Hey! Remember when MoveOn.org drew so much flak for calling General Petreaus "General Betray-us?" Well, guess what? They got that one right.
I rapidly departed MoveOn when they moved from Kucinich (our favorite) to Obama without even consulting the so-called membership. I was of the opinion that either Edwards or Clinton would have been a better choice, and I still think I was right. Nevertheless, MoveOn was dead right about Petraeus.
Personally, I don't care who he was screwing, then or now — albeit, I understand that Obama felt obliged to offer his tender virgin hole to the Great General by approving the"surge" because he thought that he had to; and Obama gave Petraeus the CIA post last year because it was the only way to get him out of the Army, where he worked against the president (approximately) 96.7% of the time, and kept us in Afghanistan years longer than made any sense.
I'm very glad the scrawny but "fit" little shit is getting what he deserves, and I hope his chubby wife, despite her lack of "toned" arms and fetching(?) armpits, gets his entire military pension when she divorces him. Also, I hope that the multinational that hires him goes broke. (Yes, I'm a little vindictive, but we're talking about thousands of dead American soldiers here.)
Anyway, Maureen Dowd got it totally right today in her Times column, the first analysis of the "scandal" that makes any sense at all. Read it.
Showing posts with label Petreaus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Petreaus. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Totally nutzzz
I was just watching the news about the craziness surrounding the Petraeus debacle, and it keeps getting more and more crazy. I cannot pretend to understand what in hell is going on, except for the undenyable fact that men who exercise power have a hard time keeping their dicks in their pants. Is that why Mitt Romney lost? Not enough testosterone?
Anyway, this morning's Times confirmed that I'm not the only one thinking that Mitt Romney's idea for a cap on deductions and credits, as mentioned in my previous post, is not such a bad idea. Needless to say, the cap being considered is more than twice what I (and Romney, at least once) had in mind — $35,000.
So who's against it? Well, according to the Times, universities and other major recipients of charitable contributions. Needless to say, they want exemptions, and they'll probably get them — and that makes the whole idea useless. The biggest beneficiaries, I'd guess, would be religious organizations — the Catholics, the Baptists, the Mormons, the Jews, the Muslims, the Scientologists, and all the other well intentioned scam artists currently enjoying tax favoritism — oh! and let's not forget 501(c)(3) organizations like Crossroads GPS.
Anyway, I guess we'll all just be distracted for a while by the escapades of generals and their lady friends. Obama met with union and progressive leaders today. Are they happy? I doubt it. Tomorrow he meets with corporate big shots. Will they be happy?
I sure as hell hope not.
Anyway, this morning's Times confirmed that I'm not the only one thinking that Mitt Romney's idea for a cap on deductions and credits, as mentioned in my previous post, is not such a bad idea. Needless to say, the cap being considered is more than twice what I (and Romney, at least once) had in mind — $35,000.
So who's against it? Well, according to the Times, universities and other major recipients of charitable contributions. Needless to say, they want exemptions, and they'll probably get them — and that makes the whole idea useless. The biggest beneficiaries, I'd guess, would be religious organizations — the Catholics, the Baptists, the Mormons, the Jews, the Muslims, the Scientologists, and all the other well intentioned scam artists currently enjoying tax favoritism — oh! and let's not forget 501(c)(3) organizations like Crossroads GPS.
Anyway, I guess we'll all just be distracted for a while by the escapades of generals and their lady friends. Obama met with union and progressive leaders today. Are they happy? I doubt it. Tomorrow he meets with corporate big shots. Will they be happy?
I sure as hell hope not.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Oh, bloody hell
It seems that war "hero" and current CIA director David Petraeus has been doing some extramarital screwing around. So what? His wife probably is a lovely woman, but she has all the physical appeal of the Pillsbury doughboy. Yes, I'm a little curious to learn a bit about the "biographer" he's been shagging, but, what the hell? Our curiosity need not be satisfied, and seeing Petraeus gone, all by itself, is just fine with me.
