Bush Bypassing Several Levels Of Chain Of Command To Give Petraeus Priveledged Voice On Iraq

Washington Post   |  Michael Abramowitz   |   April 6, 2008 12:45 PM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

For months, a debate raged at the top levels of the Bush administration over how quickly to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. But the discussion shut down soon after President Bush flew to Camp Arifjan, a dusty Army base near the Iraqi border in Kuwait, in January for a face-to-face meeting with the man whose counsel on the war he values most: Gen. David H. Petraeus.

During an 80-minute session, the president questioned his top commander in Iraq on whether further troop reductions, beyond those planned through July, would compromise security gains. According to officials familiar with the exchange, Petraeus said he wanted to wait until the summer to evaluate conditions -- and Bush made it clear he would support him and take any political heat.

"My attitude is, if he didn't want to continue the drawdown, that's fine with me," Bush said before television cameras later, with Petraeus standing by his side. "I said to the general: 'If you want to slow her down, fine; it's up to you.' "

In the waning months of his administration, Bush has hitched his fortunes to those of his bookish four-star general, bypassing several levels of the military chain of command to give Petraeus a privileged voice in White House deliberations over Iraq, according to current and former administration officials and retired officers. In so doing, Bush's working relationship with his field commander has taken on an intensity that is rare in the history of the nation's wartime presidents.

Those ties will be on display this week, when Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker report to Congress on progress in Iraq, and when Bush is expected to announce a decision on future force levels. By all accounts, Petraeus's view that a "pause" is needed this summer before troop cuts can continue has prevailed in the White House, trumping concerns by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others that the Army's long-term health could be threatened by the enduring presence of many combat forces in Iraq.

Read the whole story here.

 

Comments
96
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

Bush and Petraeus = WAR CRIMINALS

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 AM on 04/07/2008

I've said it before, the fact that George Bush Jr. is using Petraeus as a fig leaf that implies Petraeus must have a firm grip on Bush's scrotum.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:00 AM on 04/07/2008

This criminal president has no credibility at all. His present propaganda ploy is to prop up a Soldier and use his credentials, and stain his honor. Shame on this Soldiers honor, a once proud Paratrooper! Restore your honor, tell Congress of the deceptions this decider in chief has ordered you to put forth as fact and then resign.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 AM on 04/07/2008

Someone in Congress should ask Patreus if your gonna stay in IrAQ for 100 years how exactly do you expect to do that without a draft??

Asking 3% of the population to fight this endless occupation over and over again is frankly insane and immoral

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 AM on 04/07/2008

This title is crap. Who are these people Bush bypassed? If not it would be the same as Bush bypassing
several levels to get to Mrs. Bush. If you all accept this crap as valid information, I still have an extra double decker out hourse, room at the bottom for sale.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:36 AM on 04/07/2008

The current commander in Iraq was handpicked because he was willing to go along with what Bush wanted to do, as opposed to what seemed the logical thing to do. The last commander wasn't, so he was replaced with Petraeus, a more malleable officer.

Ultimately, the job of the commander on the ground is to attempt to carry out the orders of his boss. In this case, the boss has told him to take 30,000 more troops and put them on the ground.

If and when a new boss tells him, or his replacement, to cooperate with the Iraqis in drawing down the American presence in Iraq, then that will become the new mission. He, like the soldiers under him, are expected to fight when told to fight, and to withdraw when told to withdraw. The American armed forces have won every fight they have had to fight in Iraq, but the insurgency goes on. When the American public elects a leader who will do their will, instead of his own, it will be time to withdraw our troops from where they are obviously not welcome.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:07 AM on 04/07/2008

sorry, 2 terms, which is 8 years.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:00 AM on 04/07/2008

Bush listens to only God. It was God who told him to fire the smart Shisenski (sp). It was god who told him to listen to Cheney, Rums, Feith, Perle and Wolfnowitz. It was god who told him to fire naval head of the Joint Chiefs for having a different outlook than his. The only hope for those mortals that believe in a heaven and a hell will be which way bush travels after his demise.
I, for one, unlike the person who added two lines on an epitaph on a grave stone in a Conn. cemetary,
"Thou traveler who passes by,
As thou art now, so was I.
As I am now thou soon shall be,
So prepare for death and follow me"

The two line addition

"To follow thee I am not content
until I know which way thou went"

If there is such a thing as a hereafter, iI am convinced Bush Cheney and the above mentioned will join the monsters that preceded them. Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Kahn etc.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 AM on 04/07/2008

Bush will say or do ANYTHING it takes to keep their agenda moving forwards, an agenda of death, destruction, no value for human life, and the filling of their coffers with America's borrowed riches.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 AM on 04/07/2008

