President Bush says that he should be trusted on military issues because he listens to his commanders. But he has a tendency to celebrate his generals when they're providing him political cover -- then stick a knife in their backs when they're no longer of any use to him.Dan, will you marry us? Ahem. Sorry, you and Keith do that to me. Go on.
[Army Lt. Gen. David H.] Petraeus, as it happens, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post just five weeks before the 2004 election describing what he called "reasons for optimism" in Iraq. Now Petraeus is Bush's "main man." Maybe he should be watching his back.There you go again, making me feel all girly. Ooo! Tell us the part about how Tom Ricks says Petraeus is gonna get his ass handed to him. Pleeeeease?
Thomas E. Ricks:So you're all saying that those in charge, aka guys who command, end up gone?
"Some of Petraeus's military comrades worry that the general is being set up by the Bush administration as a scapegoat if conditions in Iraq fail to improve," he writes. "'The danger is that Petraeus will now be painted as failing to live up to expectations and become the fall guy for the administration,' one retired four-star officer said. . . .
"When Bush and his aides shift military strategy, they seem to turn on the generals on whom they once relied publicly, said Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon official. ... "'This is an administration that wants to blame the generals,' Korb said."How's about this for a logical extension of his own agenda: Commander Guy in Chief listens to himself, blames himself, gets canned, is replaced, and the fallen Nation of Dick goes with him. And the the land of the formerly free will rejoice.
And Dan, Keith, and GottaLaff live happily ever after.