Which Part of Commander In Chief Don’t They Understand?

Pardon my French, but isn’t this, y’know, a tad coup-y?

(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 16 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.

And really no one, but no one, understands chain of command better than these upper echelon mamajammers. So, fire the warmongering right wing crypto-fascists.


It’s paving the way to blame Obama going back on his promises on the top brass, not that anyone should feel sorry for them, they are all full on Bush crime family scum (and y’know, de facto war criminals)

The machinations of Empire.


13 Responses to “Which Part of Commander In Chief Don’t They Understand?”

  1. ralfast Says:

    Obama defied the Generals….another chapter in the Myth of the Stab in the Back.

    Roll film….

  2. RickB Says:

    Well at least as yet there is no likely (credible?) right wing challenger to unite those forces, yet.

  3. libhomo Says:

    I’m so disgusted that Obama hasn’t started the troop withdrawals yet. He’s already broken a promise.

  4. opit Says:

    Guys. Who do you think killed JFK ? All indications are it was something similar to Regicide.Hardball is played. His dad was Mafia.

  5. RickB Says:

    GLH- I notice lots of qualifiers slipping into his rhetoric ‘substantial’ being the most used, he’s made a rod for his own back, promise change, you better deliver it, for real.

    Opit- Honestly I don’t have a firm opinion except it was not a lone gunman without outside support. Ever think the Bush dynasty is the GOP mirror of the Kennedy’s?

  6. opit Says:

    I afraid I don’t follow you on that one, Rick. Or is it just the crime family connection you’re driving at ?
    Frankly, at least one ‘conspiracy’ group puts LBJ and the Bushes both onstage at some point re: the ‘regicide’. The Secret Service was not in place in their accustomed positions : someone in authority must have given an order.

  7. RickB Says:

    Hmm, well I wasn’t suggesting Bush dynatsy had a hand in JFK, but now I think about it… I was just noticing how one dynasty is world famous but another is not perceived as such even though has had more power.

    Did you see E. Howard Hunt did a deathbed accusation that it was LBJ-

  8. opit Says:

    Nope. If I was going to chase that chimera, I’d likely start here

  9. opit Says:

    Oops.Hadn’t recalled it off the top of my head – but yes I did trip over the Hunt confession.
    I think it was Len Hart who laid out quite a trail of how agents are used and discredited on a regular basis.Did I ever bug you about Mind Control ? I usually just cite my Overton Window links, but Doug Feith’s name keeps coming up. Rense and Hong Pong are plenty wild enough for me.

  10. RickB Says:

    Well some MKultra stuff is now in use via the Army Field Manual appendix m even as many are encouraged to see the AFM as something that prohibits torture.

  11. opit Says:

    ‘Encouraged’. Fine descriptor for flim-flam. A career in diplomacy may yet be yours.
    If the death penalty being called for under the authority of being signatory to international agreements – that fine buzz of activity at the end of WW II comes to mind – is not sufficient deterrent; nor the oath to uphold the Constitution; the Army Field Manual doubtless would not be held as constraining other services.
    Even I would have trouble construing Gitmo or al Ghraib as being included in the relevant context, i.e. “Field of Battle”.

  12. RickB Says:

    I’ve got the feeling my diplomacy only stretches so far, and nowhere near far enough to work for government!
    The instant they put out the ‘enemy combatant’ nonsense it was plain they were after a new category of human being who could be treated inhumanely. And also make the battle one where there was no distinction between civilian and ‘enemy’. All in all a lot of flim flam by ‘lawyers’ to camouflage base brutality, much like the Reich’s very legalistic approach to their crimes. Ultimately national ego and imperial supremacy overrode any principle, no one ever accused of neocon of being humble!

  13. opit Says:

    You should now check the relative length of your legs. Consider yourself ‘had’.
    Funny how certain ideas end up being treated from different angles at the same time. Everybody is busy scoffing at partisan politics and dysfunctional ideas. Yet a pattern is clear.
    Let’s not send you back to Naomi Klein. Here’s a sci-fi buff and opinionated mama – who knows how many beans make five. Check the comments thread too : good stuff.
    Yes, I do eventually end up putting in my two cents worth.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: