Service Time Is Lonely

Wingnut civics, this time brought to you by PowerTools.

Here is a report from Gareth Porter about how Top Military Figures do not like Obama's commitment to remove troops from Iraq in 16 months, and are planning to strike back against the Commander in Chief:

CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

Oh. And what do the Powertools geniuses have to say about this?

Still, of all of the foreign policy snafus that have plagued the early days of Obama's administration, the possibility of a public conflict with General Petraeus is the most immediately threatening. Gen. Petraeus got the loudest applause of anyone who was introduced at the Super Bowl yesterday.

Never mind that these "foreign policy snafus" exist entirely in the wingnut imagination.

What's interesting here is that this idiot just read a report suggesting that actively serving members of the armed forces ("a network of senior military officers") are going to whip up a public relations campaign in order to frustrate the president's foreign policy, and his response is, essentially, "the president had better watch his ass." The Super Bowl crowd, after all, loves them some Petraeus!

Well, there's a Democrat in the White House, so, constitutionally, civilian control of the military is suspended, or something.

I also like this:

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Sounds kind of dishonest.

I have no idea how correct the story is, but Buttmissile's response was pretty fantastic, in an actual as opposed to "liberal" fascist kind of way.

MORE. Crittenden writes the post he was stillborn to write.

MORE. Let's just be clear, I'm really kind of impressed at how many people seem to be missing the point of Porter's story, which is that if it's true, it amounts to a major scandal. John Cole is the exception -- yes, it's insane. If Porter has this right, of course. If he's blowing smoke, it's his ass...