Retired Generals? What About Active Duty Generals?
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?