Also gone, it seems, will be Hillary Clinton, who has been doing a very competent job, and Timmy Geithner, who has been pretty much a disaster. I want to see the ass ends of the entire Robert Rubin team swirling around the toilet on their ways towards sewerland. Granted, I don't expect to see Robert Reich appointed to Treasury, much less Joseph Stigletz, albeit I'm pretty sure neither of them is illicitly banging any biographers and/or pole dancers.
So, as we approach the alleged fiscal cliff, we just must hold our breaths. Boehner is making noises like he's hanging tough; the Tea Party types re-elected to the House have no political reasons to change position given the genetic deficiencies of their supporters; and Obama long has appeared far too amenable to bargaining away the safety net for the sake of Wall Street. All our hopes must be placed in the hope that the president might have a backbone somewhere within his slippery political exoskeleton, and a couple of genuine "community organizer" inclinations.
Oh, bloody hell.
Also gone, it seems, will be Hillary Clinton, who has been doing a very competent job, and Timmy Geithner, who has been pretty much a disaster. I want to see the ass ends of the entire Robert Rubin team swirling around the toilet on their ways towards sewerland. Granted, I don't expect to see Robert Reich appointed to Treasury, much less Joseph Stigletz, albeit I'm pretty sure neither of them is illicitly banging any biographers and/or pole dancers.
So, as we approach the alleged fiscal cliff, we just must hold our breaths. Boehner is making noises like he's hanging tough; the Tea Party types re-elected to the House have no political reasons to change position given the genetic deficiencies of their supporters; and Obama long has appeared far too amenable to bargaining away the safety net for the sake of Wall Street. All our hopes must be placed in the hope that the president might have a backbone somewhere within his slippery political exoskeleton, and a couple of genuine "community organizer" inclinations.
Oh, bloody hell.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Very interesting...
No sooner did I post my wish for the demilitarization of David Petraeus than the Obama administration stepped up to grant it. Even though nobody in the punditocracy is interpreting the general's move to the CIA in the light I presented it a few days ago — they honestly couldn't now, could they? — I'm hoping the groundwork is set for a more efficient withdrawal from Afghanistan than we've been led to expect.
A new military assessment claims that seven — count 'em, seven — provinces now can be taken over "successfully" by the Afghan military. Our military drawdown is scheduled to start this summer, shortly after the US leadership shuffle takes place, and it may be that more provinces will be added to the list by then — no matter what actually is happening on the ground. In addition to the Petraeus transfer, the rest of the shuffle looks promising as well.
Robert Gates did a fine job of de-escalating the craziness of Donald Rumsfeld, and I sincerely wish him a pleasant retirement. I think he probably has the grace to keep his face off the cable news networks and spend his time enjoying golf or gardening or grandchildren or whatever. Leon Panetta should be a fine replacement — politically astute, low key, and not seeking further advancement. He should do quite well deflecting criticism from Congressional hawks as he explains how we actually "won" the longest war in our history.
Scarcely anybody outside top military brass seem to know anything about Lt. General John Allen, and one only can hope it stays that way. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy to revel in press conferences, so he's probably a fine choice to take the lead in Afghanistan. It's time for the civilian leaders to reassert power over the military, and Allen is unlikely to stand in the way.
As for Petraeus, he can have the pleasure of continuing to piss off the ISI by lobbing drone-borne bombs at Haqqani network bases in Pakistan. He and the Haqqanis deserve each other, and Predator strikes are about all the CIA is (moderately) good at these days. As an intelligence gathering agency, they've been pretty useless for the past decade or so. (I wonder what the CIA assessment of Gadaffi's ability to hang on in Libya looked like.)
