the precipice of disaster and the Generals want to order the country to charge clear over the edge.

[bottomtheweaver]

103. Haliburton, Exxon and Blackwater did just fine.

So did Ratheon, Boeing and the rest of the MIC. So what's the problem?

[kpete]

19. Generals Seek To Reverse Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Decision

Source: Huffington Post



WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 18 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/generals-seek-to-reverse_n_163070.html

[Hugabear]

20. Just wait until Obama ends the ban on gays

I think these assholes are having a hard time remembering who they work for.

IMHO, Gen. Petraeus should be fired on the spot.

[Gman]

21. Watch for the military or the CIA to gin up clashes and troop bloodshed in Iraq

Remember these generals are all Bushites. They replaced anyone prior to them that told the truth about Iraq.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

22. I was wondering how long it's take before these muthafuckas would try to sabotage him. nt

[LynnTheDem]

23. "mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision" ...well sure, that's gonna work.

Except for the wee fact that the vast majority of Americans have wanted US troops the fuck out of Iraq for years now.

The Republic Party and their "mobilising public opinion against Obama"; the party that "hope he fails"

[BlooInBloo]

24. Can them.

[angrycarpenter]

25. It's time for him to fire someone just to make a point.

Isn't doing anything besides saying "Yes sir" mutiny?

[PFunk]

26. Me thinks it's time to can some high ranking generals

Starting with Petraeus. Last I remember the military takes orders from the president and the people NOT the other way around. If the high ranking mililary brass can't understand that then it's time to kick 'em to the curb and get new ones who do.

[Dr.Phool]

27. President Obama. Do you remember some guys named LBJ and Macnamara?

Don't pay any attention to this noise.

And public opinion is already on our side. We got ignored by the Congress. Only Obama can follow through.

[bluestateguy]

51. Clinton let himself get pushed around by the military brass

This is a test to see if Obama will be the same way.

[atreides1]

28. Article 88 of the UCMJ

Text.

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

Explanation.

The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.


Maximum punishment.

Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

[Mari333]

45. thats it in a nutshell

arrest the traitors.

[Joanne98]

65. That's it!

[14thColony]

74. Sorry to be pedantic, but...

Article 88 is for spoken or written insults of certain elected officials. If active duty generals have called the president an 'asshole' or 'an incompetent moron' or something like that, then it applies. If they haven't, then I'd submit that Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order) and potentially eventually Article 94 (Mutiny or Sedition) are the operative sections of the UCMJ in this case.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

99. How is trying to get a decision reversed, failure to obey?

What statements did they make that could possibly qualify as mutiny or sedition?

David

[berni_mccoy]

29. "Mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision" -- grounds for Court Martial

and a dishonorable dishcarge.

[LibDemAlways]

30. Gates was a poor choice from the get-go. I don't know who

pressured Obama to keep a Bush lackey retread, but it was a mistake.

Betrayus is owned by the neocons and should be sent to some remote outpost and never be heard from again. He's an evil SOB.

[TwilightGardener]

32. I will reserve judgment on Gates--he made his recommendation, as is his job, and

Obama may not agree with it--that's OK. If Obama sees the drawn-up withdrawal plans and decides to follow that course, then it will be up to Gates to make it happen WITHOUT public complaint or undermining Obama in the DoD. What pisses me off is the generals trying to whip up public sentiment against their own commander in chief. That shit better not be true, or they need to be dealt with.

[nichomachus]

31. Calling Rick Warren. Calling Rick Warren. Surely, he'll help out n/t

[TygrBright]

33. I think the Generals are entitled to express their opposition to the President's policies....

...up to a point.

After all, we cheered on and supported the generals who were not silent in their opposition to Bush's blunderous, disastrous policies in 2002-03.

There is nothing to prevent respectful differences with a superior officer during policy and planning discussions -- indeed, it would be harmful to limit the expression of such differences, as Bush attempted to do with his mass firings of opposing general officers.

