Well based on statements from his former boss Admiral Fallon and Jeff Huber a former U.S. Naval Officer the answer is…YES.

Now when MOVEON said he was a traitor they didn’t mean the kind of traitor that leaks the identity of a CIA Agent. No that is treason and is punishable by death. No they meant the kind of traitor that has made the choice to be a mouth piece for this administration instead of representation the troops he is supposed to be leading.

What the Bush Admin needed was a crony in the military to hide behind to spout there message for them so that if anyone questioned that message the Bush Admin could say you don’t support the troops.

It’s called hiding behind the troops by making your policy the troop’s policy but the truth is the troops have no policy they only have a mission that was created by that policy.

So the Bush Admin needed a “Yes Man” and General Petraeus was just the “Yes Man” they were looking for. See the General has made a career out of being a “Yes Man”.

U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge

quote:

In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ***-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

quote:

A crucial element of Petraeus's path of advancement in the Army, on the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton. His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success.

Hiding Behind the Troops

quote:

This quote is my favorite line from the now celebrated 15 July debate on Meet the Press between Webb and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Graham had, indeed, put political speech in the mouths of soldiers when he said "The soldiers are speaking, my friend, let them win," referring to the mass reenlistment held in Baghdad on July 4th. One can hardly accuse any of the nearly 600 soldiers who reenlisted of purposely creating political propaganda or doing anything other than reenlisting in a time of war, a laudable act by any judgment criteria.

But one can safely assume that the ceremony was a crafted public relations stunt, designed by U.S. commander in Iraq General David Petraeus to provide the likes of Graham the opportunity to use the troops to justify the otherwise indefensible policies and strategies of the Bush administration.

Petraeus certainly isn't the first Bush liegeman to duck for cover behind the troops. From the beginning of the adventure in Iraq, pro-war pundits have, at least at a subliminal level, hammered away at the notion that it is not possible to "support the troops" without supporting the policies, and this basic propaganda arc has remained little changed in over four years.

quote:

A lot of people won't like to hear this, but…

Ultimately, it is moot to discuss what the troops think or how they feel about a particular war they happen to be fighting because it doesn't matter what they think or feel about it. America doesn't exist to support its military. The military exists to support America. We should not engage in warfare for the sake of keeping the troops happy any more than we should avoid wars that the troops don't want to fight. The opinions of the troops--from buck private to four-star general--carry no more validity than the opinion of any civilian citizen. Today, that's true even of military strategy issues. The generals in charge of our present wars have proven themselves incapable of formulating and executing coherent strategies, and the people who have most influenced our war policies and strategies are neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan, civilians who never served a day in the military.

But the powers that be in the administration will continue to hide behind soldiers and their mommies' skirts because that keeps the issue in the realm of fear and guilt, and away from the cold light of critical analysis.

quote:

What the Bush Admin needed was a crony in the military to hide behind to spout there message for them so that if anyone questioned that message the Bush Admin could say you don’t support the troops.

RS.....I sure as hell don't agree with the Bush Administration but to suggest that Gen.Petreaus is a crony who will throw the troops under the bus for political points....

You've gone to far

and the democrat propaganda machine sinks even lower....

Moderator_Hat_Off
RS-1.... unless you can come up with much better sources than ANONYMOUS "Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.".... your stock here at mil.com will have hit a new low.

Any stories where the only information comes from un named sources has zero credibility to me.
>>>shrug<<< If that is how you wish to leave it...

Just out of curiosity, can you find and point out a single verifiable fact in your quotes and links?
Moderator_Hat_On

Is it instructive that Fallon was fired because of his policy differences, especially over Iran?

quote:

Just out of curiosity, can you find and point out a single verifiable fact in your quotes and links?

So the new policy is that we have to fact check our links to verify if everything in them is true? Well I guess that eliminates all links to FoxnewsNOISE.com?

quote:

RS-1.... unless you can come up with much better sources than ANONYMOUS "Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.".... your stock here at mil.com will have hit a new low.

Any stories where the only information comes from un named sources has zero credibility to me.

S-S, the Admiral has never denied that he said that. I’m sure if he had been misquoted he would have said something.

I have no idea if Admiral Fallon called General Petraeus an "*** kissing chickenshit".

I do know that the Admiral and the General disliked each other and disagreed strongly about the surge. The Admiral felt that as soon as the surge was finished, we should focus on "supporting, sustaining, advising, training, and mentoring" the Iraqi army, not fighting or providing security ourselves.

Fallon had to deal with all the Middle East and South Asia; he said Iraq was a dead end and more resources should be devoted to other crises in the region.

