Petraeus for President?
By Steve Benen Thursday Sep 06, 2007 12:39pm
The last time the New York Sun looked beyond the existing Republican presidential field for their dream candidate, the conservative paper’s editorial board begged Dick Cheney to throw his hat into the ring. Today, the Sun’s imagination went in an even more creative direction.
“I am prepared, even eager, to command our forces in this battle — but only on one condition: That you signal that you share my goal of victory. If you think I am mistaken and wish to continue your efforts to undermine me, then I cannot command. Absent that signal, I will resign, effective immediately, and take my case to the voters in a run for the presidency on a campaign to finish the work of winning the war and redeeming the sacrifice of so many Iraqis, allies, and our own GIs.”
That’s the speech we’d like to see General Petraeus deliver to Congress on the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
Yes, the New York Sun wants Petraeus to run for president in order to keep Bush’s Iraq policy in place.
Amanda has a detailed response to all of this, but keep one other thing in mind: counting all of the announced GOP candidates, including some who’ve already dropped out, Republicans have had 11 presidential hopefuls to choose from, and they’re still pining for some other candidate to get into the race and save the party.
That’s just sad.
Login or Register to post comments.
Gag, vomit, spew...
No I do not feel better....
Ya know, I think they should just run that photograph of Petraeus for president. The photo would be so much more effective.
This is not just a petty complaint. This is scary and reminds me of the movie "Seven Days in May", a 1960's movie that depicts an attempted military takeover of the U.S.
Good God, what has this country become?
He served in a war. That means he's not eligible to be a GOP president.
Space Coyote @ 4:
Good Point!
MikeManojlovich @ 3:
Was going to say it sounds like the Sun wants a Gen. James Mattoon Scott but you beat me to it.
ANOTHER LYING BASTARD That's just what the country needs.
Oh, for f**k's sake!
PRESIDENT BETRAYUS!!
Don't we already have one of those?
Space Coyote @ 4:
Uhm, did he actually? Was he anywhere near combat?
Looks like he served in Italy in 74. Got shot by a fellow soldier in a training exercise, and broke his ass in a parachuting accident.
I don't see any signs that he's ever been near enemy fire, until he was stationed as a general in Iraq.
Next on the Fantasy Fuckupball League roster for GOP Hopeful: Jack Bauer!
Baaaaaahahaha
Modern conservatives are so pathetic.
Generally speaking I only want General Wesley Clarke.
If the general were to make such a speech he should be arrested and relieved of command for a direct violation of the code of military justice which prohibits such a blatently political act.
MikeManojlovich @ 3:
Personally, I wouldn't mind a top general at the Pentagon getting so pissed that he stages a coup against the White House and throws out Bush... it would be better than the current gang of organized crime we have there.
Weaseldog @ 1:
My thoughts EXACTLY -- and I just got back from lunch. Baaaaaaaaarrrrrfffffff!!!!!!!!!!
Keep SPREADING this sort of ignorant flapdoodle around!
The more people think that the NY Sun has a good idea (plenty of idiots will support it), the WORSE Petraeus' chances for getting anywhere near the DC-insider support he'd need.
NOBODY hates a popular candidate more than the GOP candidate-mauling selection process.
Blue Buddha @ 15:
Coupe De'Ville.
ysbaddaden @ 13:
Ding ding ding!!! I wish Clarke would enter the fray.
They're putting all of their money on "Drop-Dead" Fred Thompson.
First, it was Joe Lieberman who cloned Droopy Dog, but Fred gives him a run for his money.
That's what's sad.
This would be a great idea for the Repubs because Bush's Iraq policy is so popular.
Yes, and how do you think the NY Sun stays in business?
Fresh funding from the RNC thats how. And stuff like
10 weeks free trial subscription. Most of the senior citizens
in this project who get suckered into this don't know or care
that it's a right wing rag and will forget to cancel.
Mr Law and Order isn't good enough for The Sun? Another actor
who will probably fall asleep in front of foreign leaders just like
Reagan if he shows up at all. But I'm sure this actor will "roar like
a lion" when someone kicks him under the table.
The Sun? Is there anyone in New York that really reads that rag? Or, is it just used as fish wrap?
You shouldn't even bother replying to anything the Sun writes. I live in Manhattan, and I can tell you: NO ONE reads the New York Sun. To keep their circulation numbers up, they leave unsolicited, unwanted copies in people's buildings. My building used to get eight copies every day; they were free, and yet none of my neighbors ever took one. I remember once taking a copy, out of curiosity, and bust out laughing when I saw a large headline, of some problem in the Middle East, accompanied by a photo of -- Heather Mills McCartney. I never checked it out again.
The whole thing would be funny if it weren't for all the trees they are cutting to make that piece of garbage. Don't bother about the Sun. They are like a sad, pathetic, insane man who rants where nobody is listening.
leftminded @ 23:
Many New Yorkers read it while they wrap their fish in it.