These senior general officers are not in the least out of line. They are not out of line until they refuse to execute direct orders from the Commander in Chief, or take concrete actions that hinder other from carrying out the orders and policies of the Commander in Chief.

About the "senior military officers," I am not so sure. That may be verging on no-no territory. Indeed, if they believe they are doing so at the orders of those general officers, they may be pushing the generals into the "taking concrete actions" territory. I think the generals will clamp down on it before it reaches that point.

If not, have at them with everything in the book, as far as I am concerned.

But until the generals truly cross the line, I think it would be a bad idea to stifle dissent.

judiciously,
Bright

[TwilightGardener]

39. It depends on how it's done. They have a role in advising Obama from their

standpoint--they can tell him what ought to be done, how it ought to be done, etc. They can tell him they think it's best to stay in Iraq for infinity if they so choose, and Obama will take that into account and make his decision. What they really shouldn't do is try to influence public opinion against the commander in chief, or try to set up their own sphere of power and influence separate from Obama's administration while they're still working for him. Retired officers can do that, active duty cannot.

[loudsue]

67. They've already crossed the line by stating their intentions to undermine him.

That, in fact, is mutiny. This type of crossing the line is EXACTLY why we should have impeached dubya and his gang. They are making a mockery of our country, they've fucking bankrupted us and stolen the money on the way out the door, and now they've stated that they're going to try to swing public opinion against Obama.

These people are so far out of line ALREADY that "free speech" went out the door back when we were lied into this war to begin with.

[sellitman]

42. I agree.

Keep an eye on them for sure but they gave their opinion. Opinions aren't out of line until they go against orders.

Good call.

[road2000]

47. This sentence astounded me.

"A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision."

I agree there's not a problem if they express opposition to Obama's policies in their role as advisers. However, the upcoming smear campaign (and it will be that) is simply treason. This applies to all of the bastards who worship at the Cheney Neocon Altar, but it's especially upsetting that Gates, a member of Obama's cabinet, is involved. Obama should replace him with Shinseki.

[The Stranger]

36. FIRE BETRAYED-US IMMEDIATELY. HE SHOULD BE RELIEVED OF DUTY.

If he continues his insubordination, more severe measures should be taken.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. What insubordination?

[bottomtheweaver]

104. Taking their bullshit directly to the press, attempting to contravene the CIC.

Treason my friend.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. Who did that? The article doesn't mention it.

[bottomtheweaver]

107. Already answered in detail in post #102 above, with quotes and a link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3719059&mesg_id=3723753

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. Only quote is from a retired officer.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. You do realize the article is about a meeting between the generals and the President.

The only general who is quoted is retired everything else is from an anonymous source.

David

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. Sack them and replace them. Obama needs senior staff who believe in what he is

doing.

Simply on economic grounds now, it should not be negotiable - or adjudged to be so by people with the nous generals are supposed to possess. It's a no-brainer.

[FourScore]

38. This is very disturbing indeed.

These rogue elements should resign! And if they continue with this smear campaign against their CIC then they need to be arrested for treason. Period.

[pattmarty]

40. Do what Truman did to MacArthur; fire his arrogant ass!!!!!!

He is the fucking President, NOT (Bush's) generals.

[county worker]

43. This seems a lot like what McArthur did. He tried to get the public to back him against

Truman.

Give em HELL, Barack!

[rrneck]

41. If they have doubts

about the CiC's strategy, they should voice them directly to him or send them up the chain of command. Otherwise, they should salute smartly and carry out their orders.

[sakabatou]

52. Right, like these generals are really going to go against their commander

[FloridaJudy]

55. I freakin' knew MoveOn was right

All along. Bite me, Congress!

[Swede Atlanta]

60. They need to go.....

It is one thing to give frank, open opinion and recommendations to the CiC. Obama has indicated he is open to listening to people with various views. But at the end of the day it is clear that Obama suspects that the Iraqis will never be ready to handle their own security if we continue to baby them. So while that is a political consideration and not a purely military one, it is the view of the CiC.

