Retired Generals? What About Active Duty Generals?

• April 28, 2007

The media has found yet another retired US general with opinions that just happen to line up with their agenda, so they’re hyping what he has to say:

Retired Gen.: Bush should sign Iraq bill
WASHINGTON – President Bush should sign legislation starting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Oct. 1, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom said Saturday.
“I hope the president seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill Congress has sent him,” Odom said, delivering the Democrats’ weekly radio address.

Odom’s personal political biases aside (he’s saying this during a Democrat radio broadcast, for crying out loud), would the media care if Odom supported the President’s strategy in Iraq? Would they care if he thought we should keep troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future without talking about any sort of withdrawal date?
Why do I get the idea that the only reason Odom’s comments are considered newsworthy is because he happens to be endorsing the Democrat “strategy” (if you can call giving up a strategy)? Does anyone really believe that his comments would be in the headlines had he endorsed the surge?
But media bias aside, what about active duty General David Petraeus? You know, the guy who is responsible for the “surge” plan? The one the Democrats unanimously appointed to run the war in Iraq? The guy who is saying that the withdrawal date the Democrats want doesn’t give him enough time to execute the plan the Democrats themselves appointed him to pursue?

Only hours after Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, told lawmakers that he needed more time to gauge the effectiveness of a troop buildup there, the House voted 218 to 208 pass a measure that sought the removal of most combat forces by next spring. Mr. Bush has said unequivocally and repeatedly that he will veto it.

Doesn’t General Petraeus’ opinion count for something in all this?

Tags: Politics, War On Terror

http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

These retired generals have an irrational fear that defense costs will eat into increases in their cushy retirement benefits.
jpe

Does Petraeus have an obligation to support the President’s policies? I’ll take responses off air.
jpe

Traditionally, presidential nominations are given deference unless a) the candidate is inept; or b) the candidate’s policies are considered to be beyond the pale. So to read confirmation as policy affirmation is to misunderstand how the confirmation process traditionally works.
jpe

Deference, not preference.

Don’t you remember the Alito hearings, when it was argued by many that presidential nominations should be confirmed barring some exceptional circumstance?

That really wasn’t so long ago, so you should probably remember, but if you google “nomination + confirm + deference” I’d bet you get a feel for the prevalence of this position.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I know what you’re trying to do. Undermine Petraeus’ credibility by suggesting that he has no choice but to support the war. But that’s B.S. He wrote the surge strategy. This is his policy being implemented in Iraq.

Now tell me why the Democrats aren’t supporting the guy they appointed to run the war?
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

So to read confirmation as policy affirmation is to misunderstand how the confirmation process traditionally works.

Oh jeez. Presidential appointees are given preference? Policy doesn’t matter?

So then what was all that anguish over the John Roberts/Sam Alito appointments? How about the Condi Rice appointment?

Give me a break, jpe. You’re really stretching.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

You’re really stretching to play CYA for the Dems, jpe. I didn’t expect such blind partisanship from you.

They voted in Petraeus. If they want to retreat from Iraq they shouldn’t have appointed a General whose strategy is to surge. There’s no excuse for that.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Retired Generals? What About Active Duty Generals?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments