Monday
14Jan
As Commander in Chief, Hillary Won't Listen to GEN Petraeus, Takes Credit for Surge Success
Monday, January 14, 2008 at 11:44PM Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press was asked by Tim Russert if GEN Petraeus says in his upcoming March briefing "'Don’t pull U.S. troops out now’, would you be open to that?”. Her answer, 'No.'"
Nope. Total disregard for military commanders. She went on to talk about our "military’s finest" whose opinion she vows to completely disregard.
The surge has only worked because the Iraqi government follows "everything that I say", says Clinton.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1484940
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (10)
She's an idiot and I am sorry but I shut off the interview. I cannot stand this arrogant woman. Ugh...
Amy, sorry for not commenting something intellectual but she just makes me so mad I can't think straight.
Leticia, back at ya, woman! Imagine how it makes me as an Army wife feel? She's intolerable. She's arrogant. She's wrong. And she's married to Bill.
“2007 was the deadliest for [ US] troops?” – Hillary
Is that correct?
In general, she is delusional.
“ I will put increasing pressure on the Iraqi government “ – Hillary
What is she going to do? Why would they listen to her?
“ the serge was to push the Iraqi government.” – Hillary
She is so vague, it is a wonder she can get out of bed in the morning.
“I know, [Iraqi government] they follow everything I say.” –Hillary.
What is she like a delusional dictator in her mind? Does she think she is the law giver of Earth? Someone should use this quote for the one of the future presidential speeches/debates, if she is picked as the prime candidate for the Dem party. Ask her to explain how the Iraqi government follows her every word. Ask her; are they (The Iraqi Government) like her pet dogs?
This woman is delusional, and she is dangerous. She is a political cardboard cut-out of a presidential candidate. Her plan invites WW III. She has zero understanding of the situation on the ground in Iraq and in the region. She is completely hollow in her self-aggrandizing political aspirations and seems willing to sacrifice American security on the altar of political expediency.
Hillary is not a wise choice for president of the USA.
I'll agree with you all that Hillary does suck. But Johnny-I don't think BUSH doesn't understand the "situation on the ground in Iraq and in the region."
Also, last I checked it was civilians that are in charge of the military. GEN Petraeus is not God. He does NOT have the final say in what goes. And don't give me that BS about Bush listening to his generals on the ground because we all know he failed to do that when the war started and that is why we ended up in the situation we are in.
SF, Of course Petraeus is not God, but he certainly turned the war around. Don't you think he deserves some credit for that?
BS about Bush listening to his generals? How would you know if he does or does not? The fact is that the first 4 years of the war are a perfect example of Bush listening to his commanders, and civilian leadership. GENs Sanchez and Casey advised Bush in the early years before Petraeus, and Rumsfeld before Secretary Gates. That is absolute proof that Bush listens to his commanders and advisors, although Bush is ultimately in charge.
Bush understand's "Iraq and the region" far better than Clinton and even most Republicans.
I believe in giving credit where credit is due. The reason we're "in the siutation we are in" now is because of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Someone eventually had to do something about Saddam. Period. The alternative was to let him continue to affect the area, perhaps use more WMD and then leave his dynasty to his two evil heirs.
Hillary is the personification of narcissism at its best... or worse, depending upon your perspective.
If Bush listened to his generals, why didn't he listen to Shinseki when he said more troops were needed??? And what about when Colin Powell said more troops were needed? He didn't listen to either of them!
Petraeus has done a good job. I hope this turn around is permanent, but I have my doubts. People in that region have fought for years and I just don't think we're going to be able to change that with a year long surge.
And please don't mention Saddam and al-Qaeda in the same breath - they are unrelated.
SF, Shinseki retired in 2003. He was not an on the ground commander at the start of the war in March 2003 but was in the retirement process. Colin Powell had retired years before that. It wouldn't make sense for Bush to be advised by either in terms of combat operations. Bush has consistently taken advice from his civilian and military advisors.
Shinseki did call for many more troops than were sent, but my belief is that even if there were more troops at that time it probably wouldn't have been helpful because the counterinsurgency strategy had not been implemented. It would probably would have been more dangerous for more troops on the ground with the "retreat to the Super FOB (Forward Operating Base)" mentality. That's just conjecture on my part, though.
