Except it's false. As I pointed out above: "Reading back through the thread, it's also interesting to note I see only one person attacking Petraeus (before my first comment), and he is merely repeating Fallon's comment. In short, while the Bush drones immediately jumped on this to trash Fallon, the comments of the anti-Bush camp were considerably more temperate and less partisan."
You seem to care enough to attack people who "trash General Petraeus and give Admiral Fallon a thumbs up".
Fern, TLC, and nick1985 to start, at least based on the creative standard you seem to apply when declaring people (plural) were trashing Petraeus. But you're not partisan, of course.
No doubt his opinion matters, and that's some of the root of the problem. His opinion was rejected for that of another and his ego was bruised. Since you've been in the military maybe you've been in a room full of brass muckamucks, maybe not? I have. The ego atmosphere is so thick that Steve Jobs couldn't even manage a breath.
I have no idea what grade you're in. What's your point? I wanted to call attention to a common tactic here, preemptively attacking the (nominal) left for allegedly doing what the traditional Bush supporters are actually doing. Such partisan misdirection tends to quickly derail threads, which, in my opinion, is the reason it is used.
Cool. Do you have anything to contribute besides "/thread" (to the same comment above -- hypocrite, much?) and attacking me? What are your thoughts on Fallon calling Petraeus "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and what evidence can you provide to show he is wrong? What objective, substantive evidence can you offer us to demonstrate Fallon's assessment of Iraq is somehow inferior to Petraeus'? Anything else you can contribute that is meaningful and on-topic?
Please show me where I trashed Amd. Fallon.
His resume? You claimed he was essentially a desk jockey, a lackey until I showed you otherwise. One would have thought you'd have done some further research after being taught the first lesson. I have to wonder if you've even glanced at his resume?
You pressed the "Reply to Topic" button just a bit too soon.
Suddenly miltary/security objectives in Iraq are meaningless. It's no longer important whether Iraqis are more secure, it's what the politicians are doing.
All it makes clear is that you made a very poor accusation and stepped on your pud in the process. I provided the backup for my claim. You provided nothing but lame, and ultimately baseless, accusations that are plainly rebutted by that bastion of right-wing talking points, the Washington Post.
Note that you didn't address this.
There you go again. What I actually said was, "based on this article, Petraeus' expertise seems to lie more in the realm of filing paperwork, writing reports, and polishing Brass than in directing combat missions." Given that the "combat" portion of his career started only four years ago, my comment appears to be accurate. Fallon, in contrast, has substantially more experience in combat assignments.
That he wrote a book only shows he can write. We can all point to plenty of examples of writers who are blithering idiots. Sewall's opinions are interesting, but they are only opinions. She may be right; she may have been engaged in wishful thinking. Either way, her opinion is no substitute for solid credentials. The fact remains, Petraeus got his first combat assignment only four years ago. The fact also remains that outside of the Bush administration and its supporters, his assignment to train Iraqi forces is considered a failure. I am still waiting for you to show objective evidence to support your claim "ground troops and counter-insurgency tactics are his strong point," especially in comparison to Fallon who has substantially greater experience in combat assignments. You keep repeating the claim, but your "evidence" is an op-ed by someone who happens to agree with you. (A bit of a double standard on standards for evidence, by the way, given your comments in threads about BushCo lies.) Anyway, give us something of substance or acknowledge that your support of Petraeus over Fallon is based on partisanship, nothing more.
If you are doing drugs, you should stop immediately.
No, try reading what I actually wrote. I said your calling out the alleged Petraeus-trashers while ignoring the very real Fallon-bashers is partisan.
All I can tell you is that from my perspective, you are the one mired in self-deception. You somehow miss the comments criticizing Fallon while imagining "people" trashing Petraeus. Personally, I think both parties suck. At the moment, the Democrats simply suck less than the Bush Republicans. Re. this article, it appears to me Fallon has better military credentials than Petraeus, and I think there is plenty of objective evidence Fallon is correct with respect to the "surge" strategy. That doesn't mean Petraeus is a bad general or a hack. He may well have sincerely believed the "surge" strategy was the right one. On the other hand, it would not be the first time someone convinced himself a bad plan was suddenly a good plan if it advanced his career.
In that case, maybe you shouldn't base your opinion on a single article simply because it tells you what you want to hear? You wouldn't have to make extremely poor assumptions in that case.
fwiw, I think you can write fairly well.
My support of Patraeus is because he's qualified for the job, as I've already shown.
