Posted on 01/26/2007 8:39:22 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The US Senate has unanimously confirmed Lt-Gen David Petraeus as the commander of US forces in Iraq. He takes over from Gen George Casey, whose replacement was announced by President George W Bush as part of a January shake-up.
Lt-Gen Petraeus has spent two of the last four years in Iraq. The news came as the new Democrat Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, arrived in Iraq on a surprise visit. 'Not hopeless' Lt-Gen Petraeus assumes control of US forces in Iraq as Mr Bush prepares to commit thousands more soldiers in a bid to curb the rising violence. Lt-Gen Petraeus was unanimously approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday. A career soldier, he graduated from the West Point military academy in 1974 and was commissioned in the infantry. He has served in the Europe and the Middle East and was commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion of Iraq. Speaking to the senate committee on Tuesday, he said that the task in Iraq was a tough one.
"The situation in Iraq is dire. The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard," he said. "But hard is not hopeless."
|
Sounds like a fer'ner to me...
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 26, 2007
President Bush Congratulates General Petraeus on Senate Confirmation, Discusses Way Forward in Iraq
The Oval Office
10:20 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: I just had a full briefing with General David Petraeus about the way forward in Iraq. I want to thank the Secretary, and General Pace, National Security Advisor, for joining this discussion. Congratulations.
GENERAL PETRAEUS: Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate confirmed this good man without a dissenting vote. I appreciate the quick action of the United States Senate. I appreciate them giving General David Petraeus a fair hearing, and I appreciate the vote. My instructions to the General is, get over to the zone as quickly as possible and implement a plan that we believe will yield our goals.
I thank the General and his family. I particularly want to thank your family for supporting you and supporting our nation. One of the amazing things about our country is that we've got military folks who volunteer to go into a tough zone to protect the American people from future harm, and they've got families who stand by them. Whether you be a general or a private in the military, there is a U.S. -- there's a family member saying, I love you and I support you.
And so, General, I congratulate you and I congratulate the volunteers and their families for making the hard decisions necessary to protect its people from a grave danger. And you're going into an important battle in this war on terror, and I give you my full support, and wish you Godspeed.
GENERAL PETRAEUS: Thank you, Mr. President. If I could thank the Senate, as well, thank my family, and above all thank those great soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians who are out there on the front lines of the global war on terror.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. I'll answer a couple of questions. Jennifer.
Q Thank you, sir. The other night in your State of the Union address, you asked Congress to give your plan a chance. But lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans, didn't really miss a step in starting to turn out resolutions against that plan. Why do you think it's okay to go ahead without their support?
THE PRESIDENT: One of the things I've found in Congress is that most people recognize that failure would be a disaster for the United States. And in that I'm the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster. In other words, I had to think about what's likely to work.
And so I worked with our military and I worked with Secretary Gates to come up with a plan that is likely to succeed. And the implementor of that plan is going to be General Petraeus. And my call to the Congress is, is that I know there is skepticism and pessimism, and that they are -- some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work. And they have an obligation and a serious responsibility, therefore, to put up their own plan as to what would work.
I've listened a lot to members of Congress. I've listened carefully to their suggestions. I have picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed, because I understand, like many in Congress understand, success is very important for the security of the country.
Let's see -- Steven.
Q This policy of going after the Iranians inside Iraq, are you concerned that that could be a provocative act in the region?
THE PRESIDENT: I made it very clear, as did the Secretary, that our policy is going to be to protect our troops in Iraq. It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them. That's an obligation we all have, is to protect our folks and achieve our goal.
Now some are trying to say that because we're enforcing -- helping ourselves in Iraq by stopping outside influence from killing our soldiers or hurting Iraqi people that we want to expand this beyond the borders -- that's a presumption that simply is not accurate. We believe that we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically, and are working to do that. As a matter of fact, we're making pretty good progress on that front. As you know, the Iranians, for example, think they want to have a nuclear weapon. And we've convinced other nations to join us to send a clear message, through the United Nations, that that's unacceptable behavior.
And so, yes, we're going to continue to protect ourselves in Iraq, and at the same time, work to solve our problems with Iran diplomatically. And I believe we can succeed. The choice is the Iranian government's choice. And one of the things that the Iranian government has done, is they've begun to isolate their nation to the harm of the Iranian people. And the Iranian people are proud people, and they've got a great history and a great tradition.
Our struggle is not with the Iranian people. As a matter of fact, we want them to flourish, and we want their economy to be strong. And we want their mothers to be able to raise their children in a hopeful society. My problem is with a government that takes actions that end up isolating their people and ends up denying the Iranian people their true place in the world. And so we'll work diplomatically, and I believe we can solve our problems peacefully.
Thank you all very much.
END 10:26 A.M. EST
When did the Senate get the power to approve an appointment of an individual to a particular military command? Wouldn't that be the exclusive power of the President as the Commander in Chief?
In the Senate Committee hearing :
*************************
When questioned directly, Petraeus said he would not be able to do his job as commander of MNFI without the additional 21,000 troops President Bush has pledged to Iraq.
See :
Re: What would you say to this sending a message thing if you could say what you thought...
**********************************************
Commentary link at the Blog:
They want to manage the War effort.....I'm not sure when....
More than Shinseki, Abizaid, and Shalikashvili? ;)
Sounds Greek to me.
Troops Died After, Not In, Sneak Attack ~ Karbala Attack ~ Soldiers abducted then killed.....
.....Possible message from Iran......
What about Schimdt? Hrabe? Ramos....etc....We are a melting pot over here...
Exactly my question too. The Senate has no business confirming a MAJCOM appointment. They need to BUTT OUT!
Does the appointment carry with it a fourth star? If so, Senate is required to confirm flag officers. In this case, the MACOM appointment may be a 4-star rank, so they have to promote him before he can become the commander there. I'm not sure if the appointment is a 4-star billet, though.
What about Senator be-tray-US?
Why would the Senate need to confirm an appointment to command?
He may be up for a fourth star, but I think a LTGEN. can have the post. Central Command requires a 4 star I believe.
Why would the democrats vote to confirm the man who thinks we can win the war in Iraq by increasing troops? Don't the democrats think it's stupid to increase the troops? Do they think we should have stupid people running our military operations?
" Why would the democrats vote to confirm the man who thinks we can win the war in Iraq by increasing troops? "
Last night on Special Report , they showed the Quisling Senators , including Susan Collins and Biden , happily wishing Petraeus success in his new position .
Fred Barnes made the point that this is in effect, Petraeus's plan now and with one hand they gush over him and wish him well
and with the other-
they're trying to cut him off at the knees , so he will fail.
Scroll down....and you will find this:
General Patraeus will be confirmed by the Senate soon.
Probably by close to a unanimous vote.
He has said he needs more troops to secure Baghdad.
Various Senators, who will vote for General Patraeus as the "Man to Accomplish the Mission", will then vote to deny the man the tools he has told them he needs.
Then we wonder why after decades of trying to find solutions to the problems if the Middle East we are standing at square one. In the insanity called Washington, the "Man with the plan" is denied the tools to do the job, while the "Man with no plan" gets all the tools he needs to accomplish nothing.
See post #19.
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.