General Petraeus retires. Obama a no show.

[Norm]

He has earned his place in history. It is shameful that the Commander-in-Chief he honorably served did not show up. SHAMEFUL.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES, EDITORIAL
EDITORIAL: An old soldier who won’t fade away, Obama is outclassed and outsmarted by retiring Gen. Petraeus.

Gen. David H. Petraeus closed his phenomenal 37-year Army career this week with a joint review at Fort Myer in Arlington. Service members from every branch were present, and flags of all 50 states fluttered in
the breeze. A substantial crowd had come to hear the general's farewell address. Many were classmates from the West Point Class of 1974, smartly attired but enthusiastic and occasionally whooping like they
were cadets. Others were people with whom he had served over his storied career, whom he recognized from the dais during his speech. The morning was sunny and clear, and the general was his usual affable,
ebullient self.

In his remarks, Gen. Petraeus recalled the days when he entered the military, when the Vietnam War was winding down and the armed services were being pared down to the "hollow forces" of the 1970s.
"The Army I joined as a second lieutenant had suffered enormously," he said. In the wake of our involvement in Vietnam, our Army and much of our military were grappling with a host of very serious challenges. The senior leaders who first wore the uniform in those dark days were not discouraged. They began their careers with a sense of mission. I know I speak for many when I say that we came away from that period vowing to never let our forces get to such a point ever again. Through his efforts, and those of countless other visionaries in and out of uniform, the hollow forces were transformed once again into the finest fighting force in the world. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presided over the ceremony with William J. Lynn, deputy secretary of defense. Notably absent were Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, whose former position as CIA director is Gen. Petraeus' next assignment, and President Obama. Their non-appearance did not sit well with some. "Obama should have been here," a warrior who served under Gen. Petraeus told The Washington Times. "And he should have invited [former President George W.] Bush. The general saved their bacon. Twice.

"Everyone has forgotten that in 2007 we as a nation had said, 'OK, we are going to lose Iraq .' And President Bush said, 'Well what if we win?' Petraeus rode into town and assembled an extraordinary team. His personal drive, his charisma, his optimism, his can-do spirit, all of that is what gave us hope that we could in fact turn Iraq around," our source explained. "And by September of '07, the progress had been dramatic enough that it became common knowledge to the American people that things were turning around in Iraq. Eight months earlier, a lot of people, including Obama, wanted to tuck tail and have another Vietnam."

That's not all. "Here is the guy who saved our reputation as a nation. Seriously, who's missing this? And then he went to [Central Command] and was doing great things. And Obama asked him to take a functional
demotion and go back to Afghanistan and save our bacon again," we were told. "To leave his family, to step down from a regional command, to take on that burden. And he said yes, and he did it. Petraeus was the right guy at the right time, he answered the call, and now he's being yanked out before we're ready, just like the troops are being yanked out before Afghanistan is ready."

So what's the reason for the White House about-face? "They are sending him to the CIA to keep him quiet during the 2012 election. It shows how small and scared they are. He is an honorable man, he has never
expressed political ambition. But they saw him as a threat. He is an independent thinker, the finest military mind of his generation," our source posits. "What he suffers from is that he is more excellent than almost anyone he meets, to include the president. The troops love him. Strong people surround themselves with the most excellent people they can find, even those brighter and more capable than themselves. Weak
people don't."

There is a shameful indignity in how this hero was treated. "The president couldn't find the time in his schedule, nor could the [defense secretary] find the time to look him in the eye and say thank you in person," this warrior told The Washington Times. "It's one thing to say 'we support the troops' and trot out your first lady to do that, but this is where it counts. It would have been an appropriate gesture to come here to recognize the professional and personal sacrifice of this extraordinary man. It would have been the dignified thing to do."

The hero remained above it all. The cannons boomed and the crowd cheered and Gen. Petraeus stood smiling in the sun.

Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC.

[uwood]

Did President Bush attend? What about the defense sec during Bush's term?

[TC]

Let's not forget that the president appointed him to head the CIA when he left the military.

While the pomp and circumstances of a review may be more important to those who value appearance over substance, the appointment to the president's cabinet is the ultimate statement of "I trust and respect you. This country trusts and respects you. We want you to continue helping us rebuild all we lost during the Iraq and early Afghanistan debacles."

No award ceremony or flag waving event can compare.

[Norm]

Some veterans don't see it that way, henceforth the post.

(02-04-2012 02:57 PM)TC Wrote:  Let's not forget that the president appointed him to head the CIA when he left the military.

