Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans

[Joanne98]

WASHINGTON - The political maneuvering between President Barack Obama and his top field commanders over withdrawal from Iraq has taken a sudden new turn with the leak by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus - and a firm denial by a White House official - of an account of the Jan. 21 White House meeting suggesting that Obama had requested three different combat troop withdrawal plans with their respective associated risks, including one of 23 months.
The Petraeus account, reported by McClatchy newspapers Feb. 5 and then by the Associated Press the following day, appears to indicate that Obama is moving away from the 16-month plan he had vowed during the campaign to implement if elected. But on closer examination, it doesn't necessarily refer to any action by Obama or to anything that happened at the Jan. 21 meeting.

The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the most powerful figure in the U.S. military has tried to shape the media coverage of Obama and combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy agenda - and, very likely, his personal political interests as well.

This writer became aware of Petraeus's effort to influence the coverage of Obama's unfolding policy on troop withdrawal when a military source close to the general, who insisted on anonymity, offered the Petraeus account on Feb. 4. The military officer was responding to the IPS story 'Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision' published two days earlier .

The story reported that Obama had rejected Petraeus's argument against a 16-month withdrawal option at the meeting and asked for a withdrawal plan within that time frame, and that Petraeus had been unhappy with the outcome of the meeting.

It also reported that Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and retired Army general Jack Keane, a close ally of Petraeus, had both made public statements indicating a determination to get Obama to abandon the 16-month plan.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/10

Get the Bushes out of the Pentagon!

[EmilyAnne]

1. This seems like a deliberate attempt to undermine a sitting POTUS. Is that treason?

[MrModerate]

4. Too subtle for treason. More like "politics" n/t

[grannie4peace]

2. petraeus is a sneaky asshole! screw him & his cronies!

[liberal N proud]

3. Betraus is messing with fire when he betrays with the Commander in Chief

[FiveGoodMen]

11. And to think the Dems dissed MoveOn for calling him that in the paper.

Shame on them.

[Loki]

5. I feel a Truman/MacArthur moment coming.

[Edith Ann]

8. Truman/MacArthur

That's exactly what I was thinking. Obama needs to send the good general a note. One word: MacArthur. Maybe he missed that at West Point.

[classysassy]

12. "Old soldiers never lie (die)

they just fade away"Give the old war monger his walking papers,so he can fade away.

[acmavm]

6. Does the general think his buddies george or dick can pull a rabbit out

of their hat and keep his war game going on indefinitely for him? He seems to like this war.

You wait, if we ever get a grip on the truth of what really went on in Iraq during this occupation there will more double dealing and treason than we can shake a stick at. Not that anything will be done, of course. But delving into the antics of old Jerry Bremer, Tommy Franks, and now this fool will keep historians and constitutional scholars shaking their heads for decades.

[tanyev]

7. Looks like the nickname Betray Us was right on target.

[madmom]

9. A couple weeks ago there was an article about how petraeus and friends were

going to try to under-mind Obama in the press because they wanted to stay and "play"in Iraq and Obama didn't. Is this the beginning of that? If so why are these traitors not in jail?

[Paulaguyon]

10. This is grounds to fire Petraeus

It's like having an enemy in your own house. I do not trust the guy a bit.