Obama replaces McChrystal with Petraeus

[sbat]

What's the word on Petraeus being positioned for a run in 2012? How do you think this may impact that prospective run?

 

[TomCat84]

What's the word on Petraeus being positioned for a run in 2012? How do you think this may impact that prospective run?

I don't think he will, honestly. 2016, maybe.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

What's the word on Petraeus being positioned for a run in 2012? How do you think this may impact that prospective run?

I get the impression that most generals these days really don't have much interest in such things, it's the pundits and party bosses that do. People used to say the same stuff about Shwartzkopf and Powell too, and we saw what happened there. Nothing.

This is what happens when one of the parties doesn't have any good options for presidential candidates; they start digging anywhere and everywhere.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Interesting that McChrystal's replacement is Petraeus... Gonna be hard for anyone to bitch about that one.

Looks like I correctly predicted the obvious. lol :biggrin1:

Even the conservative WSJ is kissing Obama's feet today...


Obama Gains Upper Hand With McChrystal's Firing

WSJ.com
JUNE 24, 2010, 1:41 P.M. ET
By GERALD F. SEIB

In a perverse sort of way, the misbehaving general may actually have done his president a favor.

Certainly Gen. Stanley McChrystal's dismissal by President Barack Obama was messy and an unwanted distraction at a particularly sensitive time in the war effort in Afghanistan that the general was leading. Nobody wishes for a problem like the one Gen. McChrystal created when he was quoted almost mocking the civilian leaders around him.

Yet the act of firing the general actually has its benefits for Mr. Obama. It allowed him to be a tough guy and a decisive leader, precisely when a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed more voters doubting he has those attributes.

The firing also gives the president a chance to end, once and for all, the sniping within his administration over Afghanistan policy that has simmered ever since he announced his decision to send more troops there in December. And the firing cleared the way for the president to pick as his new Afghan commander Gen. David Petraeus, probably the single military figure most popular with Republicans, and hence someone who should neutralize, at least for now, any GOP criticism about war strategy.

In this case, it seems clear in retrospect that Mr. Obama would have been criticized far more if he had failed to dismiss Gen. McChrystal. As it was, the firing was a rare moment when left, right and center agreed that Mr. Obama did what he had to do.

Read full article by clicking here

 

[midlifebear]

Although not a fan of any of Bush the Younger's wars, or any war for that matter, there's no question that Petraeus is not only a perfect replacement, but it shows that Petraeus, himself, is remarkable person of character to take a "demotion" and return to a war zone where he certainly won't be as safe and comfortable as he has been serving on US soil.

I think it speaks well of both Petraeus and Obama.

 

[sbat]

I get the impression that most generals these days really don't have much interest in such things, it's the pundits and party bosses that do. People used to say the same stuff about Shwartzkopf and Powell too, and we saw what happened there. Nothing.

This is what happens when one of the parties doesn't have any good options for presidential candidates; they start digging anywhere and everywhere.

FWIW, Wesley Clark ran under the democrat flag in 2000 before admitting defeat and starting up his own PAC (I somehow got on the mailing list and can't get them to stop). As for Powell, serving in a cabinet is more than just pundits and party bosses wagging tongues - granted, he's probably withdrawn from politics out from disillusionment stemming from his Bush experience.

It's rare in this country, for sure, but I don't know much about him and I've heard plenty of rumors, so I figured I'd ask you guys on the board for anything verifiable.

 

[Bbucko]

Honestly think this should be merged with the first thread...

The silver lining to the original thread is a fair quantity of quality posting by members other than the OP. Personally, I've invested about six hours in it (sad but true) :redface:

 

[Bbucko]

What's the word on Petraeus being positioned for a run in 2012? How do you think this may impact that prospective run?