While the pomp and circumstances of a review may be more important to those who value appearance over substance, the appointment to the president's cabinet is the ultimate statement of "I trust and respect you. This country trusts and respects you. We want you to continue helping us rebuild all we lost during the Iraq and early Afghanistan debacles."

No award ceremony or flag waving event can compare.

[PlusLT]

(02-05-2012 05:12 PM)Norm Wrote:  Some veterans don't see it that way, henceforth the post.

Agreed. Probably most.

[SilverVert]

(02-05-2012 05:17 PM)pluslt Wrote:  

(02-05-2012 05:12 PM)Norm Wrote:  Some veterans don't see it that way, henceforth the post.

Agreed. Probably most.

X2 or more!

"No award ceremony or flag waving event can compare."

That statement demonstrates a real lack of understanding as to what these ceremonies mean to the participants. Flag waving is kind of meaningful to us that served.

[amazedcreation]

Do you have an link to the actual Washington Times article? If not, how do I know you didn't just make this up? Prove it. I believe nothing I read on random internet sites until I can see it on something legitimate.

[Norm]

(02-15-2012 11:53 AM)amazedcreation Wrote:  Do you have an link to the actual Washington Times article? If not, how do I know you didn't just make this up? Prove it. I believe nothing I read on random internet sites until I can see it on something legitimate.

Yep, made every damn bit of it up, just like I believe everything snopes confirms.

Prove it? Don't have to, BHO wasn't there.

[skribble]

(02-15-2012 11:53 AM)amazedcreation Wrote:  Do you have an link to the actual Washington Times article? If not, how do I know you didn't just make this up? Prove it. I believe nothing I read on random internet sites until I can see it on something legitimate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011...fade-away/

Entered the title on Google, first result was the article on the washington times website.

Hell of a first post

[PlusLT]

(02-15-2012 11:53 AM)amazedcreation Wrote:  Do you have an link to the actual Washington Times article? If not, how do I know you didn't just make this up? Prove it. I believe nothing I read on random internet sites until I can see it on something legitimate.

Interesting first post there friend.....

[TC]

(02-15-2012 03:39 PM)pluslt Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 11:53 AM)amazedcreation Wrote:  Do you have an link to the actual Washington Times article? If not, how do I know you didn't just make this up? Prove it. I believe nothing I read on random internet sites until I can see it on something legitimate.

Interesting first post there friend.....

Yeah - I'm supposed to be the resident left-wing nut here!

[WKMCD]

(02-15-2012 11:53 AM)amazedcreation Wrote:  Do you have an link to the actual Washington Times article? If not, how do I know you didn't just make this up? Prove it. I believe nothing I read on random internet sites until I can see it on something legitimate.

Lighten up Shirley... Jees.

[JAKE]

someone actually read something Norm posted??

[Norm]

(02-15-2012 07:24 PM)JAKEREDZ06 Wrote:  someone actually read something Norm posted??

Yeah you're right, I don't know why I post this crap. I get a response from..........Texas.

[amazedcreation]

There must be a reason there aren't more "left-winged nuts" on here. Must be in the treatment they initially receive. Should you be shocked that people are hoping to be informed rather than swindled? You do realize it has been notably conservatives who send ridiculous "chain-emails" like silly school girls hoping to rouse liberals into believing they (conservatives) are intelligent. Like the viral video of Obama not honoring the flag by placing his hand over his heart, and claiming he did that while president. The latter is fictious; he was campaigning. And if one watches his face, he sings the anthem as if he's at a Gospel church: with conviction. I gaurantee majority of the people saying he's not placing his hand over his heart don't know all the words to any national anthem. But that's beside the point.

Lastly, in a google search these are the first 5 websites that come up when searching the title "General Petraeus retires Obama a no show.":

1. Obama Administration Brass Skips David Patraeus's Retirement
http://www.thedailybeast.com....

2. David Petraeus News - The New York Times
topics.nytimes.com/... (Also the description mentions nothing about Obama not showing)

3. Petraeus Retires, With a Warning - NYTimes.com
atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/....

4. Harrolds.blogspot.com: o'shame - General Petraeus retires: Obama...
harrolds.blogspot.com/...

5. The Twisted Underground - General Petraeus retires Obama a no...
(you know the site).

Considering THESE were the links I assumed this was made up. I suppose I should have clicked on all the links in my search on the Washington Times website. I assumed your title would be the same as theirs. At least for copy right. Nevertheless, an Editorial named "An old soldier who won't fade away" (in a brief scan) seemed to be a different article altogether. Including the tag line: "Obama is outclassed and outsmarted by retiring Gen. Patraeus..." (which also didn't indicate it would be the same article.)

