Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

The Jehoshua Novels


Gen. Petraeus Should Be Relieved of . . .

. . . his command immediately. The Democrats should call for his head. This is simply inexcusable. It is military interference in civilian/political affairs and deeply corrosive of the democratic process. People love to say, “it can’t happen here.” Well guess what? It is. This is proof. It won’t happen overnight or in an instant, but this is more evidence of the slow eroding of our constitutional norms.

12 comments to Gen. Petraeus Should Be Relieved of . . .

  • Jimbo92107

    Let’s just start calling them Republican generals. That’s what they are, so call it as we see it.

    “Death before being dishonored any more.” – Col. Ted Westhusing

  • Anonymous

    eom


    the editor formerly known as candy

  • rMatey

    Ewwwwwww! I liked the comment on the Republican Guard. But I thought they were protecting ALL of ‘Merica?

  • barrisj redux

    that since his fucking “surge” has kicked off, more than twice as many Yank military have died than Iraqi soldiers in the Baghdad operations…funny, that. Does the good general have any trenchant comments to address this statistic? Or, how about the egregious Sen. Lindsay Graham, who wants “six months” – or, one “friedman” – to pass before judgment is rendered on this latest rescue attempt at a discredited and failed policy? BOLLOCKS to the lot of them…my god, two weeks in the Oregon wine district (Yamhill – fantastic Pinot Noir) and come back to the same old bullshit. And that blathering cockbite of a “president” is still hawking the same old wares…”there you go again…”, to paraphrase one of His Excellecy’s fav predecessors. Sod the bugger, call out the sappers and rid the world of this cancer.

  • Scott M

    don’t mince words, tell us what you really think!

    “I beseech you in the bowels of christ think it possible you may be mistaken.”

  • JustPlainDave

    …two reasons:

    1) Is this type of consultation really without historical parallel? I don’t know whether it is or not, but I do know that one shouldn’t call for the guy’s head without knowing that, and I haven’t seen anything that indicates to me that this is definitively known, rather than assumed. I find the whole notion of a general addressing anybody’s caucus to be heebie-jeebie inducing in the extreme, but better make sure that it ain’t how business is customarily done without folks previously taking notice.

    2) Even if this was beyond the pale, one may want to give the leash a real strong jerk so it doesn’t happen again and take it (least until renewal time). You’ve finally got a high command that has some sort of understanding of what they’re up against, combined with a political environment that says this is the last throw of the dice. This guy may well be so central that you’re over the barrel if you don’t want to see the regional security situation get far worse. Would that it wasn’t, but the politically acceptable general officer talent pool don’t seem that deep.

    “Political Islam is a dream or a nightmare, but not a sociological reality.” – Olivier Roy, Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah

  • worldwise

    - Its wrong. But if it can be shown that they’ve kept us in the dark about earlier, similar impropriety they get a pass. Besides, this is the best wrong guy we’ve got. He deserves a chance to drag failure out a little longer. It’s our best shot at defining ‘bloody bitter end’.

  • Joaquin

    that the military is voted out? We can be rid of them?

  • HongPong

    the military industrial complex made sure to put jobs in each congressional district. that’s the overriding factor keeping us on the Militarized Keynesian wheel.

    Hongpong.com

  • Escher Sketch

    But -

    Is this type of consultation really without historical parallel? …better make sure that it ain’t how business is customarily done without folks previously taking notice.

    - the assassination of Lincoln didn’t legitimize the assassination of Kennedy, and – if it rises to the level of “outside the bounds of legality under the Hatch Act” – then the fact that previous criminal behaviour might have gone unremarked is irrelevant.

  • JustPlainDave

    The shorter form would be: be damned sure it’s wrong rather than assumed to be wrong before investing a lot of outrage in it, lest the walkback be damagingly long.

    Even if it does prove to be wrong, be thoughtful about removing the guy, ’cause unfashionable as the notion is there are still things to lose. Damned all to win, but still things to lose.

    I’m not sure I do “short” that well anymore…

    “Political Islam is a dream or a nightmare, but not a sociological reality.” – Olivier Roy, Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah

  • JustPlainDave

    …taking notice” is intended to reflect someone engaging in legal behaviour that folks presume rather than know to be illegal, and that they’ve never noticed happening before, rather than illicit behaviour that was not previously noticed.

    That the incident might never have happened is one that never occurred to me – when someone reports that a meeting occurred, that at least I expect them to get right. [To be clear, that's not a poke at commenting on this issue; once something's reported we should ideally be able to use that type of reporting as a jump off point - it's a poke at whoever erroneously reported it.]

    “Political Islam is a dream or a nightmare, but not a sociological reality.” – Olivier Roy, Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah

Leave a Reply