Once the CiC makes a decision they have taken an oath to follow his orders. If they don't they need to go or be tried for dereliction of duty.

[Joanne98]

64. Petraeus is a BUSH curse.

[loudsue]

68. THIS is the reason that the congress should have (and still should) impeach bush & cheney

If you let people go around breaking the laws, they think they can continue to do so. Creating a coup against the president's policy is more law-breaking by the neocons. Why shouldn't they? Nobody is ever punished in their gang!!

Laws are just for Dems. Impeachment and assassination is only for Dems. The fascists & warmongers have NEVER NEVER NEVER been held accountable in this country.

[NM Independent]

69. So, fire the insubordinate assholes.

Start with Keane. Then make DAMN sure they understand the repurcussions of trying to play politics with someone who was responsible for the Clinton machine gettings it's ass handed to it, and the republican/hate machine receiving the same.

[high density]

70. Note to Generals: We can't afford this shit anymore

Pouring lives and dollars into the sand over there has destroyed both of our countries.

[Mudoria]

71. Maybe they should understand there is a new "Decider" in town now...

[yurbud]

72. Bush dead-enders are the minority in the top brass. Most are realists who knew war was a bad idea

[pinto]

76. Agree. Petraeus et al are advocating a position to the President. The President disagrees with it.

The President will make the call. That's a legit process. He's asked for folks' opinions, he's gotten them, and remains the boss.

I think the Huffpo piece is a little overblown.

[elleng]

75. The writer omitted reference to this interview,

Gen. Keane and General Wes Clark:

http://securingamerica.com/node/3161

[Thothmes]

81. Clark, wasnt he fired by Clinton?

[elleng]

85. NO NO NO

Where did you get that idea? Fired from WHAT???

She did not become the nominee, remember?

[Thothmes]

89. General Wes Clark was relieved early as the NATO

Commander and not offered another 4 star command. This is the equivalent of being fired. President Clinton knew and assented to the actions.

[elleng]

93. President Clinton did NOT know,

and was very angry when he learned that he'd been played. That was about army politics.

I hope you don't make all of your decisions on such ill-founded information.

[Thothmes]

95. He was t;he President

SecDef Cohen and CJCS Shelton were his picks. It was his responsibility. I did not make any of those decisions.

[elleng]

97. Yes, he was pres;

I didn't make those decisions either, and it seems that he didn't know/appreciate/understand what cohen and shelton were up to. He certainly should have.

[Zhade]

77. Follow the orders or resign, fuckers.

If they foment insurrection, throw them in the fucking brig.

[skoalyman]

79. thought I heard it all until now WTF is next blackmail by

Petraeus using a nuke:scared: I think he is starting to live up to his name betrayus

[Peace Patriot]

80. JFK had a VERY similar situation on his hands re Vietnam. He ordered the Joint Chiefs

to come up with a plan and a timetable for withdrawal from Vietnam, and they delayed and delayed and delayed, basically disobeying his orders, for a full year, until a month before the CIA assassinated JFK. Two days after the assassination, LBJ ripped up the withdrawal plan that had finally been submitted, and said, of the war profiteers and the assassins, "Now they can have their war."

See "JFK and the Unspeakable," by James Douglass.

Douglass does NOT believe that LBJ was involved in JFK's assassination (--I'm not so sure of that, but Douglass is SO knowledgeable about all this, that I have to defer to his analysis), but he was aware, the day after the assassination, of who did it and why. The CIA had laid a trail from Oswald to Cuba and Russia, to force LBJ's hand to preemptively nuke them both. LBJ opposed this--he understood, as JFK did, that nobody would win a nuclear war--but he did NOT oppose the Cold War, and the proxy wars, both of which JFK was planning to END in his second term. (--meticulously documented by Douglass; it'll blow your mind, if you're not familiar with this evidence, for instance, JFK's backchannel communications with Krushchev and Castro--established because, by that time, JFK did not trust anybody in his government except Bobby).

