General Petraeus - 2012 President?

Sinatra

Senior Member
Feb 5, 2009
8,013
1,008
48
General Petraeus has been uncommonly quiet of late - with growing speculation he is putting out some political feelers for a possible run for the White House in 2012. He recently underwent successful treatment for prostate cancer, but remains elusive regarding both his potential political aspirations, and the current Obama administration's foreign policy - or lack thereof. It is quite possible this administration is finding itself at increasing odds with its military leaders, who are increasingly alarmed at the president's consistent apologist tours for America, and his inept contradictory handling of foreign policy - namely Afghanistan...

____

October 06, 2009
Gen. Petraeus treated for prostate cancer
Pauline Jelinek And Anne Gearan
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in February and has since undergone two months of radiation treatment.

Petraeus, 56, was diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer, which was not publicly disclosed at the time because Petraeus and his family regarded his illness as "a personal matter" that "did not interfere with the performance of his duties," said his spokesman, Col. Erik Gunhus. President Barack Obama and top members of his administration were informed, he said.

As commander of a region running through the Middle East and across Central Asia, Petraeus did make at least one overseas trip during his treatment.

The Pentagon termed Petraeus' treatment "successful." He was treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

In recent months, Petraeus has been noticeably on the sidelines of the public debate over how to salvage the war effort in Afghanistan.

Known mainly for the troop build up in Iraq that helped calm the war there, Petraeus once had great star power and used it publicly. He was a darling at Capitol Hill hearings and had former President George Bush's ear in regular video conferences to talk about military matters, a relationship that doesn't exist with the Obama White House.

As the head of the U.S. Central Command, he is still very much involved in the conversation about the two ongoing wars, debating the new Afghan strategy with the National Security Council and flying late last month to Germany for a meeting with the commander in Afghanistan.

But he has taken such a low profile publicly of late that some inside the Washington beltway speculated that he was contemplating a run for the presidency in 2012, something his advisers have denied.

The more prominent public face of the current war debate is Gen. Stanley McChrystal, sent in the summer as Obama's hand-picked commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. Petraeus has said that he supports McChrystal's assessment of the campaign and McChrystal's call for more troops, a position finding limited favor in the administration.


The Associated Press


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ne...en__petraeus_treated_for_prostate_cancer.html
 
Interesting.. but as with the people saying Palin or various other names.. it is way too soon to tell... much can happen to whatever individual, and the situations within our country can change in many ways between now and then
 
great maybe then he can explain how he lost all those weapons in Iraq that were used to kill our troops, what do ya think
 
Interesting.. but as with the people saying Palin or various other names.. it is way too soon to tell... much can happen to whatever individual, and the situations within our country can change in many ways between now and then

This Petraeus story is finding some legs - the New York Times picked up on it the other day, and it compliments the whisperings of a widespread agitation growing from within the military regarding this Obama White House.

McChrystal most likely leaked his Afghanistan report to the media after it was basically ignored by the White House - who had demanded said report in the first place. This would be a very aggressive move for a military commander of McChrystal's stature, and indicative of serious frustrations and doubts about the Obama White House's ability to properly support what needs to be done in the Afghanistan campaign.

With that fact in play, and rumors circulating around Petraeus and a potential run for 2012 are even more significant - a potential that apparently has the White House VERY concerned.

Interesting indeed!
 
Great. Republicans hope to nominate someone who can attack more countries and start more wars.

Who are they going to get to fight? I remember Chris Mathews asking a group of Republican college kids, "Who supports the war?" Wild screaming and cheering "We do!" Chris Mathews, "How many of you are going to enlist to go to Iraq?" Deafening silence, many turning their backs and rapidly walking away.

So, let's take a look at our standards. Raising the age of private to 40. Giving a pass on felonies. GED? Doesn't matter. Anything to get cannon fodder in uniform so Republicans can have someone for other countries to shoot at.

I suspect Petraeus won't make much of a difference. People will look at that uniform and say, "No mas".
 
Its interesting, but two questions:

Could he win the Republican nomination? Do you really think that Mitt, Huck, Jindal, or Palin won't eat him up on domestic policy? If the economy is still an issue in 2012, domestic policy will be king and Petraeus would have an uphill battle on that versus his rivals in the GOP. If the economy is sound, Obama will be practically untouchable in 2012 so its a moot point anyway.

