LDS Freedom Forum

There has been some speculation that Barack put Petraeus in charge of Afghanistan to take him out of possible contention for the presidency in 2012. But consider:

All that needs to happen now is for Petraeus to push for a quick victory. If he gets his way he will be a war hero and will have the love of everyone and will be a shoo-in IF he runs. I have also read articles that imply or flat out say that Petraeus has had his eye on the White House for some time. So there is likely little question on the "if" should the opportunity present itself.

If Petraeus pushes for a quick win and is countermanded or in any way obstructed by Obama, he can resign in protest and take his case to the American people. Again, I think you would see overwhelming favorables for him and Obama's popularity would sink even lower, if possible. Again, in this scenario, if Petraeus runs, he wins - no doubt in my mind.

So I think if it is true that Obama made this move to stop Petraeus from running in 2012, I think he did exactly the WRONG thing. This was one of those cases of something that might have looked tactically smart but was strategically stupid - which seems to be Obama's calling card. Everything he does is short sighted and doesn't see the long term consequences.

I really believe that Petraeus may be the president "of Greek extraction" prophesied about. Not trying to be a fear monger, just be ready.

Original_Intent wrote:I really believe that Petraeus may be the president "of Greek extraction" prophesied about. Not trying to be a fear monger, just be ready.

Ditto. There has been lots of talk about Petraeus in 2012 (there's that number again) and the timing of his appointment couldn't be any better and it would fit the prophecy exactly. I will be watching his career with great interest/trepidation.

There are those who are certain that McChrystal's actions were no "mistake", but that he knew exactly what he was doing. He has a long special ops background which includes psychological warfare and knowing your "enemy" and how they will act. What came out in the Rolling Stone article was exactly what he wanted to come out, and it placed Obama in a VERY difficult position.

Perhaps positioning Petraeus for the presidency played a part in McChrystal's actions.

I have read articles that suggest that General Petraeus is an establishment "yes man", ever eager to please the establishment, which could greatly increase his chances of getting nominated for the presidency.

I continually read comments here that imply that Obama is in charge of things. He too is, IMO, a lackey of the LDGs who are really pulling the strings. Nevertheless, I think that right or wrong, Original Intent has made an excellent observation and analysis.

A couple more points:

This time frame Iran may actually have a nuke or two - barring a pre-emptive strike by Israel, the U.S., or both.

There is probably no one more "pro-Israel" than Petraeus, save Rahm Emanuel, in any position of power in the U.S.

So it is very easy to contemplate that his election could trigger a nuclear response from the Arab world, if they had any.

Here's hoping he wins the war and get's out of there.

Very well could have been submarined on purpose.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/a ... l_071210w/

Just my 2 cents. Petraeus is also a member of the CFR(http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php ... mcchrystal) and attended at least one bilderberg group meeting(http://www.infowars.com/bilderberg-2009-attendee-list/).

Also I noticed Petraeus is more of a political type officer. More like Ike was in World War 2. Then he is like General Patten. Its to bad things can't be what they rely appear to be. Make life easier. Even with being a CFR member, at least McChrystal has a lot of battle field experience. Petraeus had none until he came to Iraq.

I think it will not go well in Afghanistan with all theses factors.

Mackingster wrote:Just my 2 cents. Petraeus is also a member of the CFR(http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php ... mcchrystal) and attended at least one bilderberg group meeting(http://www.infowars.com/bilderberg-2009-attendee-list/).

Also I noticed Petraeus is more of a political type officer. More like Ike was in World War 2. Then he is like General Patten. Its to bad things can't be what they rely appear to be. Make life easier. Even with being a CFR member, at least McChrystal has a lot of battle field experience. Petraeus had none until he came to Iraq.

I think it will not go well in Afghanistan with all theses factors.

They can paint it anyway they want......just as they did with the traitor Ike!

Watch the progress with Iran....that could be a huge move for Petraeus!

Ever since this happened, I felt there was more to it than what is readily apparent. McChrystal is not naive enough to not have realized the consequences of his statements. This was all manufactured. But, what's in it for McChrystal? Any ideas?

Perfectly agree on the analysis on Petraeus.

Now the talk is centered around Mattis taking over CENTCOM. Quite the war-fighter, but this is a guy who once said "it's fun to shoot people." He also openly used very disrespectful language when negotiating with Iraqi leaders. Who are these guys? And what is the overall plan that the PTBs have?

Shabako wrote:Ever since this happened, I felt there was more to it than what is readily apparent. McChrystal is not naive enough to not have realized the consequences of his statements. This was all manufactured. But, what's in it for McChrystal? Any ideas?

Perfectly agree on the analysis on Petraeus.

Now the talk is centered around Mattis taking over CENTCOM. Quite the war-fighter, but this is a guy who once said "it's fun to shoot people." He also openly used very disrespectful language when negotiating with Iraqi leaders. Who are these guys? And what is the overall plan that the PTBs have?

McChrystal is probably needed on the home front in a private contractor director's seat....