Military experience doesn't really mean much when it comes to voters choosing Presidents. Since the Civil War, only Grant, TR and Eisenhower spring to mind, and Grant's presidency has been pretty universally deplored as contemptible.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

FWIW, Wesley Clark ran under the democrat flag in 2000 before admitting defeat and starting up his own PAC (I somehow got on the mailing list and can't get them to stop). As for Powell, serving in a cabinet is more than just pundits and party bosses wagging tongues - granted, he's probably withdrawn from politics out from disillusionment stemming from his Bush experience.

It's rare in this country, for sure, but I don't know much about him and I've heard plenty of rumors, so I figured I'd ask you guys on the board for anything verifiable.

If Petraeus would do anything, it wouldn't be until 2016... And by then, people might forget who he is... Or more likely, the Afghan quagmire will tarnish his reputation.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Military experience doesn't really mean much when it comes to voters choosing Presidents. Since the Civil War, only Grant, TR and Eisenhower spring to mind, and Grant's presidency has been pretty universally deplored as contemptible.

I've never been a Grant fan, as I have too many Southern connections, but there has been some re-visiting of his Presidency, the details of which I cannot recall, but which paint him as more nuanced than the drunken buffoon he is oft characterized as. Compared with his impeached predecessor, he must have looked pretty good by comparison.

As to TR, his military post was really largely self-created and appointed as Lt. Colonel of the Rough Riders, since they were a self formed Hodge poge of Westerners, and former Ivy Leaguers whom he personally recruited. Ironically he resigned as Under-Secretary of the Navy in order to take the post and was both awarded and stripped of the Medal of Honor for his role in taking San Juan Hill. It was later re-awarded post humusly. He's still one of my fav Presidents mainly for creating most of which later became the New Deal under his cousin.

Lastly, Ike, although very popular, was often considered less of a skilled Commander than Montgomery, who's actions turned the tide in North Africa, Sicily (where he feuded with Patton and Bradley) and during the Battle of the Bulge. Ike was given the Ground Forces Command largely because 50% of all D-Day forces were American. Were that not the case, it's unlikely Ike would have become Prez.

We certainly can't forget our most famous General and first Prez: Washington. He earned both titles the hard way.

 

[TomCat84]

I've never been a Grant fan, as I have too many Southern connections, but there has been some re-visiting of his Presidency, the details of which I cannot recall, but which paint him as more nuanced than the drunken buffoon he is oft characterized as. Compared with his impeached predecessor, he must have looked pretty good by comparison.

As to TR, his military post was really largely self-created and appointed as Lt. Colonel of the Rough Riders, since they were a self formed Hodge poge of Westerners, and former Ivy Leaguers whom he personally recruited. Ironically he resigned as Under-Secretary of the Navy in order to take the post and was both awarded and stripped of the Medal of Honor for his role in taking San Juan Hill. It was later re-awarded post humusly. He's still one of my fav Presidents mainly for creating most of which later became the New Deal under his cousin.

Lastly, Ike, although very popular, was often considered less of a skilled Commander than Montgomery, who's actions turned the tide in North Africa, Sicily (where he feuded with Patton and Bradley) and during the Battle of the Bulge. Ike was given the Ground Forces Command largely because 50% of all D-Day forces were American. Were that not the case, it's unlikely Ike would have become Prez.

We certainly can't forget our most famous General and first Prez: Washington. He earned both titles the hard way.

I believe the re examining you are refering to is in reference to his ardent support for the civil rights of blacks/recently freed slaves. He supported the continuing stationing of troops in the South to back up said rights- and this resulted in the election of the first Republican governments in a long time- including the election of several black representatives. As the years passed, the country tired of occupying the South, and as the troops withdrew, terrorist groups like the KKK sprung up to intimidate the newly enfranchised blacks- one by one, the governments fell back toward the regressive Democrats.

 

[TomCat84]

Unfortunately, Grant's presidency soon became known more for his drunkeness and corruption- and the Republican Party began slowly being taken over by Big Business.

 

[ZOS23xy]

You mean Monopolies....

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^Which led to the lamo Waite court some years later. (Waite was put on the USSC by Grant, and is the jackass whose court was the first to make a series of rulings that led to today's oxymoronic era, where corporations are people too)