Gen. Petraeus backs Obama: 'You have to talk to enemies.'
By John Amato Friday Oct 10, 2008 4:30pmMcCain has constantly mocked Obama by saying Barack's attitude of negotiating with our enemies is a clear indication of his lack of experience in foreign policy matters. McCain also cites Gen. Petraeus as often as he can as he tries to use his support of "the surge" to demonstrate his judgement. Well, Gen. Petraeus just destroyed his argument with his appearance at the Heritage Foundation.
Petraeus also came out unambiguously in his talk at Heritage for opening communications with America’s adversaries, a position McCain is attacking Obama for endorsing. Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors.
All that was the subject of one of the most contentious tussles between McCain and Obama in the first presidential debate, with Obama contending that his intent to negotiate with foreign adversaries without “precondition” did not mean that he would neglect diplomatic “preparation.”
McCain, apparently perceiving an opportunity for attack, Tuesday again used Obama’s comments to attack his judgment. “Sen. Obama, without precondition, wants to sit down and negotiate with them, without preconditions,” McCain said, referring to Iran.
Yet Petraeus emphasized throughout his lecture that reaching out to insurgent groups — some “with our blood on their hands,” he said — was necessary to the ultimate goal of turning them against irreconcilable enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq.
I wonder what McCain will say at the 3rd presidential Debate when Obama brings all this up. Will McCain say that Petraeus was just a little confused? I guess we should just ask Sean Hannity since he basically runs the messaging of McCain's campaign. If you get the chance, call in to his radio show, ask him, record it and send me the audio.
Gen. Petraeus also wants to negotiate with the Taliban.
Login or Register to post comments.
Does that mean that Moveon.org is going to make a play on words about how Obama is a traitor now? Maybe they'll call him "Hussein!" *GASP*!!!
Remember a time when Osama Bin Laden was in Taliban custody and they were offering to give him over if only the US provided evidence of his involvement with 9/11?
whew.. good thing we didn't "give in" to that outrageous demand of our enemies.
and man, Obama had better call McCain on his shit the next time he talks about our Afghan "Freedom Fighters" chasing out the Soviets...
Who would have thought? Little Afghanistan and Bin Laden have been able to financially bankrupt BOTH the Soviet and American empires. Talk about "Mission Accomplished"...
NO FRIGGIN' KIDDING!!!!! Now, if those good ol' boys at the Pentagon could just spend the weekend reading instead of playing paintball......maybe a bit of history readin' would've enlightened them on how the Soviet Union went bankrupt because of their invasion of Afghanistan. But hey, who reads anymore. Hell, wasn't it because Bush was to lazy to read the Al Quida memo, 9-11 happened?
Moveon.org referred to the good general as Betrayus because he was carrying water and saying what the doofus dubya wanted him to say. He is now out of Iraq and is talking like a real general and not a puppet for a disgraced thug.
McCain's campaign is basically falling apart at the seams. Now he can't even invoke Petreaus's name without it being thrown right back in his face. I can hear Hannity crying now!
Obamas association with Ayers should be considered an asset and not a liability. It shows he can work with terrorists. It will be useful in dealing with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Bill Ayers is one of many thousand protestors of the war in Vietnam. When I came back to the states it seemed everyone was against the war. Calling him a terrorist forty years after the fact is stupid. The man is a professor of Englis at the University of Illinois in Chicago. McSame is riling up morons who never finished high school when he calls him a terrorist. The greatest terrorist we have in this country have (R) after their names and they are in the White House.
I don't think that can qualify as petreaus endorsing Obama.
It just means that Petreaus conceptually agrees with the importance of talking vs kinetic engagements (aka extension of politics by other means
I have new respect for Petraeus.
The wheels fell off the straight-talk bus a long time ago and now it's running on the rims. McBrainmet's campaign is terminal.
It's time for Cindy to call a hospice. Hubby needs an urgent admission.
The grunts are behind Obama without question. Petraeus is just wondering what they are talking about. Dissolving Saddam's army was stupid. The "surge" just means paying that army to stop attacking US forces. No one is asking WTF we are doing there.
Again Obama was correct, as any sane thinking person would be. I do hope he brings it up at the next debate. Remember when McSame was Petraeus this and Petraeus that like he was the second coming. Now that he is putting forth the same ideas as Obama, how is McTard going to frame it now.
[]
Nail, meet coffin.
Damn... wrong thread.
Everyone oughta bookmark William Pfaff's website.
http://www.williampfaff.com/modules/news/arti...
In his latest article, he has an interesting tidbit, that needs to be circulated everywhere. Plus he's is one of the best journalists on foreign policy I've ever read.
Here it is:
To persist in this war is simply, and appallingly, a blind continuation of the policy George Bush announced (as quoted by Bob Woodward in 2001, in Woodward’s book Bush at War), that his intention in Afghanistan was “to create chaos, to create a vacuum,” and swore that the American government “will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.”
Was coined by ultra rightwing wingnuts. (rw bloggers were disgusted by P. enforcing military protocol for the proper treatment of Iraqis.) I'm sure they can circle back around to that POV.
Perhaps it would also be a nice gesture not to stomp all over the place labeling every country some politician doesn't like as an "enemy." The people of Iraq and Iran would not be so-called
"enemies" of the people of the USA, if our government (mainly through the CIA) hadn't been screwing up their countries and providing arms to both sides in ther many wars over there for more than 60 years.
I just don't understand all this debate about leaving the war or not. I think the time for that debate is long dead. The debate now is do we think it is worth it to stay or do we let fledgling iraqi convernment crumble and decay along with the people of iraq. Is it really that hard at this point to stay now that it is somewhat coming together. Think about the long term consequences..
WOW
McSame should just concede the election and let Obama start the Whitehouse investigations into Bush/Cheney
Even a General I dislike has the nerve to state the obvious to anyone without chronic cranial rectalietis, communicate with the enemy to resolve the issues, make a truce and establish peace. . . Imagine That!
Talking what a unique concept!
McCain's vast military experience obviously outweighs the opinions of these various crackpot generals and former secretaries of state that unanimously disagree with him.
Maybe Obama can bring it up and get McCain to say, "That following this Heritage Foundation seminar, he believes that Patraeus might Betray Us, by co-operating with our terrorist enemies."
:-)
It's good that Petraeus is finally being allowed to speak as a real soldier. Ideology is all well and good, but ideology is no substitute for objective facts.
As Winston Churchill once said, "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war" - especially if the one does not preclude the possibility of the other
Login or Register to post comments.