But thank you for the criticism. I am in Texas by transplant. Texas is a gorgeous state with lovely people. I prefer Ohio.

[WKMCD]

You have really come to the wrong forum. We come here to enjoy ourselves. It seems you are here to debate. I think everyone here understands that posts are always made from the perspective of the poster and take it as such..with a grain of salt and often a chuckle.

Wrong forum for your efforts and perhaps you should move on.

[amazedcreation]

Wit gentlemen.

If this article is an exact replication of the original, wouldn't the perspective be of the author and not your poster?

Regardless, I came here because it was one of the top 5 Google Results. Since it was a replication of the email I received I decided to ask about it. Asking is not debating. What I "debated" was all the friendly snide comments I received in my effort to attain information.

I would hope your banter would at least be well informed. As I'm sure it is. That was my intention. To become informed.

---

And just to spare the confusion: "Wit gentlemen" was to imply the long post I made a moment ago wasn't written in highly emotional, high-pitched speech, but in sensible reasonability.

[PlusLT]

(02-16-2012 11:33 AM)amazedcreation Wrote:  Wit gentlemen.

If this article is an exact replication of the original, wouldn't the perspective be of the author and not your poster?

Regardless, I came here because it was one of the top 5 Google Results. Since it was a replication of the email I received I decided to ask about it. Asking is not debating. What I "debated" was all the friendly snide comments I received in my effort to attain information.

I would hope your banter would at least be well informed. As I'm sure it is. That was my intention. To become informed.

---

And just to spare the confusion: "Wit gentlemen" was to imply the long post I made a moment ago wasn't written in highly emotional, high-pitched speech, but in sensible reasonability.

I don't mind debating. In fact it often helps me learn other folk's point of view. What myself and maybe others took a dislike of was your snide accusatory first post and followup posts. Most often it would behoove a user to introduce themselves to a forum, get to know people and progress into discussion. Instead you registered, selected a topic in the "off topic" section and posted up as nothing more than a troll. This isn't the OPED section of the NY TIMES. Most of us came here to get away from the blithering nonsense present on some of the forums.

That being said, no one here is going to shut you down or shy away from a friendly debate. However when you come in the way you did and continue to post in your deprecating fashion no one is going to take you seriously or treat you as anything other than a troll.

Savvy?

[WKMCD]

You're probably just too smart for us fellers.

[TC]

(02-16-2012 11:33 AM)amazedcreation Wrote:  Wit gentlemen.
...snip...

We welcome all kinds of automotive and go-fast vehicle fanatics here - that's the primary focus of TTU. If you're into fast cars, stump-pulling trucks, noisy ATV's or monster-wake inducing boats - this is the place for you. People who don't share these primary interests should not expect this board to seriously focus on other topics. Our sub-forums on politics, style, etc. are merely diversions for those who participate - we don't expect to be breaking new philosophical ground in them.

Our unique selling point is that we encourage irreverence - most of us are from other boards that took our contributions for granted or wielded their power irresponsibly. It's no surprise that most of our members are the kind that live to "question authority" - especially government authority.

Don't underestimate the intelligence of the guys and gals here. Don't assume that they don't have advanced degrees from good schools. They may have different cultural values, but "they ain't stupid."

I'm the odd man out here. I'm much more left leaning than most here. I grew up poor in the midwest, worked hard to get into a good college, graduated with honors, later earned an MBA, and I've lived in both the US and Europe, and traveled all over the world. I have a world view that lets me balance left and right and see the strengths and weaknesses of the US, European, etc. points of view. I have a vocabulary that includes the proper definitions of capitalist, socialist, and communist.

I'm also a Christian - a practicing Christian - who believes Jesus's message was:

"Listen - pursuing wealth and power is a lost cause. Here's the deal: You guys look out for each other without judgement while you're here on the Earth, and I'll look out for you without judgement after you're done down there."

I come off as left wing to some, but only because I believe that everything I have is a gift - and if I give it away I don't have to worry because He'll make sure I'm taken care of one way or another. I guess I have a different way of looking at Christianity than a lot of other so-called Christians do.

Anyway - what it boils down to is this:

If you're here to add something fun, constructive, or insightful to the automotive areas, and you like to dabble in politics on the side -

WELCOME ABOARD

If you just want to troll a sub-forum on our site to show how much smarter you are than the rest of us -

GTFO