I'd rather see Plankton run for president. He has a college degree, after all.
I dunno - he couldn't be any worse than the one you got.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/07/bush-slips.html
I'm seriously considering moving to Canada. I can't put up with this crappy government anymore. Enough is enough and I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for the killing of thousands of innocents. At least in Canada my taxes will benefit the sick and the poor.
We've sold our souls to corporatism a long time ago. America, wake the F up.
Florida State played Clemson last Monday in college football. I shared the desire for VICTORY with Fl State. I was behind them 100%. They lost. But there were 4 quarters, some unbiased referees (well except the last play of the game), and the score was right up there on the scoreboard. I knew who won at the end of the game.
I’m willing to share Petraeus’ desire for VICTORY in Iraq. But first tell me how the score is kept. Tell me who are the unbiased referees, and how we know the game is over? Until then, IRAQ doesn’t have one F’ing thing to do with a college football game, and the cheerleading is annoying.
Cheney will run. Just after we nuke Iran.
Reminds me of the episode in The Simpson of one officer who claimed securing a Walmart in Beirut as military experience.
Bush holds office by way of martial law. Cheney is replaced by Petraeus. Bush steps down. It could happen.....It might just be that we're being groomed already with the top story on the news right now. Anyone watching?
Junta.
Slightly OT but when it comes to idiot monkeyboy, was he joking when he referred to the APEC as OPEC and thanked the Austrian army for their service while in Australia this week?
The only way the repugs will get a viable candidate is to recruit someone that is pretending to be a repug. Look at their debate. They have no one.
leftminded @ 34:
Kidding? He's the Decider. He makes the hard decisions that no one else would make. He decided to make those mistakes.
A Cheney-Petraeus ticket, eh?
That would surpass even the 1968 Wallace-("Bombs Away") Curtis LeMay ticket as the epitome of stone cold political depravity.
General Betray Us and senile actor Fred Thompson. The repubs are scraping the bottom of the barrel
Those thumbs-up are giving Larry Craig Freudian daydreams.
Petraeus should DEFINITELY run, and on that exact platform!
To hell with jobs, the economy, health care, Social Security, and anything approaching a real quality of life.
We have to get the GOP to commit to an Iraq-or-bust ticket in '08.
Yes, please God, let the voters decide on that issue, and that issue alone...
And they were floating Powell for president before that and we liked Ike before that. Americans just love their military strongmen and see them as instantly "presidential".
What the hell is "presidential" anyways? I honestly don't think other countries have this need to have their leaders seem to be leaders - their public do not wring their hands and worry that their leaders seem able to lead. Is it because Americans feel they are The World Leaders and hence the worry that the rest of the world won't follow them if they aren't manly enough? Americans care more about the surface appearance and care less about depth of thought. See Gore's professorial lectures vs Bush's hale-fellow-well-met act.
Kucinich and Edwards both seem thoughtful and capable, but are they "Presidential" enough? Certainly Kucinich doesn't fit that mold, he's too "elfin" and Edwards is being painted as a priss. The press is already hauling out the Fred Thompson's good southern guy character to woo the electorate once more.
God this place is a mess.
nitehawk @ 14:
He's already done an op ed in the NYT. You don't really suppose any in DoD would have the balls to order his arrest do you? What an excuse for the third Republican coup in ten years.
jr @ 38:
They already know they've lost the Presidential election (IF it is actually held). They can't steal this one, the poll numbers are too big and the anger in the country too great.
Chimpy is trying to lock in his successor, and the Dems are to cowardly to stop him. Also, why should they stop him...the corporate money is coming THEY'RE way now...so...roll on, baaaaby.
This used to be such a nice country. Respected, loved. Now, we're like a cheap $5 whore with an attitude.
The problem is the Repukes are looking for a tough-talking, pro-war candidate who polls well. There's no such animal.
"Trust me, I can win this thing" will not be a popular slogan in '08.
I'm having a hard time deciding whether this or asking Dick Cheney to run is stupider, but I think I have to go with this. The whole premise is completely illogical. Petraeus in this scenario will run for president because otherwise voters will choose a candidate that won't continue the war which he feels should be continued, and so the voters are going to vote for Petraeus instead why exactly?
If voters end up electing an anti-war candidate because they think other issues are more important, then Petraeus has nothing else to run on other then a war he hasn't actually succeeded in winning by far. If people do consider war the most important issue then wouldn't the candidate picked reflect the publics mood towards the war, in which case either we will either have a pro-war president anyway or Petraeus doesn't stand a fat chance in hell? If Petraeus can't accomplish his mission with a pro-war president, then what chance does he have of dealing with congress?