Petraeus obviously thought otherwise.

General Petraeus is a great American doing his job, just like all servicemembers in uniform. His orders come from the commander in chief.

Support the troops if you are a true military poster and leave the people in uniform out of it......they took an oath and are determined to follow it through.......once out of uniform it's open game........it's these chickenhawk and ghost rider (never served in the military) leaders who are to blame.

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:
Is it instructive that Fallon was fired because of his policy differences, especially over Iran?

The Admiral definitely wasn’t a Bush Admin crony that’s for sure.

ADMIRAL Fallon Resigns The Man Between War & Peace for IRAN

Well we have another Petraeus report coming up real soon. There’s an old saying. You can sprinkle all the sugar you want on a turd but in the end it is still a turd.

New low? Worms can go very deep.

Not that I am calling RS1 a worm, oh no. That would be wrong to call a fellow Military member a worm. Or a liar.

Just an analogy about depth.

YA KNOW RS.....IT'S GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE NOW, NOT ONLY ARE YOUR THREADS TOTAL BULLSHIT, BUT ALMOST COMICAL. I MEAN.... TO KNOW THAT YOU ACTAUALLY BELIEVE THE CRAP YOU POST..... AMAZING. FRIGGIN' AMAZING.

quote:

Originally posted by RetiredSailor1:

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:
Is it instructive that Fallon was fired because of his policy differences, especially over Iran?

The Admiral definitely wasn’t a Bush Admin crony that’s for sure.

ADMIRAL Fallon Resigns The Man Between War & Peace for IRAN

Well we have another Petraeus report coming up real soon. There’s an old saying. You can sprinkle all the sugar you want on a turd but in the end it is still a turd.

MOD cowboy hat off

Whaaaaa?

Kinda like the saying, "You can fly the blue duck to the moon, but when the chips are down you've got desks in your tire."

MOD cowboy hat on

Adm. Fallon denies animosity with Petraeus
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/military_fallon_petraeus_070917w/
By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Sep 20, 2007 17:11:10 EDT


If Bill Fallon has a bad relationship with David Petraeus, he’s sure not saying so publicly.

As Petraeus, the top U.S. commander on the ground in Iraq, was delivering his widely anticipated assessment of the war in Washington last week, news stories and blogs reported a deep rift over that assessment with Fallon, the four-star Navy admiral in charge of U.S. Central Command, which covers a wide area of responsibility that includes Iraq.

Fallon, to whom Petraeus reports, does not deny that the talks leading up to Petraeus’s report and recommendations for future strategy included some lively arguments. “Everybody’s going to have a difference of opinion,” Fallon said. “We are where we want to be right now. How we got there is our business.”

The bottom line, Fallon said, is that he endorses the U.S. strategy and that the overall effort, in his view, is progressing....Fallon was clearly irked by the stories about his supposed disagreements with Petraeus over the pace of that withdrawal and all-around disdain for the Army general published in outlets ranging from The Washington Post to various blogs. One story cited an unnamed senior official who said “bad relations” between Fallon and Petraeus was the “understatement of the century.” Another quoted Pentagon sources as saying Fallon openly derided Petraeus during their first meeting last March after Fallon took the CentCom reins.

The latter story particularly galled Fallon, who called it “scurrilous,” adding that the characterizations of a dysfunctional relationship with Petraeus are “just absurd.”

But the stories quickly grew legs and made their way off the street and into Petraeus’s meetings with Congress.

“I do not know how accurate these news reports are,” said Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “But responsible media have suggested that even Admiral Fallon, among others, have favored a more rapid and more substantial withdrawal than what you are proposing.”

Petraeus denied any disagreement. “Admiral Fallon fully supports the recommendations that I have made, as do the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ... We had discussions about the pace of the mission transition. But there has been no recommendation I am aware of that would have laid out, by any of those individuals, a more rapid withdrawal.”

The following day, Petraeus reiterated his sense of chain-of-command support before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“Certainly, Admiral Fallon has assured me of that, and the chairman has and the secretary,” Petraeus said. “I have talked to Admiral Fallon on several occasions, and basically, he just assured me that he supports the recommendations that I have put forward.”

Fallon said such talk may have been the genesis of the stories — the result of “a lot of people in a room” voicing opinions and someone coming out with a less-than-comprehensive or slanted perspective of the discussion.

During a Sept. 14 Pentagon news conference, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, hinted that some strong opinions were voiced during the assessment period leading up to Petraeus’s testimony, often colored by the perspective of each participant — the president’s senior military advisers, to include the Joint Chiefs — and their area of responsibility.