Could he win the General Election? G.H.W Bush's loss to Clinton in 1992, Dole's loss to Clinton in 1992, Kerry's loss to Bush in 2004, and McCain's loss to Obama in 2008 makes me hesitant to say that military experience holds any advantage for a nominee. Recent history shows that actual military experience couldn't guarantee any of these guys a victory against opponents without military experience and military experience won't shore up other weaknesses in a campaign.
 
Its interesting, but two questions:

Could he win the Republican nomination? Do you really think that Mitt, Huck, Jindal, or Palin won't eat him up on domestic policy? If the economy is still an issue in 2012, domestic policy will be king and Petraeus would have an uphill battle on that versus his rivals in the GOP. If the economy is sound, Obama will be practically untouchable in 2012 so its a moot point anyway.

Could he win the General Election? G.H.W Bush's loss to Clinton in 1992, Dole's loss to Clinton in 1992, Kerry's loss to Bush in 2004, and McCain's loss to Obama in 2008 makes me hesitant to say that military experience holds any advantage for a nominee. Recent history shows that actual military experience couldn't guarantee any of these guys a victory against opponents without military experience and military experience won't shore up other weaknesses in a campaign.


___

Certainly no guarantee - but with the rising concerns over Obama's seeming inability to transmit a competent message of actual leadership, America could very well reach out to someone with a strong military background - particularly if Afghanistan devolves even further than it already has in recent months.

Early speculation - but interesting. And the White House is apparently very concerned over the prospect...
 
Great. Republicans hope to nominate someone who can attack more countries and start more wars.

Who are they going to get to fight? I remember Chris Mathews asking a group of Republican college kids, "Who supports the war?" Wild screaming and cheering "We do!" Chris Mathews, "How many of you are going to enlist to go to Iraq?" Deafening silence, many turning their backs and rapidly walking away.

So, let's take a look at our standards. Raising the age of private to 40. Giving a pass on felonies. GED? Doesn't matter. Anything to get cannon fodder in uniform so Republicans can have someone for other countries to shoot at.

I suspect Petraeus won't make much of a difference. People will look at that uniform and say, "No mas".

I haven't seen this much absolute bullshit in a long time
 
Great. Republicans hope to nominate someone who can attack more countries and start more wars.

Who are they going to get to fight? I remember Chris Mathews asking a group of Republican college kids, "Who supports the war?" Wild screaming and cheering "We do!" Chris Mathews, "How many of you are going to enlist to go to Iraq?" Deafening silence, many turning their backs and rapidly walking away.

So, let's take a look at our standards. Raising the age of private to 40. Giving a pass on felonies. GED? Doesn't matter. Anything to get cannon fodder in uniform so Republicans can have someone for other countries to shoot at.

I suspect Petraeus won't make much of a difference. People will look at that uniform and say, "No mas".

I haven't seen this much absolute bullshit in a long time



Yes it was utter BS - including the fabricated Chris Mathews.

I wasn't aware Mathews was still on the air! :lol:
 
Certainly no guarantee - but with the rising concerns over Obama's seeming inability to transmit a competent message of actual leadership, America could very well reach out to someone with a strong military background - particularly if Afghanistan devolves even further than it already has in recent months.

Early speculation - but interesting. And the White House is apparently very concerned over the prospect...

The big issue will be... what is the big issue in 2012?

If its the economy, Petraeus probably can't get out of the primary and he'd be the least of Obama's concerns anyway. Mitt is a much stronger candidate as far as the economy goes, but Palin or Jindal could beat him too and with a weak economy beat Obama. There's a few other variables in there (Do the Democrats still control the House and Senate too? Does the GOP control the House and Senate? Etc), but that's the likely scenario if the economy is still weak.

If the economy is on the rebound (and plenty of economists think it will be), then Obama starts the 2012 election cycle from a position of strength and he'd be very hard to topple. Afghanistan would have to devolve into a complete disaster for it to become an issue in 2012. It wasn't an issue in 2004 or 2008, and the media still roundly ignores Afghanistan despite the more pressing issues there.