This is really sad piece of editorial, I don't think the person who wrote this could think his way of out of a wet paper bag. Who are they going to ask to run next for President, zombie Reagan?
Petraeus handed out 180,000 AK-47s and pistols to Iraquis in a first-come-first-served, "get 'em while they're hot" clusterfuck. These same weapons are being used to kill our Soldiers & Marines.
Petraeus should be imprisoned for this act of treason!
If I were a republican (Please, God... not that!) I suppose that , after Reagan & Poppy Bush selling missles to the Ayatollah & the drug-smuggling Contras, I might see Petraeus as my kind of guy. Why do the repugs love to help the people who kill our armed forces?
Why not just appoint him Supreme Leader for Life (i.e., the duration of the Iraqi occupation)?
They'd like:
It'll just be Bush with a fake mustache and Cheney with a wig.
Goerge Cheney-Dick Bush 08
Ron Paul for god sakes, why don't you guys endorse Ron Paul on the GOP side instead of grouping them all as though they have all similar perspectives. Jeez, no one wonder politics is so polarized.
Atrain @ 50:
If your talking about the New York Sun, then it's probably because he's an anti-war candidate and their whole focus seems to be on continuing the war in a status-quo manner. If your talking about the readers of Crooks and Liars, I'd say a majority of them are actually liberals and not libertarians. As much as I personally enjoy watching Ron Paul bash the Republican Candidates for their stances on the war and think Ron Paul seems like a likable candidate, I have little doubt that unsustainable of libertarian doctrine if implemented as Ron Paul wishes. I just don't see the elimination of most of the function of the federal government as the answer to anything, nor do I think most other people here do either.
Now I know why that pose looks familiar:
http://uberkuul.files.wordpress.com/2006/06/buddy%20christ%20from%20dogm...
Lord of Karma @ 51:
I am too a liberal BUT I recognize that it definitely is better to acknowledge the political positions of your opponent if you want to maintain a level of fairhandedness and dignity. It definitely feels as though C&L is attempting to keep politics as partisan as possible making them in effect as bad as the people they want to criticize. Argh, I think any rational person here should realize Paul has ideas more in line with people here than the rest of the GOP candidates. If a Dem candidate loses, I would sure hope Paul would be the one to take the reigns as compared to Romney and that crook, Giuliani.
I don't know, it just feels so hypocritical what C&L does at times...
Who will end the Federal Reserve?
The way the NY Sun sees it every Republican supports the war, therefore any " good" Republican(not those currently running) will pull the party together and win in 08'. Unfortunately, most of the Republican's I know don't support the war either, so that type of thinking may not work.
As I like to say " you can paint a TURD gold, but it's still a TURD" and that holds true in this case as well.
Petraeus-Hagel for Unity '08
Atrain @ 53:
First of all, Ron Paul isn't going to win. There's nothing a single blog can do about that. He's a libertarian who is trying to hang out with the Republicans (which might work) but he consistently (and somewhat perversely) announces views that are at odds with both the rest of his party and base that his fellow Republicans appeal to. He occasionally slips and reveals the latent hostility between himself and other Republican contenders. And even if he could become the Republican candidate, why should liberals have to settle for someone who quite possibly might decide to continue the conservative philosophy of non-governance? I am distinctly uncomfortable with the current deterioration of my country's infrastructure and I think that the only chance we have of turning things around for the better is to recreate our culture of responsibility in both the White House and the Congress. Ron Paul might be able to do this, but I for one am not willing to take that risk at the moment.
.....Not fucking likely.... This guys no Eisenhower.....He may not even be a Westmorland......And that's gettin pretty bad....JD
Thank you - I'll have Wesley Clark if you don't mind
"Now there's a man for you . . . ."
*
Their Savior is Coming
The Republicans should cut out the middlemen this Presidential cycle, and just nominate Jesus Christ Hisself as their candidate.
If He actually shows up to accept the nomination and campaign actively -- well, it looks more and more like that's the only way they have a prayer of winning this time out. I'm sure He'ld be one hell of a fundraiser. Cut down on the catering bills at their convention, too, though He'ld have to kick the menu up a notch from loaves and fishes to meet the expectations of this uptown crowd.
But they come out ahead even if He's a no-show. Their candidates are just figureheads anyway, pliable puppets and frontmen for the stringpullers like Rove. So a candidate who doesn't actually show up would just relieve them of the need to go through the charade of their President, or Presidential candidate, actually being in charge. They could cut out the middlemen in this respect as well, and just have Rove and the other High Priests and oracles of "Jesus Christ, Candidate" issue revelations of the Divine Will as the need for decisions or statements arises.
A speech like that would prove that the man is not only too stupid to hold elective office, but is also too stupid to hold a commission as an officer.
You go General. On that platform he probably wouldn't carry Utah or Alabama let alone anywhere where the sane form a majority.
Login or Register to post comments.