Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Petraeus sides with Obama

FaliceFalice Member Posts: 329

According to Dick, here's another General that's a traitor to the Republican party...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/petraeus-endorses-obamas_n_207513.html

Comments

  • ismelltruthismelltruth Member Posts: 24

    Sweet. I hope this helps him get that NATO Command spot (or whatever it was he was trying to get promoted to).

  • sephersepher Member Posts: 3,561

    Cheney's just making the Republican party and Bush's administration look unnecessarily worse than it has to. As Powell put it on Face the Nation the last week, even Bush wanted to close Gitmo. All Cheney wants to do is raise hell and distract from the torture issue.

    Alas, all he's succeeding at is legitimizing Obama moreso when forcing people like Petraeus and Powell to pick between between this administration and the last.

    So Cheney has Limbaugh's backing, Obama has Petraeus and Powell's backing. How will elected officials of the Republican Party respond? Continue to blindly resound everything Cheney and Limbaugh has to say I'd wager, rather than productively offer suggestions and plans towards the real relevant issue of how the Department of Justice should proceed with resolving the legalities revolving around Gitmo and its detainees so that it can be closed.

  • ismelltruthismelltruth Member Posts: 24
    Originally posted by sepher


    Cheney's just making the Republican party and Bush's administration look unnecessarily worse than it has to. As Powell put it on Face the Nation the last week, even Bush wanted to close Gitmo. All Cheney wants to do is raise hell and distract from the torture issue.
    Alas, all he's succeeding at is legitimizing Obama moreso when forcing people like Petraeus and Powell to pick between between this administration and the last.
    So Cheney has Limbaugh's backing, Obama has Petraeus and Powell's backing. How will elected officials of the Republican Party respond? Continue to blindly resound everything Cheney and Limbaugh has to say I'd wager, rather than productively offer suggestions and plans towards the real relevant issue of how the Department of Justice should proceed with resolving the legalities revolving around Gitmo and its detainees so that it can be closed.



     

    Is that the same Powell that addressed the UN with a bottle of "anthrax" as proof Iraq had WMDs?

    I'm not picking sides, I'm one of the 200 million people that didn't vote in the fake two-party elections.

    Continue.

  • sephersepher Member Posts: 3,561
    Originally posted by ismelltruth

    Originally posted by sepher


    Cheney's just making the Republican party and Bush's administration look unnecessarily worse than it has to. As Powell put it on Face the Nation the last week, even Bush wanted to close Gitmo. All Cheney wants to do is raise hell and distract from the torture issue.
    Alas, all he's succeeding at is legitimizing Obama moreso when forcing people like Petraeus and Powell to pick between between this administration and the last.
    So Cheney has Limbaugh's backing, Obama has Petraeus and Powell's backing. How will elected officials of the Republican Party respond? Continue to blindly resound everything Cheney and Limbaugh has to say I'd wager, rather than productively offer suggestions and plans towards the real relevant issue of how the Department of Justice should proceed with resolving the legalities revolving around Gitmo and its detainees so that it can be closed.



     

    Is that the same Powell that addressed the UN with a bottle of "anthrax" as proof Iraq had WMDs?

    I'm not picking sides, I'm one of the 200 million people that didn't vote in the fake two-party elections.

    Continue.



     

    Yes the same Powell that addressed the UN on Iraq's biological weapons, the same one with a favorability rating twice as high with the American people than Cheney or Limbaugh.

    And maybe you should've participated in our two-party system and the General Elections, then you wouldn't be apart of the minority of eligible Americans that didn't.

  • ismelltruthismelltruth Member Posts: 24
    Originally posted by sepher

    Originally posted by ismelltruth

    Originally posted by sepher


    Cheney's just making the Republican party and Bush's administration look unnecessarily worse than it has to. As Powell put it on Face the Nation the last week, even Bush wanted to close Gitmo. All Cheney wants to do is raise hell and distract from the torture issue.
    Alas, all he's succeeding at is legitimizing Obama moreso when forcing people like Petraeus and Powell to pick between between this administration and the last.
    So Cheney has Limbaugh's backing, Obama has Petraeus and Powell's backing. How will elected officials of the Republican Party respond? Continue to blindly resound everything Cheney and Limbaugh has to say I'd wager, rather than productively offer suggestions and plans towards the real relevant issue of how the Department of Justice should proceed with resolving the legalities revolving around Gitmo and its detainees so that it can be closed.



     

    Is that the same Powell that addressed the UN with a bottle of "anthrax" as proof Iraq had WMDs?

    I'm not picking sides, I'm one of the 200 million people that didn't vote in the fake two-party elections.

    Continue.



     

    Yes the same Powell that addressed the UN on Iraq's biological weapons, the same one with a favorability rating twice as high with the American people than Cheney or Limbaugh.