Even an Afghanistan disaster might not be enough to push Petraeus into office though. If the Democrats can sell Iraq and Afghanistan as Bush's war to independents and highlight Petraeus role in fighting it under Bush, then it might actually hurt him being connected to the military :eusa_eh:

Military candidates have recently had a terrible track record at running for the highest office. If Petraeus turns out to be more than a "military candidate" he could do ok, but if it turns out all he has to run on is military experience, he could run into the same problems others have run into recently.
 
Certainly no guarantee - but with the rising concerns over Obama's seeming inability to transmit a competent message of actual leadership, America could very well reach out to someone with a strong military background - particularly if Afghanistan devolves even further than it already has in recent months.

Early speculation - but interesting. And the White House is apparently very concerned over the prospect...

The big issue will be... what is the big issue in 2012?

If its the economy, Petraeus probably can't get out of the primary and he'd be the least of Obama's concerns anyway. Mitt is a much stronger candidate as far as the economy goes, but Palin or Jindal could beat him too and with a weak economy beat Obama. There's a few other variables in there (Do the Democrats still control the House and Senate too? Does the GOP control the House and Senate? Etc), but that's the likely scenario if the economy is still weak.

If the economy is on the rebound (and plenty of economists think it will be), then Obama starts the 2012 election cycle from a position of strength and he'd be very hard to topple. Afghanistan would have to devolve into a complete disaster for it to become an issue in 2012. It wasn't an issue in 2004 or 2008, and the media still roundly ignores Afghanistan despite the more pressing issues there.

Even an Afghanistan disaster might not be enough to push Petraeus into office though. If the Democrats can sell Iraq and Afghanistan as Bush's war to independents and highlight Petraeus role in fighting it under Bush, then it might actually hurt him being connected to the military :eusa_eh:

Military candidates have recently had a terrible track record at running for the highest office. If Petraeus turns out to be more than a "military candidate" he could do ok, but if it turns out all he has to run on is military experience, he could run into the same problems others have run into recently.

Well said!

:clap2:
 
Military candidates do terrible?? You can say that McCain did not fair well, but I don't think it was his military service hat caused the loss.... And you cannot count the ones with military experience that lost to others with military experience (Kerry to Bush, Carter to Reagan, etc)... So in recent history you have Dole and Bush Sr. (losing to Clinton... But Bush Sr. did already win an election.. so weigh that how you will) and McCain (Losing to Obama)

List of United States Presidents by military service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Great. Republicans hope to nominate someone who can attack more countries and start more wars.

Who are they going to get to fight? I remember Chris Mathews asking a group of Republican college kids, "Who supports the war?" Wild screaming and cheering "We do!" Chris Mathews, "How many of you are going to enlist to go to Iraq?" Deafening silence, many turning their backs and rapidly walking away.

So, let's take a look at our standards. Raising the age of private to 40. Giving a pass on felonies. GED? Doesn't matter. Anything to get cannon fodder in uniform so Republicans can have someone for other countries to shoot at.

I suspect Petraeus won't make much of a difference. People will look at that uniform and say, "No mas".

I haven't seen this much absolute bullshit in a long time



Yes it was utter BS - including the fabricated Chris Mathews.

I wasn't aware Mathews was still on the air! :lol:

Chris Mathews from Hardball? Not on the air?

Raising the age of private to 40. Giving a pass on felonies. GED? Doesn't matter.

All true.

Number of Republican college kids who enlisted for Iraq? There must have been dozens.

That with Chris Mathews actually happened. I saw it. I witnessed it. It was outside of one of the debates.

The problems with Republicans is when you drop some truth on their tiny heads, they freak out. Their little fantasy worlds can't take the truth. They pop, like the bubbles of delusion they are made from.
 
General Petraeus has been uncommonly quiet of late - with growing speculation he is putting out some political feelers for a possible run for the White House in 2012. He recently underwent successful treatment for prostate cancer, but remains elusive regarding both his potential political aspirations, and the current Obama administration's foreign policy - or lack thereof. It is quite possible this administration is finding itself at increasing odds with its military leaders, who are increasingly alarmed at the president's consistent apologist tours for America, and his inept contradictory handling of foreign policy - namely Afghanistan...

____

October 06, 2009
Gen. Petraeus treated for prostate cancer
Pauline Jelinek And Anne Gearan
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in February and has since undergone two months of radiation treatment.