That's the Republican Party way. that's why they are so big on pro-life but no welfare, just pull yourself up by your booth straps so you can serve in the military.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:22 AM on 04/07/2008

ten steps that "fascist, totalitarian, and other repressive leaders [employ to] seize and maintain power, especially in what were once democracies." The ten steps are:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
naomi wolfe
HAD THE PATRIOT ACT which is neither NOT BEEN PUT INTO PLACE, THERE WOULD BE A REVOLUTION TODAY IN THE UNITED STATES.......WHO KNOWS? PERHAPS A REVOLUTION ALREADY OCURRING.........PERHAPS A GOOD SHOW OF FAITH WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD WE COULD TURN OVER BUSH, HIS CHILDREN, HIS BROTHERS, HIS PARENTS, HIS RELATIVES, HIS FRIENDS, TO THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT. GIVE CHENEY, RUMSFORD, ROVE TO THE INTERNATIONAL WAR TRIBUNAL AS WITH GONZALEZ AND RICE

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:17 AM on 04/07/2008

No chain of command, law or Constitutional right is too great fore the Bush to abridge. Congress and the courts have abdicated their duty of oversight of the Executive branch. The only hope is that the lot of these arrogant, Bush thugs will eventually be tried as war criminals in international courts.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:55 AM on 04/07/2008

If only the public would remember when they come up for re-election in 2012. Let us fire them
all and only keep them in office for 2 years. Impose on them the same rules we government
employees have to abide, the ethics rule (one cannot accept even one pencil from a person,
one cannot work for an inside company for 2 years after you quit your job and you lose half of your
retirement pay if you accept the job with a company who used to do business with you).
Why do we have different set of rules, isn't obvious.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:59 AM on 04/07/2008

sound like a very reasonable idea

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:10 AM on 04/07/2008

Gee, General David Petreaus is George W's bitch?!?!?! Tell me it ain't so!!!

Petreaus is no patriot, he is a propagandist for the worst president and the worse foreign policy in our history. MoveOn had it right, he's betrayed the American people and is a disgrace to the uniform.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 AM on 04/07/2008

Most Huffers probably don't realize President Bush is the CIC.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 AM on 04/07/2008

Yes he is CIC. He also has a great reputation as a scholar of military science and tactics, NOT. Just because w is CIC doesn't mean he has a clue about what he is doing and the fact our troops are there demonstrates that clearly. An eighth grader's grasp of world and Middle Eastern affairs doesn't make the man competent.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:28 AM on 04/07/2008

My word, you and your candidates, just making it up as you go. Comments concerning military protocol on Huff and Puff, Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Ha Ha.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 PM on 04/06/2008

bush has no credibility and anyone he anoints with credibility has no credibility.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:04 PM on 04/06/2008

I forgot. Where did you get your credibility? At the local 7/11?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:42 AM on 04/07/2008

Bush is a sociopath. He passed over qualified experts until he heard what he wanted to hear, knowing that it would cost lives.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 PM on 04/06/2008

Petraeus is Bush's "Yes"-man. Bush/Cheney ignore all other voices about the surge/draw-down, just like they ignored CIA reports about no WMDs in Iraq during the lead-up to invasion and sought ego-massagers, calling it intelligence.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 PM on 04/06/2008

Of course he's going to do that, he's all about picking his favorite toadies.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 PM on 04/06/2008

Bush needs Petraeus's skirt to hide behind but it won't work.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 PM on 04/06/2008

Petraeus could also be a very talented fallguy.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 AM on 04/07/2008

bush doesnt know what the fuck he is doing...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:48 PM on 04/06/2008

And neither does Petraeus.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 AM on 04/07/2008

Over the past 2 weeks there has been a Major Uptick in Violence.

None of it has been attributed to Al Qaida.

Why are we there?
Are we joining the CIVIL WAR?
Which Side are we fighting for?
Sunni's that used to be Insurgents or part of Sadamm's Army and now Our Awakening Force?
The Shia controlled government?
The Mahdi Army?
Thugs in Basra and Baghdad?

I thought the LATEST REASON for staying in Iraq was to DEFEAT Al Qaeda there so they
do not come here to kill Americans.
Between the Allied Force of 160,000, the Awakening Force of 70,000 and the 430,000 Iraqi
Security Forces (660,000 Total) shouldn't we be focusing on the remaining 6000 Al Qaeda Terrorists? Apparently we have killed or captured 4000 Al Qaeda over the past couple years.
So if we stay focused 100 years will not be necessary.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6Wvx25P1oVNBEjTF_X7wJmBq8SQ

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7333099.stm

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/report-more-tha.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23977964/

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 PM on 04/06/2008

"Which Side are we fighting for?"