    And maybe you should've participated in our two-party system and the General Elections, then you wouldn't be apart of the minority of eligible Americans that didn't.

    200 million is 2/3 the population. Hardly the minority.

     

  • sephersepher Member Posts: 3,561
    Originally posted by ismelltruth

    Originally posted by sepher

    Originally posted by ismelltruth

    Originally posted by sepher


    Cheney's just making the Republican party and Bush's administration look unnecessarily worse than it has to. As Powell put it on Face the Nation the last week, even Bush wanted to close Gitmo. All Cheney wants to do is raise hell and distract from the torture issue.
    Alas, all he's succeeding at is legitimizing Obama moreso when forcing people like Petraeus and Powell to pick between between this administration and the last.
    So Cheney has Limbaugh's backing, Obama has Petraeus and Powell's backing. How will elected officials of the Republican Party respond? Continue to blindly resound everything Cheney and Limbaugh has to say I'd wager, rather than productively offer suggestions and plans towards the real relevant issue of how the Department of Justice should proceed with resolving the legalities revolving around Gitmo and its detainees so that it can be closed.



     

    Is that the same Powell that addressed the UN with a bottle of "anthrax" as proof Iraq had WMDs?

    I'm not picking sides, I'm one of the 200 million people that didn't vote in the fake two-party elections.

    Continue.



     

    Yes the same Powell that addressed the UN on Iraq's biological weapons, the same one with a favorability rating twice as high with the American people than Cheney or Limbaugh.

    And maybe you should've participated in our two-party system and the General Elections, then you wouldn't be apart of the minority of eligible Americans that didn't.

    200 million is 2/3 the population. Hardly the minority.

     



     

    Only 200 million of our entire population are eligible to vote give or take; 130 million plus did. So you have to work within those margins to push whatever agenda you have; the toddlers and convicted felons needn't be applied. So yes, a minority assuming you can vote but didn't for whatever agenda you have.

    Do the right thing and isolate yourself moreso by recognizing that eligible voters who didn't vote still have opinions on the direction of our country, and don't subscribe to whatever loss of faith you have in our 'fake two-party system'.

  • ismelltruthismelltruth Member Posts: 24
    Originally posted by sepher

    Originally posted by ismelltruth


    200 million is 2/3 the population. Hardly the minority.

     



     

    Only 200 million of our entire population are eligible to vote give or take; 130 million plus did. So you have to work within those margins to push whatever agenda you have; the toddlers and convicted felons needn't be applied. So yes, a minority assuming you can vote but didn't for whatever agenda you have.

    Do the right thing and isolate yourself moreso by recognizing that eligible voters who didn't vote still have opinions on the direction of our country, and don't subscribe to whatever loss of faith you have in our 'fake two-party system'.



     

    Hmmm, I didn't know they counted under 18. Well in any case, doesn't anyone wonder why that is? I mean, 70 million people not voting.

    Could you help push for an overturn and allow a third party to be in presidential debates? I might vote if you can get this done, seeing how your party is in charge and all.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror.

    In an appearance on Radio Free Europe on Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama's most contentious policies.

    "I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

    "With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."


    Petraeus also slams Dick Cheney's weak "enhanced technique" argument closed. When the top military leader and key figure in turning the Iraq War around after the Bush debacle says he's "long been on record as testifying" that Geneva Convention rules should be followed, Cheney has no more legs to stand on with that waterboarding crapola.

    Cheney, you and Hannity have now been made irrelevant. Mancow proved Hannity wrong and Petraeus proves you wrong.

  • sephersepher Member Posts: 3,561
    Originally posted by ismelltruth

    Originally posted by sepher

    Originally posted by ismelltruth


    200 million is 2/3 the population. Hardly the minority.

     



     

    Only 200 million of our entire population are eligible to vote give or take; 130 million plus did. So you have to work within those margins to push whatever agenda you have; the toddlers and convicted felons needn't be applied. So yes, a minority assuming you can vote but didn't for whatever agenda you have.

    Do the right thing and isolate yourself moreso by recognizing that eligible voters who didn't vote still have opinions on the direction of our country, and don't subscribe to whatever loss of faith you have in our 'fake two-party system'.



     

    Hmmm, I didn't know they counted under 18. Well in any case, doesn't anyone wonder why that is? I mean, 70 million people not voting.

    Could you help push for an overturn and allow a third party to be in presidential debates? I might vote if you can get this done, seeing how your party is in charge and all.



     

    Or, you could participate in our two-party system the way Ron Paul moved to relevancy and do your part in changing them from the inside out.

    Or just never vote and participate; whichever you think will work best.

Sign In or Register to comment.