as new head of CENTCOM: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/10/petraeus/index.html

Quote :

"The Senate on Thursday confirmed Gen. David Petraeus as the new chief of U.S. Central Command, placing him in charge of American forces in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The Senate votes 95-2 to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his new position. Petraeus has served as the top U.S. commander in Iraq since January 2007 and has led the 15-month "surge" effort aimed at pacifying Baghdad and its surrounding provinces. His new post gives him the additional responsibility of leading American forces in the tense Persian Gulf region and managing the war in Afghanistan, where U.S. and allied troops are battling a resurgent Taliban and its al Qaeda allies."

They really couldn't have picked a better man for this job. Petraeus commanded the 101st in the initial invasion and kept a pretty tight lid on the insurgency in his area. He was a strong advocate for engaging with Iraqi leaders and literally wrote the current anti-insurgency book.


Senators Tom Harkin and Robert Byrd had to make political points though:

Quote :

"Harkin's office said neither Petraeus nor Odierno would take steps to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq "so that our country can begin to more effectively address the very real threat posed by terrorists around the globe.""

That isn't their job and as a US Senator you know better. Soldiers execute the will of the civilian controlled government. Don't pass on your party's inability to deliver on its promises to the people executing a war you voted for.

Senator Byrd on the other hand said:

Quote :

""Gen. Petraeus' career will be judged in large part by his role in the Iraq conflict," Byrd said. "His reticence to address other regional issues raises questions about his willingness to devote the focus and the resources needed to address them properly.""

I have no idea where he came up with this. Casualties have fallen under GEN Petraeus' command, Iraqis are becoming more engaged (albeit slowly) with the management of their country and, for the first time, we're executing the strategy that a lot of retired generals said we should have kicked off with in 2003.

Fuckin' a, if you have a reservation about this man's ability to lead then don't vote for him, but passing your weak political points off like this? Pathetic.



* Sorry if this sounds too much like a hooksaw post, but this stuck in my craw.

7/10/2008 7:11:48 PM

Byrd is just worried how history will judge HIS career.

7/10/2008 9:04:26 PM

good stuff

7/11/2008 10:18:28 AM

everyone loves general petraeus

if he played his cards right, he could be president one day

this isn't controversial

7/11/2008 10:19:48 AM

well Im sure when Bush starts WWIII with Iran and institutes martial law, you will probably get your wish

7/13/2008 6:13:19 PM

^^ I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but everyone DOES love petraeus.

7/13/2008 6:34:21 PM

yeah, all accounts seem to give him entire credit for any positive momentum in Iraq

7/13/2008 6:37:48 PM

^^^ Dude. Seriously. Why the fuck do you make stupidass posts like that?

7/13/2008 6:40:38 PM

I haven't seen anything I would regard as negative about Petraeus. Thank god someone finally put him in charge of Iraq. Should have happened much sooner.

7/13/2008 8:51:54 PM

everyone loves Petraeus? are you kidding me? do you not remember this:



or the fact that Sens Clinton, and Dodd (who may be Obama's VP) voted against condemning the ad, while Sen. Obama skipped that vote (but voted on two other Iraq-related resolutions on the same day)?

he's a great choice for CENTCOM, and moveon.org be damned

7/13/2008 8:53:15 PM

i disagreed with MoveOn's tactic just like every other intelligent anti-war, Bush hating liberal I know. they really shot themselves in the foot on that one.

BUT

since when should the Senate be in the business of condemning or censuring -- can you say "censoring" -- free political speech by a private organization?

what kind of commie fascist state is your ideal world like, DAWG?

7/14/2008 12:52:07 AM