Fast forward to Feb. 2, 2009. Obama and the Generals.

There are haunting similarities. One lesson from Douglass' book may be that JFK should have immediately fired those who were disobeying him--which included not only the generals, but also the CIA--for its sabotage of JFK's efforts to stabilize the US-installed gov't in So. Vietnam, and to obtain neutrality for Vietnam, as he had for Laos--and his own appointed ambassador to Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge (who was also directly disobeying him and should have been recalled). JFK should have cleaned house everywhere treason might be lurking. He DID fire CIA Director Allen Dulles, early on, for trying to trick him into invading Cuba, but the CIA was still a treasonous, war-manufacturing organization. JFK vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind," after that incident, but he apparently did not feel that he had the political strength to do that until after he won the 1964 election. He intended to run on a peace platform--disarmament, END of the Cold war--and was convinced that the American people would back him. (As we know, LBJ FALSELY ran on a peace platform the following year, in 1964, after JFK's death, and whomped the warmonger Goldwater, in a huge landslide--but LBJ was meanwhile planning and implementing a major war in Vietnam. I remember this well. It was my first vote for president. I voted for peace, and I got 2 million people slaughtered in Southeast Asia before it was over, and 55,000+ US soldiers dead.)

What we have now is Bushwhacks entrenched in the high commands in the military, and God knows what kind of situation at the CIA. The Bushwhacks tried to gut the CIA, because it had apparently, over the years, changed its mission from trying to manufacture wars, to trying to prevent them. But we don't know what secret Bushwhack operatives are planted there, nor in the NSA, nor in Pentagon secret ops, nor in a host of other potentially dangerous agencies. The Bushwhacks, operating in secrecy--with no accountability-- have had eight years to set innumerable traps for Obama. For all we know, this is one of them. And that was my first thought when I read this. No, my first thought was, WHAT IS THE SOURCE? Second thought: Is this a trap of some kind?

I was thinking it was WaPo, but it's Huffington Post. Anybody know where else it is being promulgated? This could tell us a lot. If WaPo is touting it, it is much more likely to be a trap of some kind. Not that HuffPost couldn't be used to set a trap--just more likely that WaPo would print a deliberate leak in league with the war profiteers that in some way was serving those interests.

What would the trap be? A lot of possibilities. First one I thought of was: Obama gets pissed, fires a bunch of top brass--and infuriates the military establishment, and turns them against him. I.e., they are NOT NOW against him, but they could be stoked up to be, with something like that--a fracas, firings.

Follow up thought: The ouster of Rumsfeld was a much bigger deal than anybody knows, is my guess. And the brass were part of it. Something Rumsfeld did (9/11? I don't know. Something ba-a-ad). And that ouster was part of 'white hat'/'gray hat' group--of military, intel, and powerful corpos and politicos (and maybe even Daddy Bush)--who bargained with Bush-Cheney: No impeachment, for no nuking of Iran and leaving quietly when the time came (and getting rid of Rumsfeld). Circa late 2006. So-o-o, if that scenario is more or less true, this current thing--leaking of dissent and political plotting against the president (true or not true, or only partially true) could be aimed at the bargainers (and the bargain). Gates maybe a 'gray hat' at the table? Maybe Petraeus as well. Not exactly 'good guys' but nuking Iran was too much for them?

That's off the top of my tinfoil hat. What I DON'T tend to believe is that this is a straightforward kind of thing. WHO would leak it?--is the question to ask. And WHY?

One further thought, on the similarity to JFK: Obama has pledged to continue their Forever War--he's just moving it to Afghanistan (and also to continue that boondoggle, the "war on drugs"). So, that should keep some of the generals and the war profiteers happy. JFK, on the other hand, was planning to END the Cold War. Kaput. Fini. No more war profiteering. He was more of a threat than Obama is (--in so far as we can understand Obama; it's a bit early). And it appeared to me that everybody was agreed. The Forever War will continue, but it's venue will be changed--to keep the rabble quiet for a while. Is this conflict (bet. Obama and the generals) even real? Could this leak be entirely false?

