Posted on 11/29/2016 2:16:30 AM PST by Eleutheria5
It was announced in June, and the group includes a number of other retired brass, including Stanley McChrystal (from Trump’s VP list) and Weaseley Clark.
“I’m sorry but his work in Iraq with General Flynn was outstanding. He gets my vote. Big time.”
Same here. I was over there at the time and saw his handiwork even before he arrived. He ordered the arrest, detention and expulsion of the Iranian “diplomats” who were funding and running the insurgency. I read of the howling protests of Iraqi politicians in the medias and witnessed attacks for that week go from their average of ~180 to 7. And they stayed down.
That single act of leadership by Petraeus single-handedly saved the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of US servicemen and women. And for me that was and remains very, VERY important. I still recall young men and women, kids, being blown up outside base after I’d walked past them 20 min.s earlier on my way to work. Fate had it that in 2006 my shift started at same time a scheduled convoy departed Camp Victory. Its assembly point was a parking lot I’d pass on my way to the Al Faw Palace. They usually put the lowest ranking, newest soldier in the HumVee turret of the lead vehicle. I remember their faces and will never forget it is the Iranians and Syrians who sponsored their murder.
If any enlisted man or low-ranking officer was guilty of the same offenses at Petraeus, he'd be rotting in a military prison now. As with Hillary's handling of classified emails, laws are evidently for little people, not for General Petraeus.
Having an Obama ally and criminal like Petraeus as SoS would probably be the only possible pick worse than Romney that Trump could make from his alleged short list. So I hope that this isn't true.
Not acceptable; anti-second amendment. No power to do anything about it as SOS, but the attitude alone is a disqualifier.
There’s a huge difference between providing TS-SCI information to a SECRET-cleared person, on a SECRET (closed) network and providing TS/SAP information to unlimited uncleared personnel via an internet server.
One is called a spillage, the other is called espionage.
One is a local command issue remediated by a reprimand and wiping some hard drives. The other is a national security breach which is permanent, unlimited and cannot be undone.
The biggest issues in security breaches is if classified information gets outside of a classified information system onto the internet. Think Wikileaks and Edward Snowden.
Petraeus was unduly punished for his spillage. At most he should have been reprimanded and completed his assignment. It should not have affected his military career. To bring it up when he has left the service, is in another position and then to drag it through the media before firing him was an over-the-top political attack. Like something out of the workings of the CCP. So what does that tell you? It tells me he didn’t kiss O’s ass or anyone else’s and made enemies fast in the administration. IOW, they chose him because they had the goods on him and thought they could use that for leverage to have him rubber stamp operations which were most likely against American interests. He refused so they publicly destroyed him. This is how the Left operates. They’ve been doing it for over 100 years.
Have you ever thought what got Petraeus in hot water in DC following his CIA appointment? Do you recall the talk of the military being used confiscate firearms prior to his appointment? Are you aware which branch of service and Command were most often identified to organize and lead gun confiscation or the fact that Petraeus was a former leader of that Command?
Ever considered why all the talk of gun confiscation abruptly stopped after Petraeus was appointed to head the CIA? Have you ever considered the possibility that Petraeus public humiliation and firing was him taking one for us?
As for Trump’s SoS consideration Trump, like any great leader, recognizes ability and success in leaders. He sees an opportunity to obtain the loyalty and dedication of a highly qualified, successful leader by rehabilitating him after an unjust and unwarranted public shaming.
As for Petraeus’ purported anti-gun stance I’m not worried for a few reasons. 1) He was vying for a leadership position in a Leftist government at the time. 2) Talk of gun confiscation ended after he was appointed to head the CIA. 3) Trump is pro-gun. 4) As SoS -who cares, he won’t set US policy.
Petraeus is a good American. He is loyal to the Constitution and the American people. He has placed both above his own interests whereupon the Left publicly destroyed his private and professional life in retaliation. Sounds qualified to me.
He’s of the lie that islam is the religion of peace. He’s a muslim butt kisser. Don’t make the muzzies mad.
You have shown with your comments that YOU GET IT.
You and I agree that Patraeus was thrown under the bus with the affair silliness. But the real reason Hussein Obama attacked Patraeus was to hide the fact Hussein was sending weapons to Muslim terrorists and Patraeus was going to blow that story wide open. Hussein is after all America's FIRST Pro-Muslim President, why should that surprise anyone he wants to hide the obvious?
Do we agree that Hussein was doing everything he could to put the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Egypt?
That Hussein took US troops out of Iraq to hand the country to ISIS?
That Hussein is siding with "rebels" in Syria because they are Muslim terrorists?
That Hussein gave Iran the sweet nuclear deal along with lots of $$ so that Hussein's intent is to empower Iran with the Nuclear weapons?
