. wrote:Nefarious wrote:. wrote:Gen. Sanchez is not in position to evaluate the surge. His command ended in 2004. Sanchez has no personal knowledge of developments on the ground in Iraq over the last two years. He certainly does not know more than current commander Gen David Petraeus, who has said "the situation was difficult but marked by gradual improvements."
And a big factor here too - is that Sanchez is no longer obligated to sing the party line because he is no longer employed by US Govt., quite unlike Petraeus. I wonder what, if anything, Petraeus will have to say once he is in Sanchez's position? Which it is probably kind of likely that Petraeus will find himself out of a job when it is convenient to have a fall guy.
You are presuming without basis that Petraeus would lie and sacrifice his troops to keep his job.
To people like you, good news about America just can't be true. You revel in any bad news regardless of the source.
Who said he would lie? Also, he can simply choose not to answer a question that would compromise the higher ups.
I actually like the look of Petraeus, he strikes me as a decent sort of fellow in a bloody difficult role. He knows that war is going to continue with or without him, don't you think Sanchez knew that too? It's got nothing to do with sacrificing the troops - that is ultimately not Petraeus decision to make - that comes from higher above. He can use his position to make sure that troop loss in minimized - same could be said of anyone doing that job. Still, would like to see what he would have to say afterwards.
Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if the Admin came in with a heavy censuring pen on that report before it was presented to congress and what the heck could Petraeus do about that? The Admin aren't gonna let him say anything that is critical of them - hell no! I'm seeing a lot of stuff on the web that says Cheney had his grubby little hands all over the thing. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