A new military assessment claims that seven — count 'em, seven — provinces now can be taken over "successfully" by the Afghan military. Our military drawdown is scheduled to start this summer, shortly after the US leadership shuffle takes place, and it may be that more provinces will be added to the list by then — no matter what actually is happening on the ground. In addition to the Petraeus transfer, the rest of the shuffle looks promising as well.
Robert Gates did a fine job of de-escalating the craziness of Donald Rumsfeld, and I sincerely wish him a pleasant retirement. I think he probably has the grace to keep his face off the cable news networks and spend his time enjoying golf or gardening or grandchildren or whatever. Leon Panetta should be a fine replacement — politically astute, low key, and not seeking further advancement. He should do quite well deflecting criticism from Congressional hawks as he explains how we actually "won" the longest war in our history.
Scarcely anybody outside top military brass seem to know anything about Lt. General John Allen, and one only can hope it stays that way. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy to revel in press conferences, so he's probably a fine choice to take the lead in Afghanistan. It's time for the civilian leaders to reassert power over the military, and Allen is unlikely to stand in the way.
As for Petraeus, he can have the pleasure of continuing to piss off the ISI by lobbing drone-borne bombs at Haqqani network bases in Pakistan. He and the Haqqanis deserve each other, and Predator strikes are about all the CIA is (moderately) good at these days. As an intelligence gathering agency, they've been pretty useless for the past decade or so. (I wonder what the CIA assessment of Gadaffi's ability to hang on in Libya looked like.)
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan...
Afghanistan finally made it back into the news today, and all it took was the escape of nearly five hundred Taliban fighters from the Kandahar prison. Kandahar, you'll recall, is that "former" Taliban stronghold where US troops and their Afghan allies have been doing so "well" lately.
A photograph in the New York Times shows a hole about three feet across, through which the nearly five hundred men escaped Monday night. Even if nobody happened to notice five months of construction to build the tunnel — complete with electric lighting and air vents — one wonders how so many prisoners managed to queue up and disappear down the rabbit hole without a guard or two wondering what was going on. Apparently all the Taliban fighters were held in some common area, not locked in individual cells. It seems, to me, at least, a very odd way to imprison presumably dangerous men.
Afghanistan, of course, is monumentally corrupt — and corruption certainly must have played a role in the great escape, just as it plays a role in everything else that has to do with US support for the Karzai government. For some reason, though, US officials, both military and diplomatic, refuse to accept that if you can't trust your "allies" — the people for whom you are spilling lots of blood and spending vast amounts of money — there is no chance of "victory."
Since the start of the Obama "surge," death rates for NATO troops and Afghan civilians have spiked. Parts of the country occupied at great cost suddenly lose their "strategic importance," and are abandoned to the Taliban as the troops that took them are withdrawn to fight in some new, "strategically important" area. Most Americans, tired of hearing more of the same news from Afghanistan over and over, have tuned out — but if you ask them, most say we should just pull out of the country and let the Afghans sort things out for themselves.
What keeps a poll-driven administration from recognizing the will of the people, declaring victory, and just getting the hell out?
One factor, of course, is the political power of the military contractors who are making fortunes producing all the crap we are flushing down the Afghan toilet. The other is General David Petreaus.
Petraeus has cleverly positioned himself as the heroic military genius who may never be criticized. Whatever his alleged skill in the field of anti-insurgency, his talent for self-promotion and public relations is unsurpassed. Whenever there is any sign of movement to end our involvement in Afghanistan, Petreaus takes to the media to tell us all how, thanks to his personal genius, victory is just around the corner.
Obama can't control him, so it seems the only way to get the US out of Afghanistan is to get Petreaus out first. An opportunity to do so may arise when the CIA Director's position falls vacant, giving the president an opportunity to "promote" the thorn in his side straight out of the military. I'm sure the general's anti-insurgency "expertise" will be just as "useful" at the spy agency as it has been on the battlefield.
Then, just maybe, command of the war in Afghanistan can be put in the hands of somebody willing to bring the troops home.