I meant Saddam and al-Qaeda in an unrealted manner, but they are not completely unrealted. There was a connection even if it was not operational. Both Saddam and al-Qaeda are extremist Sunnis. I wrote this in August:
Captured Iraqi Terrorist Says Bin Laden Had al-Qaeda Camps in Iraq Under Saddam's Regime Video included.
Bill Clinton said this in 1998 as he signed the Iraq Liberation Act:
People and cultures can change. We've seen this throughout history. Your implication is that Arabs cannot change, which is as insulting as say Africans cannot change (look at the problems in Kenya, Sudan, Epthiopia, etc). Reform has been sweeping through the Middle East since 2001.
In any event, GEN Petraeus has a proven record of being trustworthy and a brilliant strategist. The only reason Hillary wouldn't listen to Petraeus is because she's not interested in peace in Iraq or the Middle East but has painted herself into a corner because she's insisted on defeat for several years now. Shinseki and Powell are no Petraeus.
"SF, Shinseki retired in 2003. He was not an on the ground commander at the start of the war in March 2003 but was in the retirement process.
Your comments are just so wrong on multiple levels. First off Gen. Shinseki was the NATO commander in Bosnia, so he knew something about post-conflict peacekeeping requirements against Madman meglomanics. Second, Shinseki also oversaw the containment in Iraq in the later '90's, so he was aware of the situation in Iraq and the potential problems of conducting operations in that region.
No introduction is needed for Colin Powell in relation to Saddam and Iraq. Likewise for the Powell Doctrine use of American force in post Vietnam insergencies.
Both military men's council SHOULD have been heeded from Rummy up to Cheney and Bush. We know this administration only hears what it wants to hear and only says it listens to advice when their original plans goes down the toilet.
"Shinseki did call for many more troops than were sent, but my belief is that even if there were more troops at that time it probably wouldn't have been helpful because the counterinsurgency strategy had not been implemented."
That's the stupidist line put out by the neo-cons when their tails are between their legs since Iraq went wildly off the mark. That is just sour grapes coming from folks like Rummy who only wanted 50K troops initially.
So are you trying to say that today, things would be much, much better with only 50K instead of over three times that number we have NOW? Wrong, dead wrong.
There weren't enough troops to quell the looting with the fall of Baghdad, which showed the vulerability we showed to Saddam's loyalists which embolden them to strike us and the remaining institutions that could have held Iraq together. There weren't even enough troops to guard and dispose of the weapons caches that were later used to make the IED's that have been so terribly effective in killing and maiming our young men and women soldiers.
Ms. Proctor, whinning that more troops only would have been bigger targets makes no sense, especially in light of all the bonehead mistakes made by Jerry Bremmer by disbanding the Iraqi military which deprived tens of 1,000s of trained soldiers their only means of income and fatally flawed deBaathifcation programs that cut out most of the competent managers and leaders that could have help transferred Iraq to a less violent post-Saddam period.
Even in post-war Germany, we didn't deprive the whole German military machine a source of post-Nazi sustance and kick-out every Party member from positions of leadership, paving the way for COMMUNIST Party members to take their places. Didn't we lop off the top tier of the most vicious Nazis to serve as an example for the rest of the country to reform their ways or else?
"I meant Saddam and al-Qaeda in an unrealted manner, but they are not completely unrealted. There was a connection even if it was not operational. Both Saddam and al-Qaeda are extremist Sunnis. I wrote this in August:"
Hogwash! Again, totally not credible before the war and since disproved aftwards. Saddam patterned his regime after a neo-Stalinist model and was just as much of a target of al-Qaeda groups as we were. Saddam didn't tolerate any religious expression that he didn't personally control and created a secularized society, very much like the Shah's, but in an almost mirror imagine in a non-capitalist model that was equally repulsive to the Fundamentalists.
As with ALL of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeldian apologists, the same old fear mongering arguments are trotted out to cow the American public, but we've seen this all before and more people, especially more former GOP voters, aren't buying these tired old hysterical rantings you echo, Ms. Proctor.