“Clearly, General Petraeus, as he should, was focused on how many troops he needed inside Iraq to get the job done,” Pace said. “Admiral Fallon focused on what he needed in his region, as he should. ... And as a member of the Joint Chiefs and as the chairman, I looked at what did the nation need, not only for all that area, but also globally to have available to us to respond to unanticipated requirements.

“At the end of the day,” Pace said, “we were unanimous that the next six months to nine months, as laid out by what General Petraeus spoke of to our Congress and what the President decided and announced last night, that that was, in fact, the best way forward....”

Fallon vs. Petraeus
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-ed...ar13,1,3358754.story
The tension between the military brass reflects a broader national security dilemma.
March 13, 2008

The inside story of the battle between Adm. William J. Fallon, former head of U.S. Central Command, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, may be studied by military historians years hence. The animosity between the two top military men was personal (Petraeus reportedly thought Fallon was trying to micromanage him). It was political (Petraeus is President Bush's favorite general, while Fallon's views put him increasingly at odds with the administration). And it was strategic (Petraeus' mission is to win in Iraq, while Fallon feared an extended heavy presence there would sap U.S. strength needed to deal with other global challenges).

Predictably, the right says that Fallon, who abruptly resigned Tuesday, was insubordinate and wrong about the so-called surge.The left charges that Bush gets rid of military advisors whose counsel he dislikes. In fact, the clash of the military titans may have been less ideological than institutional. Field generals always want more troops for as long as possible, to minimize casualties and avoid giving up battlefield gains. The top brass in Washington are paid to plan the endgame and prepare for the next conflict, which is why tensions between Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs of Staff will persist after Fallon. But the clash also reflects an agonizing U.S. national security dilemma that won't be settled on Nov. 4: How long can we afford to keep fighting in Iraq, and who will be forced to take the fall for "losing Iraq" if we stop?

The timing of Fallon's resignation is provocative. In less than a month, Petraeus will testify again before Congress. The troop surge he recommended is coming to an end in July, as scheduled, because even with extended 15-month deployments, the Army has no more troops to send. The U.S. will be back to its pre-surge troop strength of 130,000, although many military analysts believe that it can sustain a deployment of only 80,000 to 90,000 without breakingthe back of the Army. Nevertheless, Petraeus is expected to ask for a "strategic pause" in further troop withdrawals in order not to jeopardize the much-improved security climate in Iraq. Petraeus will be grilled on whether the less than impressive Iraqi political progress justifies an extended U.S. troop presence.

Petraeus is a soldier, not a politician, but his ambitions and timetable coincide nicely with those of Bush and the Republican Party: Keep as many forces in Iraq as possible through early fall, but promise drawdowns before the end of the year. That might just keep the Iraq war from intruding on a presidential campaign dominated by the economy, and let the risk that "failure" in Iraq has only been postponed devolve to the next administration. If Iraq holds steady, Petraeus will be a national hero and Fallon a footnote. But if, in January, Iraq is still being held together by Band-Aids, Fallon's concerns won't be so easily be dismissed.

quote:

Originally posted by RetiredSailor1:

quote:

RS-1.... unless you can come up with much better sources than ANONYMOUS "Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.".... your stock here at mil.com will have hit a new low.

Any stories where the only information comes from un named sources has zero credibility to me.

S-S, the Admiral has never denied that he said that. I’m sure if he had been misquoted he would have said something.

quote:

Originally posted by RetiredSailor1:

quote:

Just out of curiosity, can you find and point out a single verifiable fact in your quotes and links?

So the new policy is that we have to fact check our links to verify if everything in them is true? Well I guess that eliminates all links to FoxnewsNOISE.com?

Moderator_Hat_Off

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/military_fallon_petraeus_070917w/

"The bottom line, Fallon said, is that he endorses the U.S. strategy and that the overall effort, in his view, is progressing....Fallon was clearly irked by the stories about his supposed disagreements with Petraeus over the pace of that withdrawal and all-around disdain for the Army general published in outlets ranging from The Washington Post to various blogs. One story cited an unnamed senior official who said “bad relations” between Fallon and Petraeus was the “understatement of the century.” Another quoted Pentagon sources as saying Fallon openly derided Petraeus during their first meeting last March after Fallon took the CentCom reins.

The latter story particularly galled Fallon, who called it “scurrilous,” adding that the characterizations of a dysfunctional relationship with Petraeus are “just absurd.”"
Moderator_Hat_On

Moderator_Hat_Off
...and RS1, if you are going to slander someone, I would expect you to check the story
Moderator_Hat_On

quote:

Originally posted by Silent_Surface:
Moderator_Hat_Off
...and RS1, if you are going to slander someone, I would expect you to check the story
Moderator_Hat_On

Roger fact checking all future slander.

