Gen. David Petreaus for President in 2012.

[JB3]

You're an idiot.

So anyone who has a "good solid conservative approach" and "does a good job at managing a team" than he's qualified to be President?

Gee, that sounds like NFL football coach....

Sounds sort of like the approach Obama used, considering that he had ZERO experience being an executive officer or leader of ANYTHING.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'd much rather have someone who's shown he can take a failing business and turn it around by shaking out the dead wood, cutting budgets, getting things moving, than a general.

The big problem is that generals are accustomed to giving orders and having things happen. Things don't work that way in government: Congress responds negatively to that, and even the executive branch drags its feet implementing presidential orders. For a president we need someone who can persuade, not just command.

 

[naked gent]

I'd much rather have someone who's shown he can take a failing business and turn it around by shaking out the dead wood, cutting budgets, getting things moving, than a general.

The big problem is that generals are accustomed to giving orders and having things happen. Things don't work that way in government: Congress responds negatively to that, and even the executive branch drags its feet implementing presidential orders. For a president we need someone who can persuade, not just command.

I agree with your point about generals but think it also applies to he who turned the failing business around. He too is accustomed to giving orders and the worse shape the business is in the more likely he will be given a free hand to fix it.

As far as Petreaus is concerned Iraq will never be the screaming success the wars which propelled other generals into the WH were and the final outcome has yet to be written.

Whats fair to say of Petreaus is that his strategy avoided Iraq becoming a complete mess which is something short of victory and not likely to give him a sufficient boost to make a run at the WH.

 

[naked gent]

Sounds sort of like the approach Obama used, considering that he had ZERO experience being an executive officer or leader of ANYTHING.

I can't help but wonder Droid if 3,000 americans had been murdered on Obama's watch after 7 1/2 months in office if you wouldn't attribute it to zero experience as an 'executive officer' or leader of ANYTHING.

I think you would.

 

[01solara]

A big joke for today. He would be as good as his party. On a related note, I guess Republicans are taking over this forum. Another poster went by saying Bush as "President Bush" although he is out of power for a year. Chance is spreading hatred in the CP&E forum. Where is JUB heading?

Just as with all the other ex presidents are referred to often. Trust me we all know who is in office now. I don't like his policies and I never will. I am just hoping we can fight him off for a year or so till we take the senate and a large number of house members from red states that have ignored the phone calls and letters from their constituents since the big O took over. If most of the red states go Republican in November you will be crying in your beer for a good long time. More red state folks vote in the off year elections than blue. The media largely ignores what they think of as flyover country but we will be a force to be reckoned with next year.

 

[Zingerific]

I'd much rather have someone who's shown he can take a failing business and turn it around by shaking out the dead wood, cutting budgets, getting things moving, than a general.

The big problem is that generals are accustomed to giving orders and having things happen. Things don't work that way in government: Congress responds negatively to that, and even the executive branch drags its feet implementing presidential orders. For a president we need someone who can persuade, not just command.

I am leery of anyone who has found success using a "my way or the highway" management style. That may or may not include generals and business executives.

 

[lostnfound]

He was on CNN for Veteran's Day. The anchorwoman asked him directly, and he said NO. And it's not like a Tim Pawlenty kind of "no" (aka being coy), but Petreaus sounded like he knows he doesn't belong in politics.

 

[JB3]

I can't help but wonder Droid if 3,000 americans had been murdered on Obama's watch after 7 1/2 months in office if you wouldn't attribute it to zero experience as an 'executive officer' or leader of ANYTHING.

I think you would.

Except GW actually had experience, it was the intelligence community that totally dropped the ball. Obama had no experience going into office. None. Zilch. Nada.

 

[naked gent]

Except GW actually had experience, it was the intelligence community that totally dropped the ball. Obama had no experience going into office. None. Zilch. Nada.

I understand that its just that the unexperienced guy has not had to watch 3,000 of his countrymen die on his watch while the experienced guy did.

That fact might make some people think experience isn't the only important factor and Bush also ignored much of what the intelligence community and his terrorist advisor did tell him if you'll recall.

 

[JB3]

I understand that its just that the unexperienced guy has not had to watch 3,000 of his countrymen die on his watch while the experienced guy did.

That fact might make some people think experience isn't the only important factor and Bush also ignored much of what the intelligence community and his terrorist advisor did tell him if you'll recall.

Except he didn't. We've been over this at least a dozen times on here, but the intelligence given to him was contradictory, vague, and generally unreliable.

And I'm not quite sure what the point is you're trying to make. It doesn't change the fact that Obama is still inexperienced and it shows.

 

[naked gent]

Except he didn't. We've been over this at least a dozen times on here, but the intelligence given to him was contradictory, vague, and generally unreliable.

Isn't that where experience matters. Its the experienced man who can differentiate the false from the true.....if he fails at that then do tell what is the value of his experience?

 

[JB3]

Isn't that where experience matters. Its the experienced man who can differentiate the false from the true.....if he fails at that then do tell what is the value of his experience?

No. You clearly do not understand that situation. NO ONE knew what was true and what was false. Why do you think Clinton passed on any action based on the same intelligence?

And it is not arguable that Obama came into office with relatively little (if any at all) executive experience, especially compared to his predecessors. None of your arguments will change that.

 

[Kulindahr]

I understand that its just that the unexperienced guy has not had to watch 3,000 of his countrymen die on his watch while the experienced guy did.

That fact might make some people think experience isn't the only important factor and Bush also ignored much of what the intelligence community and his terrorist advisor did tell him if you'll recall.

Thank Rumsfeld and his idiotic conception of the Middle East as being like a RISK game. Unfortunately for his delusion, in the real world you can't just park your armies somewhere and declare it your territory, because unlike in RISK, a 'territory' actually has people in it, and they don't just sit there and look pretty and cough up your income for you.

 

[Zingerific]

Thank Rumsfeld and his idiotic conception of the Middle East as being like a RISK game. Unfortunately for his delusion, in the real world you can't just park your armies somewhere and declare it your territory, because unlike in RISK, a 'territory' actually has people in it, and they don't just sit there and look pretty and cough up your income for you.

Also, Afghanistan is bigger than the whole Middle East, and very, very flat.

 

[Kulindahr]

Also, Afghanistan is .... very, very flat.

Except where it isn't, of course.