Petraeus, 56, was diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer, which was not publicly disclosed at the time because Petraeus and his family regarded his illness as "a personal matter" that "did not interfere with the performance of his duties," said his spokesman, Col. Erik Gunhus. President Barack Obama and top members of his administration were informed, he said.

As commander of a region running through the Middle East and across Central Asia, Petraeus did make at least one overseas trip during his treatment.

The Pentagon termed Petraeus' treatment "successful." He was treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

In recent months, Petraeus has been noticeably on the sidelines of the public debate over how to salvage the war effort in Afghanistan.

Known mainly for the troop build up in Iraq that helped calm the war there, Petraeus once had great star power and used it publicly. He was a darling at Capitol Hill hearings and had former President George Bush's ear in regular video conferences to talk about military matters, a relationship that doesn't exist with the Obama White House.

As the head of the U.S. Central Command, he is still very much involved in the conversation about the two ongoing wars, debating the new Afghan strategy with the National Security Council and flying late last month to Germany for a meeting with the commander in Afghanistan.

But he has taken such a low profile publicly of late that some inside the Washington beltway speculated that he was contemplating a run for the presidency in 2012, something his advisers have denied.

The more prominent public face of the current war debate is Gen. Stanley McChrystal, sent in the summer as Obama's hand-picked commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. Petraeus has said that he supports McChrystal's assessment of the campaign and McChrystal's call for more troops, a position finding limited favor in the administration.


The Associated Press


RealClearPolitics - Politics - Oct 06, 2009 - Gen. Petraeus treated for prostate cancer






I was thinking just the other day that we needed another Eisenhower! Yep.
 
General Petraeus has been uncommonly quiet of late - with growing speculation he is putting out some political feelers for a possible run for the White House in 2012. He recently underwent successful treatment for prostate cancer, but remains elusive regarding both his potential political aspirations, and the current Obama administration's foreign policy - or lack thereof. It is quite possible this administration is finding itself at increasing odds with its military leaders, who are increasingly alarmed at the president's consistent apologist tours for America, and his inept contradictory handling of foreign policy - namely Afghanistan...

____

October 06, 2009
Gen. Petraeus treated for prostate cancer
Pauline Jelinek And Anne Gearan
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in February and has since undergone two months of radiation treatment.

Petraeus, 56, was diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer, which was not publicly disclosed at the time because Petraeus and his family regarded his illness as "a personal matter" that "did not interfere with the performance of his duties," said his spokesman, Col. Erik Gunhus. President Barack Obama and top members of his administration were informed, he said.

As commander of a region running through the Middle East and across Central Asia, Petraeus did make at least one overseas trip during his treatment.

The Pentagon termed Petraeus' treatment "successful." He was treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

In recent months, Petraeus has been noticeably on the sidelines of the public debate over how to salvage the war effort in Afghanistan.

Known mainly for the troop build up in Iraq that helped calm the war there, Petraeus once had great star power and used it publicly. He was a darling at Capitol Hill hearings and had former President George Bush's ear in regular video conferences to talk about military matters, a relationship that doesn't exist with the Obama White House.

As the head of the U.S. Central Command, he is still very much involved in the conversation about the two ongoing wars, debating the new Afghan strategy with the National Security Council and flying late last month to Germany for a meeting with the commander in Afghanistan.

But he has taken such a low profile publicly of late that some inside the Washington beltway speculated that he was contemplating a run for the presidency in 2012, something his advisers have denied.

The more prominent public face of the current war debate is Gen. Stanley McChrystal, sent in the summer as Obama's hand-picked commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. Petraeus has said that he supports McChrystal's assessment of the campaign and McChrystal's call for more troops, a position finding limited favor in the administration.


The Associated Press


RealClearPolitics - Politics - Oct 06, 2009 - Gen. Petraeus treated for prostate cancer






I was thinking just the other day that we needed another Eisenhower! Yep.


That's what Bob Dole believes as well...
 
Petraeus will not run for the Presidency and if he did mount a campaign he would not get the nomination. Here's why.

The libatrd kooks would have a field day smearing his name with every single thing that went wrong in Iraq prior to the surge and now evident Iraq War victory.
 
One of BoBo the assclown's favorite toys.
obama-jack-in-the-box.jpg


Notice the "Tricky Dick" peace sign jesture.....a portent of things to come?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top