This could get a little tricky though. We can all say that the author of any article is lying. So in the end if we can’t find a video on YOUTUBE showing someone saying something nobody will be able to post anything.

Your article says mine is wrong but I could argue my article says yours is wrong and we fight for awhile and get nowhere. I do a google and 17,000 choices come up saying my article is correct. Are we going to play my google is bigger than your google?

After all if someone posts something wrong then someone can always post something proving them wrong. I do that to conservatives all the time.

quote:

After all if someone posts something wrong then someone can always post something proving them wrong. I do that to conservatives all the time.

I guess that common sense has no place in that equation.

As far as who's google is bigger the fact is that if a major news outlet reports a falsehood it will be picked up by hundreds of other news outlets crediting the source trusting the source but if a another outlet reports a story and it is not picked up by the other outlets, maybe because it doesn't match their viewpoint or agenda doesn't mean that the story is not true but it does mean that it will have less hits.

And Google is notoriously liberal. While it is good search engine I use several other search engines, just to be sure and have been right to do so.

quote:

Your article says mine is wrong but I could argue my article says yours is wrong and we fight for awhile and get nowhere. I do a google and 17,000 choices come up saying my article is correct. Are we going to play my google is bigger than your google?

I would say a direct quote from the man in a publication like Army Times pretty much trumps "Unnamed senior official" quoted by Gareth Porter, who is not regarded in historical circles as being an oracle of fact.

Did anyone actually espect skater to post a real "factual" thread with the intent of a point-counterpoint discussion? Or was everyone certain this would be another bash Gen Petraeus who-actually-knows-what-is-going-on-because-he-won't-parrot-the-Dems-white-flag-cut-and-run-policies, no fact, inflammatory thread as usual?

I know we all keep hoping for something different but... alas...

quote:

Originally posted by Mom2APAJ:
Did anyone actually espect skater to post a real "factual" thread with the intent of a point-counterpoint discussion? Or was everyone certain this would be another bash Gen Petraeus who-actually-knows-what-is-going-on-because-he-won't-parrot-the-Dems-white-flag-cut-and-run-policies, no fact, inflammatory thread as usual?

I know we all keep hoping for something different but... alas...

Petraeus is a soldier, not a politician, but his ambitions and timetable coincide nicely with those of Bush and the Republican Party: Keep as many forces in Iraq as possible through early fall, but promise drawdowns before the end of the year. That might just keep the Iraq war from intruding on a presidential campaign dominated by the economy, and let the risk that "failure" in Iraq has only been postponed devolve to the next administration. If Iraq holds steady, Petraeus will be a national hero and Fallon a footnote. But if, in January, Iraq is still being held together by Band-Aids, Fallon's concerns won't be so easily be dismissed."

How do you answer this apparent coincidence? Is some honest skepticism due?

Skepticism is always welcome. Let's consider that there are those who wanted the war over as projected. There are those who realize that war doesn't work like that. This war is like other wars. Like a disease it wont end when we want it to. It will end at great expense and that's just the way it is. Gen Petraeus naturally wants us to win. If we lose then the outcome will be catastrophic and those who sponsor Moveon.org will blame the war and the disaster that follows on the Republican Legacy. If the situation remains stable or improves Moveon.org and their followers will be the most disappointed ones because the war won't have helped the Democrats with the election.

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:



Petraeus is a soldier, not a politician,

LOL! That's rich! I never met a general officer who WASN'T a politician!

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

Your article says mine is wrong but I could argue my article says yours is wrong and we fight for awhile and get nowhere. I do a google and 17,000 choices come up saying my article is correct. Are we going to play my google is bigger than your google?

I would say a direct quote from the man in a publication like Army Times pretty much trumps "Unnamed senior official" quoted by Gareth Porter, who is not regarded in historical circles as being an oracle of fact.

Ummmmmm....the Army Times is completely independent from the Department of the Army and DOD. If fact, it's a Gannett paper and their list of papers includes some liberal rags:

http://www.gannett.com/web/newspapers.htm

MOVEON.ORG needs to stand by it's slander of General Petraus; it and those who sought to benefit by it deserve and need to reap the consequences of that slander. Although I'm opposed to animal cruelty in general, this cur needs to have that can firmly tied to its tail....

First, no moneetc. is wrong as always.

Second, RS-1 not alowed slander anymore.....we'll miss you , RS-1!