That Hussein is a Muslim traitor who has done everything he thought he could get away with because his purpose in being in the White House is to hurt the US in every way he can?
ETC.
How do you see Hussein and useful idiot Hillary Clinton? I thing Hussein is the one that buried the email indictment. Hussein will do anything to stop Trump. Plan 1 failed miserably.
I tend to agree. Although I think Obama is a puppet of Valerie Jarrett who is the one in love with Islam.
Hillary cares about the money Saudis and Qataris throw at her to do their dirty work.
The emails and Clinton foundation prove just that, they’re paid lackeys out for the highest bidder, and the Gulf States are dictating policy.
What happens to the sailor who took the wrong pictures? Does he flounder in prison while the Elites get a pass?
That's my thoughts as well. I do not want ANYONE in any government position that is a gun control advocate. If you are against any part of the Bill of Rights and it's original intention, then you should not hold political office.
>> My tinfoil hat is just as worthy as anybody else’s
Providing it’s a good fit.
>> to nominate General David Petraeus to be Secretary of State
I am not at all happy with the possibility of Petraeus as SoS.
>> Simple, trivialize the crimes ... to clear Petraeus
Certainly, one could be more cynical — the hypothetical pardon for Patraeus would serve as the quid pro quo for Hillary mitigating the inconvenient necessity of prosecution. But I’ll reserve such cynicism until after the regime change takes full effect.
“Nominating Petraeus would send an unmistakably clear signal that what Hillary did with classified info.....was no big deal.”
You are exactly wrong. What Petraeus did WAS no big deal. He broke a couple technical rules - the equivalent of driving with expired inspection. He should have been let off with a warning for what he did - especially after we watch as Hillary Clinton gets absolved for deliberately committing actual crimes against the state to cover up other crimes against the state, and we have yet to learn all the damage she may have caused!
The double standard here is profound!
Selecting Petraeus as SOS would send the message that his politically motivated and excessive punishment for a minor technicality by a vindictive democrat administration will not stand.
I would be thrilled to see him get the SOS because he’d do a bang up job and it would be a big f u to the democrats and the press
It would put them in notice you aren’t railroading out people anymore for personal sex scandals and minor infractions - and then when your guy does it “it’s just a blow job” and “at this point what difference does it make!”
Hussein is a big supporter of Muslim and anti-Ameirican activities everywhere. As I see it, the only explanation is that he is a closet Muslim. He can still play pedophile, drunk scumbag as he can tell the Muslims he had to do that to fool the Americans. Hussein is working for Islamic rule of the world. Jarrett is NOT tricking Hussein, they are working together for the same thing.
I would like Petraeus to lead the investigation into Benghazi and the weapons given to Muslim terrorists by Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton. Hang them both when we finally see the money and weapons trails.
A lot of people seem to prefer a mythical Petraeus who would do this to the actual General Petraeus who would do no such thing. I suppose that the fantasy is understandable, but reality always trumps fantasy.
Petraeus may have been critical of Obama and Hillary's actions in Libya after it became an obvious debacle, but he was completely on board with their program of "nation building," arming Libyan "rebels" (jihadis) etc. The last I heard, he wants to replicate the same success story in Syria as well. And we're supposed to believe that Petraeus would hang his allies in this cause?
I'm inclined to agree, although "trial balloon" is a little more polite. It would be interesting to see the Dems make a big deal out of his handling of classified information in the confirmation hearings, though, in the face of their resolute coverup of much, much worse with regard to Hillary Clinton. That's the other edge of that two-edged sword.
What I'd like to see at State is a head-chopper. I think that a purge of that entire department is long overdue and that too many people there have been too unaccountable for far too long. Foreign policy is, at the moment, a product of idiot Democrat ideologues and bribe-takers put in place by globalist zealots who care more for the fictive Greater Good than the interests of their country. For an example I offer up the truly bizarre sequence of events in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria in the year 2011, packaged like a bag of dog poo with a ribbon around the top as the Arab Spring. Now we have ISIS running rampant and Turkey and Russia squaring off over Syria in what looks to be the 13th Russo-Turkish War. (History trivia: the first Russo-Turkish War was in 1568. They'be been at this a long time and the strategic issues haven't changed).
It is rather astonishing that no one in the sitting administration has been able to articulate who we're actually allied with and what our aims are. Contrast the media treatment of this with that of the Vietnam War and see how far the media have degenerated, but that's another conversation. I mean literally, of 100 people stopped in the street and asked what we're doing in the Middle East at the moment, does anyone imagine we'd get a single cogent answer? A thousand? Ten thousand?
This is a drastic failure of policy and communication and it needs to change, and it will not change with the same team in place that presided over the mess to begin with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.