Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
Obama can't win in this one. He put McChrystal in position after passing over Petraeus the first time. He also had some harsh words for Petraeus while he was campaigning for office. Now, to have to sack the guy he handpicked and go back to the guy who originally should have been the choice, it doesn't look so good. But in the end, I think Petraeus is the better choice. As decorated as McChrystal is, he had lost the confidence of a lot of the guys on the ground fighting for him. Now it's just a matter if finding out if this is a winnable war.
|
also consider that the remaining Obama supporters are the far left whack jobs who hate Petraeus' guts and would very much like to lose the war so that we can get on to turning this crappy, misguided country into a marxist utopia, and they want their damn Obama money...they can't be happy with Obama now either....hiring "Bush's General" and all...
did ya happen to notice that all of the independent hardworking mainstream media heads and pundints are cheering support for Obama using the IDENTICAL language.."he's brilliant"...funny how they independently and without bias or coordination report as news the
exact talking points of the Obama handlers, you'd think that you'd have a least a shred of self respect or at least a little respect for your profession...this is Stalinist and worrisome...
you don't have to be brilliant to be Obama or a member of his media support group...just read what they put in front of you...
and based on what I'm reading here from some, it's well recieved and repeated without question by the toe suckers who will either repeat talking points(preferrably short and rhyming so as to be easily remembered), blame Bush or tell you you are on drugs... in lieu or an intelligent thought
hey, maybe you can look forward to some Al Gore sex tapes to really get ya goin'....
it's also a nice distraction from the Blago mess..."never let a crisis go to waste"
BY NATASHA KORECKI AND SARAH OSTMAN Staff Reporters
A top aide to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich said he believed Barack Obama knew of Blagojevich's plot to win himself a presidential Cabinet post in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate.
John Harris, Blagojevich's former chief of staff, testified Wednesday in the former governor's corruption trial that three days after the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the ex-governor told Harris he felt confident Obama knew he wanted to swap perks.
"The president understands that the governor would be willing to make the appointment of Valerie Jarrett as long as he gets what he's asked for. . . . The governor gets the Cabinet appointment he's asked for," Harris said, explaining a recorded call.
Harris said Blagojevich came away believing Obama knew what he wanted after having a conversation with a local union representative, who in turn spoke with labor leader Tom Balanoff, with whom Blagojevich met to discuss a Jarrett appointment. Jarrett, now a White House adviser, was seeking the appointment to Obama's Senate seat.
Defense lawyers say Harris' testimony contradicts the government's previous public statements that Obama knew nothing about deal-making involving the Senate seat appointment.
The defense on Wednesday moved to force the prosecution to turn over FBI reports of Obama's interview with federal agents in December of 2008. Obama is not accused of wrongdoing.
"Testimony elicited by the government from John Harris and wiretaps played in court raise the issue of President Obama's direct knowledge and communication with emissaries and others regarding the appointment to his Senate seat," lawyers wrote in the filing
Linear Mode