My guess is that we are in it for ourselves, that is, for their oil.
And I OBJECT! Not in my name. Bush is a CRIMINAL.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:04 PM on 04/06/2008

"None of it has been attributed to Al Qaida."

Current estimates say LESS THAN 1000 Al Qaida remain in Iraq today.
But Bush (and McCain) pretend that we are fighting the people who attacked us on 9/11.
What really disgusts me is how they MUST LIE about everything. Madness.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:00 PM on 04/06/2008

Petraeus Testimony Next Week Will Signal Iran Attack..Perhaps the British government has derailed the plot to attack Iran by leaking in advance to the London Telegraph the disinformation Cheney has prepared for Petraeus and Crocker to deliver to the complicit US Congress next Tuesday and Wednesday. On the other hand, the US puppet media is likely to bury the real story and to trumpet Petraeus claims that Iran has, in effect, already declared war on the US by sending weapons to kill US troops in Iraq.

By next Thursday we will know from how the Petraeus-Crocker dog and pony show plays in the US Congress and media whether the Bush Regime will commit yet another war crime by attacking Iran.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:10 PM on 04/06/2008

and Hillary is their next goal to uphold their way of thinking and enriching themselves.
With McCain or Hillary the GOP cannot lose.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:36 AM on 04/07/2008

In Congress 100% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats are ALSO responsible for this coming disaster.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 04/06/2008

The neocon lacky Petraeus has had his script written for him by Cheney, and Petraeus together with neocon warmonger Ryan Crocker, the US governor of the Green Zone in Baghdad, will present Congress next Tuesday and Wednesday with the lies, for which the road has been well paved by neocon propagandists such as Kimberly Kagan, that "the US must recognize that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq."

Don"t expect Congress to do anything except to egg on the attack. On April 3 the International Herald Tribune reported that senators and representatives have made millions of dollars from their investments in defense companies totaling $196 million. Rep. Ike Skelton, the Democrat chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is already on board with the attack on Iran. The London Telegraph quotes Skelton: "Iran is the bull in the china shop. In all of this, they seem to have links to all of the Shi"ite groups, whether they be political or military."

All Skelton knows is what the war criminal Bush regime tells him. If Iran really does have all these connections, then it behooves Washington to cease threatening Iran and to make nice with Iran in order to stabilize Iraq and extract the US from the nightmare.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:10 PM on 04/06/2008

I had given up trying to get my posts past the new censors, but will give it another shot.

I would like an answer if possible from you americans. Assuming that the report Tuesday/Wednesday is indeed another piece of disinformation to ensure an attack on Iran in the near future, what are americans of conscience going to do when your leaders declare war on Iran?

Any sane person can see that even with the vast advantage you have in airpower, an attack on Iran will eventually lead to a ground war, which you are in no position to win.

If an attack against Iran does lead to a ground war, it is extremely conceivable that you could witness the 3rd time your country has used a nuclear weapon against another nation. Are you willing to idly sit by and let that happen?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 AM on 04/07/2008

I sincerely hope and pray that the idiot in the White House will not expand his war to include Iran.

Other than voting for someone who will promise to end the Republican's insane war, I do not see that there is any direct action available to most citizens. We can contact our elected representatives and let them know how we feel, but what else can we do? What can any citizen of any country do, when their country's leadership does not do as they wish?
While peaceful demonstrations are sometimes tolerated, anything else will incur severe reprisals, as they would in all countries.

Let me ask you, if your country waged an unjust war, what would you do, other than not participate in it, and argue against it?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:26 AM on 04/07/2008

What would I do? Given the level of insanity since 9/11 that your leaders have demonstrated, I would likely choose the "anything else" option. Fortunately for me, I don't have to make that thorny decision. My country has a history of not invading other nations, and we also don't possess the capability nor the wish to lay waste with nuclear weapons. You, unfortunately, don't have that luxury of choosing between watching and acting (with all its repercussions).

What blows me away is the utter lack of apathy on the part of the american people. I understand that the media does its best to depict any demonstration as a small group of nutbars wailing on the steps of some government building, so no one knows the true size of these groups. But they would not be able to ignore demonstrations like your country had during the Vietnam war.
Why have there not been demonstrations of that size and frequency in your country like you did back then?

If you had 500,000 people surround the Congress, the Senate, and the Pentagon, and refuse to move, what could the government do? How can they arrest and detain half a million people. There are not enough military and police to do the job, plus no facilities to house them.

Outside of shooting them, there is nothing that the authorities could do. And even I don't think your country has yet sunk to the level of China where authorities would shoot their own citizens.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 AM on 04/07/2008

HEAR,HEAR!!Sad but true...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 AM on 04/07/2008
collapse ResidentChimp