Petraeus in Afghanistan doesn’t add up


So… Gen. McChrystal is fired and Gen. Petraeus (hated and vilified by the Left last year) becomes Afghan War commander?  Petraeus immediately changes the RoE’s.

I don’t quite understand the political maneuvering at work here.  It just doesn’t add up.

General McChrystal is so highly regarding my those under his command that they have nicknamed him “The Pope”.  He has the highest integrity and is reportedly above reproach.  He is not a politically connected general, but one that was a soldier, an uber-soldier.  He was a highly decorated Special Forces soldier.  He was the leader of the Special Forces team that captured Saddam Hussein.  Like I said, McChrystal is an uber-soldier!

In my opinion, his lippy comments came after his professional expertise was being ignored by a President who is too busy to meet with his war generals DURING WAR!  Obama left McChrystal hanging last year without approving a war strategy (an obligation of the Commander in Chief).  After several months of attempted communication, McChrystal finally made comments to the press to get our distracted Commander in Chief’s attention.  Why would a General have to make comments to the press in order to get the POTUS / Command in Chief to pay attention to the war DURING WAR???????  Why?

Now… General Petraeus was the world’s most hated man last year.  Remember the New York Times ad “General Betray Us”?  MoveOn.org, the George Soros backed and loudest Obama supporter organization, paid for that ad.  They wanted him fired for being such a war-monger.  Why did Obama tap Petraeus?  Why did Petraeus accept the position under Obama??  What is going on?  Gen. Petraeus successfully lead the military insurgency in Iraq and is responsible for the entire mission’s success.

I thought Obama and everyone on the Left wanted to end the wars in the Middle East and bring all of our troops home?  Why is Obama, Commander in Chief, ignoring the war under McChrystal, and then escalating the war under Petraeus?

First thing Petraeus did was to change the Rules of Engagement (RoE’s) to something more sensible than the previous RoE – shoot only after another soldier is shot, but only if there are no civilians around.  Come on!!???!?!??!???!  Petraeus threw non-sense that out.  Why did Obama allow it?  Nothing adds up here.

Is there a political plan afoot to lose this war and blame Petraeus?  Is Obama really trying to win the war?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/25/petraeus-modify-afghanistan-rules-engagement-source-says/

About Christine

I believe in the CONSERVATIVE principles and values of the Republican Party as they are written, and not how they are currently practiced by today's RINO's. Smaller government, lower taxes, more personal responsibility, states' rights, free market capitalism, and less government intrusion in our lives!
This entry was posted in National politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Petraeus in Afghanistan doesn’t add up

  1. Awesome post tiffani, it’s been a while since I’ve been on here. I see that nobody has lost their passion. Good to be back.

  2. sonneandgone says:

    Incredible website I enjoyed reading your information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s