[Crowman1979]

82. Luckily today's generals don't have the same prestige as the ones from the Kennedy era.

Everyone know that Patraeus and his ilk are nothing but a bunch of careerists and vast majority of soldiers don't even give a f*** about their legacy.

[Peace Patriot]

84. Yeah, that's true. JFK had a bigger problem than Obama, of people generally

respecting both the military AND the secret government (CIA, FBI-Hoover) than people do now. A lot of water (and rivers of blood) under the bridge. The Pentagon's mistreatment of soldiers has been egregious. And the Bushwhacks showed just how much respect there is for the CIA, in what the Bushwhacks thought they could get away with--and DID get away with (outing Plame and other attacks on the agency). But still, if the scenario that I laid out, above, is true--that we were looking at the nuking of Iran, and an all-out putsch, which was stopped with a "no impeachment" deal--it's possible Petraeus was involved. He was part of (or got his Iraq command as the result of) ousting Rumsfeld, right? (--if I recall correctly).

[Peace Patriot]

83. Analysis of my own analysis. Above, you see me thinking out loud.

I go from seeing the similarities to JFK and Vietnam--which are many and troubling, IF THE ARTICLE IS AT ALL A REFLECTION OF REALITY--to suspecting that the leak is 100% bullshit.

That's what the Bushwhacks and the corpo/fascist media have done to us--made us so unsure of what is going on--that we really can't trust anybody or anything.

Anyway, the sophisticated corpo/fascist manipulators of the 'news' and of our perceptions are certainly capable of USING an historical parallel (JFK and the generals/CIA) to make us THINK something is true that is NOT true (or only some bits of it are true), and to get Obama all angry and suspicious of his generals, on whom he must rely to implement his policy.

Something for you consideration. Is it even true? And, again, WHO leaked this, and WHY? Could be a good reason--to warn Obama, and we, the people. Could also be a bad reason--to make a mountain out of a molehill, to sow suspicion and division, to subvert Obama that way. OR, to divert him and us from the Grand Looting?

[bottomtheweaver]

92. I'm inclined to think you were right the first time.

These guys are accustomed to getting their way, like they did when Obama rehired Gates, and on the rare occasions they've gotten pushback, they've been relieved of troublesome politicians either Wellstone style or McKinney and Cleland style. Letting it be known that there's a "network" of generals ready to take it to the Superbowl and beyond amounts to a threat. I'm impressed that Obama has defied them to the extent that he has, and I sincerely hope he sticks to his guns, but unfortunately he's surrounded himself by advisors who've made careers out of caving.

[Doctor_J]

86. Can't these fuckers come to grips with the fact that the gravy train has come to

the end of the line?

[Ardent15]

87. If he doesn't like it

He can resign.

[The abyss]

88. Shades of Truman and McArthur.

The real life events that led to “Seven Days in May”

There is a document, the preamble of which reads “We the people…”

Please note comments by 14thcolony, Xipe Totec and others above.

[and-justice-for-all]

90. Petraeus and the like are to take orders, not give them...

to his CinC. His suggestions I am sure are duly noted.

Out of Iraq NOW!

[KakistocracyHater]

91. only idiots would keep their military in the meatgrinder

of Iraq; some of our very best have been killed, I find it inconceivable that sane military leaders would want to continue having our troops riding around in jeeps/hummers instead of tanks, while also providing a live-fire training ground for those who WANT to "kill America". Didn't Bush send that Dark Horse team over into Iraq? Longer than WW2,........NO way real military would want to continue this, with Blackwater refusing to give their positions in the "theatre", backstabbing fellow troops because of religion?!

[w4rma]

94. Because Bush and the neo-cons fired and forced out our good generals. (nt)

[Ardent15]

101. I agree. Shinseki was the man.

[democracy1st]

96. good time to fire his butt!