PETRAEUS has betrayed US?

Question

Do you think so? or do you just see him as a 4 star liar and spin machine?

Answer 1

SURE. This was his job to bring the good news to remaining bush lovers, for they're the only one falling for bush's BS all the time!

It's so pathetic to see, these crowed are buying this nonsense, where this was one the bloodiest summer since starting the war!!

All those charts and numbers, my behind!!

4 star lying, hand picked general who sold his dignity for "bush"!! some one who already is well known for moronic decisions and over all disastrous presidency!!

Answer 2

AWWW here it is ! I was waiting for this to come up ! The liberals where so convinced that Petraeus was going to give a dim outlook on the war report they even praised him . Then they find out that the presidents surge plan is very successful and worried that the General would tell it like it is .So they attempted to discredit him before he even gave the report . So now the Liberal Democrats are on a new diet eating Crow ! They are so mad that Bush's plan is working .They are panicking trying to spin this and the funny part is the more they try to save face the more Pathetic they look . So the bottom line my friend is: The General did NOT betray the USA however The Liberal Democrats betray America on a daily basis .........

Answer 3

god i hope you're not just looking for some cheeky "i hate this administration" answer. that's the real flaw with yahoo answers...people choose the answers they want rather than the best answers. perhaps you'll at least read this response of this moderate who hates partisanship from both sides of the aisle.

first an aside, even the democrats are distancing themselves from the moveon article. though they won't go so far as to denounce the ad as the republicans have (even blocked a vote for congress to formally denounce the ad) because they get too much money from moveon and similar groups.

Patraeus could give a crap what this administration thinks of him. He's a man who cares far more about his men and women under his command and achieving his mission than politics. Plus he has more counter-insurgency experience than anyone else. Who knew the old plan of push back insurgents in some area, then leave to some other hot spot wouldn't work? Oh, right, Patraeus knew that, but he wasn't in charge at the time.

Plus...what does he care what the administration thinks of him. bush can fire him for stating something that doesn't jive with the administration's view, and he'll just get a huge book deal, speaking tour, and probably become another over paid military analyst, and patraeus is smart enough to know this. sounds a lot better than making tough decisions that WILL end with lives lost no matter what he decides all the while defending his actions and success against politicians whose only goal is to be reelected...meaning these politicians are pandering to the base by ripping the general and the administration a new one on the political battlefield where soundbites are the primary weapon of mass misinformation.

Everything patraeus said was right on; the good and the bad. an honest assessment with logical advice. this was no shot in the arm for the bush administration like some uber-leftists are making it out to be.

yes, the military goals of the surge in large part are being met, even many who were very vocal critics of the surge agree to that...haha, if the NY Times says something in iraq is improving, you know it's the damn truth because they hate everything to do with the bush administration...hard to blame them, but come on the administration has got to get something right every now and then.

and yes, the problem is that the political goals previously set are not being met as quickly...that has nothing to do with troop levels though. that has to do with the resolve of the iraqi government and people and with political moves of this administration...not military moves. pulling out, threatening to pull out, or putting another 150,000 troops in...none of that will get the iraqi government moving in the right direction. The military's job is to build up iraqi security forces and limit the violence....they're doing that and better than many are willing to admit because any good news from iraq is good for this administration...and bush is the devil, therefore there is no good news in iraq and the general is a liar! mwahahaha, my liberal logic is infallible.

That moveon.org ad was infinitely more politically motivated than the general is...I mean they printed it, calling him a liar and a stooge without even knowing what he was going to say.

Only the most sheep-like, bush-hating liberals (nothing wrong with libs or conservs...just those who follow idealogy and political spin blindly) buy the moveon ad or think moveon is anything but uber-biased.

Patraeus is about the only good choice this administration has made. Question is...did they put him in in time to correct the mistakes that have already been made? I don't know, but I hope so for the sake of our troops, the iraqi people, and for the sake of a more stable middle east. Because if it's too little too late, we're f#cked whether we "pull out now" or not.

Answer 4

Yep; he sure has! He disagreed with the liberals so obviously he must be. Of course if he had agreed, he would have been a hero, right? Geez - same tired old Marxist dribble! Did anyone notice that his report was not the big shot in the arm that the President had hoped it would be? Both sides unhappy, eh? Perhaps that means he had the audacity to do what military officers are trained to do and give their best military advice devoid of politics? But as is par for the course with modern day liberals, to disagree is to be a capitalist stooge and thus a demon.

Answer 5

I don't think he has betrayed the US and I don't believe he's a liar either. I think he said here it is, it's up to you to decide. But the real betrayers don't want to decide. They don't care about facts, they just want someone to tell them, it's ok, we can leave now, no problem. They want it nice and simple and it's not. And no matter what we do, there will be consequences. This is how real life is. We have to decide which set of consequences we want. This is going to be the hardest decision Americans have had to make in a long time. No matter how much mud slinging is done, there will still be a decision to made. I hope they will try to make it with dignity and willingness to accept the good with the bad that will come with it.

Answer 6

I love to hear democrats complain about the spin from the Bush administration. Especially after Clinton, who had the largest spin organization of any president in US history.

But the Democrats did have one good point in electing Clinton. At least we now know that oral sex is not sex by presidential decree.

Military assessments are just that assessments. They tell what is happening to the best of their abilities. There are always political considerations, there are also security considerations. They are not psychics giving a prediction of the future, and in one week the whole picture can change. War is fluid and you have to take what the military provides, know you will never know everything, unless you have a darn good security clearance, and that our service members are fighting, being wounded and some even dying, to serve our country and it's allies.

Just support the troops and get over your petty political agenda.

Answer 7

What I find so confusing and in 'shock and awe' about is how supposedly intelligent and successful men in their fields have allowed themselves to manipulated by a man like Bush, President or not.

'Betrayus', because of his attempts to fool the American people and the world has in essence ruined his career... NO ONE BELIEVES THE RUBBISH HE SPOKE OF YESTERDAY...NO-ONE, well except lemmings in the neocon party.

Answer 8

Unfortunately, Petraeus is at the mercy of his incompetent civilian masters. What can he say? If he wants to keep his career viable, he's going to be forced to spout the party line.

Answer 9

Really neither, with few exceptions, a General rarely goes against an administration's policy publicly, regardless of what party the president is from. Since the Civil War, the only two major exceptions I can think of is MacArthur in Korea and Powell when "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was instituted (Powell didn't publicly attack it, but his displeasure with Clinton was obvious). You have to understand that to generals, leaving is not an option, so they don't think of that. They think only about ways to win the war. They usually don't consider it their job to factor politics into it. It was much different in the old Prussian/Imperial German General Staff, they had a whole slew of officers who's sole duty was to factor in politics when considering military decision. We don't do that.

Answer 10

He was handpicked for a job where other generals previously got booted because they didn't do the President's bidding.

That and the fact he was visited by the President just before the report only confirms my suspicions.