Fire their asses

We have been asked to sit politely through a lot of outrages in the past several years, and worse, we’ve had to sit through a few just here lately, when we thought we had voted this away.  But this one, I simply can’t put up with.

Like a MacArthur, but without any discernible successes, ol’ Petreaus has decided that, election or no, he’s still working for Bush.  Another abject failure and brown-noser, Odierno, feels the same way.  Okay, guys, it’s off to the “defense” industry for you; you are violating the chain of command, which ought to be the one thing you ever learned in your dismal, toadying careers.  But no.  After indulging in banana republic level corruption and astounding incompetence for so long, they really thought that the whole government had gone native and a military coup would naturally be next.

I see two large pieces of government waste, fraud, and abuse that need to be cut…  those two.


  1. rmp says:

    Some links:
    Pentagon study: US should pare Afghanistan goals
    With attacks on Afghan supply lines in Pakistan, US turns to Uzbekistan
    US hopes to continue using Kyrgyz base
    U.S. Officials: Al-Qaida Leadership Cadre ‘Decimated’ (be leary about what senior US officials say)
    US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision

  2. rmp says:

    Hag, for some reason, this thread says no comments when there clearly are some. Andy look what I just found in the NYT:

    Saved by Design in Portland

  3. cocktailhag says:

    I just did a house over in the Alberta district last year, which will turn up in my work section soon enough… the client liked the blog and I nagged him for pictures. When I was growing up, that neighborhood was considered a hopeless ghetto…. Now it’s in the Travel section of the NYT. As long as a spa doesn’t open up and attract Maureen Dowd, they’ll be happy.
    I’d love to hear your input on the Petreaus and Odierno thing; as a military guy, what do you think?

    • rmp says:

      Gates is the third member in the party. Gates is trying to do the best job he can and I think Obama is right in saying nice things about him today. Petraeus as one of the commenters said today, is a political animal who well could have designs on being the president after Obama’s eight years. Odierno is a battle commander who wants the best for his troops and doesn’t want all the sacrifice to be in vain.

      Petraeus wants to use Afghanistan to substantiate his “genius” and cemment his political credentials. He stupidly thinks that Iraq and Afghanistan are similar and can be approached the same. He also doesn’t realize that the Awakening and the fact that Iraqis finally tired of death and destruction is the reason things have changed in Iraq and he was only a minor player. The really interesting things is the friendship I have made with an Iraqi American who lives a mile from me who I believe was the key player with the Marines in making the Awakening happen. My new friend was with the Marines in Iraq for three years and was the key ingredient in the liaison between the Sunni and the Marines.
      He is writing a book and I have been discussing with him that he needs to use his Marine general friend to co-author the book with him if he wants the book to get wide attention and credibility. You never know who you might meet at an Obama gathering and who will be in the group you are leading.

  4. cocktailhag says:

    That’s great you’re getting an inside view of this; it must be frustrating not to watch the changes, if they’re indeed happening, from the inside.
    Don’t you think it’s a really bad problem, though, when military brass have ambitions untethered from doing their jobs? I, personally, hate it. Without civilian control, as determined by elections, aren’t such rogue military guys essentially defying their oaths? If they pick the wars, their duration, and strategy, why even bother with voting?
    Color me disturbed, not just by Petreaus and Odierno, but by the coverage, which fails to start out with, “In open defiance of their Commander in Chief….”

    • rmp says:

      Yes I strongly dislike military politicians which is why I detest Collin Powell. While I was at CENTCOM, I met many senior army officers who intensely disliked Powell for climbing to the very top through politics and not commanding troops. What disgusted me the most was when after many of us worked hard for a black leader to have a fair, level playing field safe from almost all discrimination, to then throw homosexuals to the wolves with the hypocritical “Don’t ask, don’t Tell.” He is a total phony although he was sincere when he cried for blacks on election day.

      • cocktailhag says:

        Ah, Powell. Lewis Lapham called him a “supple careerist” long before that lying speech to the UN. A mixed bag of a man, but mostly disappointing.

  5. Gordon Ginsberg says:

    I have some sympathy for the military’s desire to “finish the job,” meaning their feelings are understandable, but feelings must not be the drivers of policy.

    There is nearly universal agreement that WWII was the final boost to FDR’s stimulus interventions, enabling the US’ emergence from the Great Depression. At the time there was nearly universal domestic support for the war effort. Obama’s challenge today is to frame the incipient species-threatening environmental crisis as a WWIII-type emergency, and to insist that Congress, the military, and industry work to re-tool for an immediate national comprehensive “war-time footing” to work the problem, analogously to the complete – virtually exclusive – cooperative dedication of manpower and infrastructure resources we undertook against the Axis powers.
    We must withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, with our sole presence in those – as with any other foreign outpost – being part of a multilateral operation, preferably under the aegis of the UN. Obviously, commanders who can’t get behind the strategies of their CiC must be summarily replaced.