A photograph in the New York Times shows a hole about three feet across, through which the nearly five hundred men escaped Monday night. Even if nobody happened to notice five months of construction to build the tunnel — complete with electric lighting and air vents — one wonders how so many prisoners managed to queue up and disappear down the rabbit hole without a guard or two wondering what was going on. Apparently all the Taliban fighters were held in some common area, not locked in individual cells. It seems, to me, at least, a very odd way to imprison presumably dangerous men.
Afghanistan, of course, is monumentally corrupt — and corruption certainly must have played a role in the great escape, just as it plays a role in everything else that has to do with US support for the Karzai government. For some reason, though, US officials, both military and diplomatic, refuse to accept that if you can't trust your "allies" — the people for whom you are spilling lots of blood and spending vast amounts of money — there is no chance of "victory."
Since the start of the Obama "surge," death rates for NATO troops and Afghan civilians have spiked. Parts of the country occupied at great cost suddenly lose their "strategic importance," and are abandoned to the Taliban as the troops that took them are withdrawn to fight in some new, "strategically important" area. Most Americans, tired of hearing more of the same news from Afghanistan over and over, have tuned out — but if you ask them, most say we should just pull out of the country and let the Afghans sort things out for themselves.
What keeps a poll-driven administration from recognizing the will of the people, declaring victory, and just getting the hell out?
One factor, of course, is the political power of the military contractors who are making fortunes producing all the crap we are flushing down the Afghan toilet. The other is General David Petreaus.
Petraeus has cleverly positioned himself as the heroic military genius who may never be criticized. Whatever his alleged skill in the field of anti-insurgency, his talent for self-promotion and public relations is unsurpassed. Whenever there is any sign of movement to end our involvement in Afghanistan, Petreaus takes to the media to tell us all how, thanks to his personal genius, victory is just around the corner.
Obama can't control him, so it seems the only way to get the US out of Afghanistan is to get Petreaus out first. An opportunity to do so may arise when the CIA Director's position falls vacant, giving the president an opportunity to "promote" the thorn in his side straight out of the military. I'm sure the general's anti-insurgency "expertise" will be just as "useful" at the spy agency as it has been on the battlefield.
Then, just maybe, command of the war in Afghanistan can be put in the hands of somebody willing to bring the troops home.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Afghanistan, again
Now that the US has been in Afghanistan longer than the Soviet Union was — which also makes our fumbling around there the longest war in our history — it seems like a good time for a review of what's going on over there. The Obama administration is planning to release a "December Review" shortly, but we already know what it's going to say. According to Petraeus and crew, we'll be "making good progress" — military leaders just hate losing wars, possibly more than even presidents do.
On the ground, though, all we're doing is propping up a corrupt government, lining the pockets of warlords and military contractors, and creating a great deal of misery at very great expense. We already know that whatever remains of the original Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden included, is in Pakistan — probably guests of the Haqqani Network, under the protection of Pakistan's ISI. Yes, it's a shame that so many lives had to be lost so that a pack of rich, sleazy bastards could get even richer, but that's what happened, and throwing more lives and money at an impossible situation won't bring any of them back.
Some are concerned that the Iranians will go into Afghanistan if the US pulls out "too soon." If they do, it will be a damned shame for Iran. Afghanistan is not called "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.
On the ground, though, all we're doing is propping up a corrupt government, lining the pockets of warlords and military contractors, and creating a great deal of misery at very great expense. We already know that whatever remains of the original Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden included, is in Pakistan — probably guests of the Haqqani Network, under the protection of Pakistan's ISI. Yes, it's a shame that so many lives had to be lost so that a pack of rich, sleazy bastards could get even richer, but that's what happened, and throwing more lives and money at an impossible situation won't bring any of them back.
Some are concerned that the Iranians will go into Afghanistan if the US pulls out "too soon." If they do, it will be a damned shame for Iran. Afghanistan is not called "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)