Hat Tip To Spencer Ackerman....Again

Today General Odierno appeared on "State of the Union" with John King





Remember my post from earlier this week about the bogus Times of London article saying that General Odierno was resisting the SOFA timeline that Spencer Ackerman debunked? Well Huffington Post has the transcript of the whole interview and here is what you missed from the clip above.

KING: Let me -- let me ask you -- let me move back to a more serious question, and the idea that, in the previous administration and in your service prior to this administration, you were very clear that you thought these decisions should not be based on political timelines; they should be based on conditions on the ground.

I understand you're executing the orders of the commander in chief. I just want to get a sense of, are you concerned at all that the bad guys, the enemy, knows the timeline, too, and they are simply going into hiding, hoarding their resources, gathering their weapons and waiting for you to leave?

ODIERNO: There is always that potential. But, again, let me remind everyone what change was in December when the United States and the government of Iraq signed an agreement, a bilateral agreement that put the timeline in place, that said we would withdraw all our forces by 31 December, 2011.

In my mind, that was historic. It allowed Iraq to prove that it has its own sovereignty. It allows them, now, to move forward and take control, which was always -- it's always been our goal, is that they can control the stability in their country.

So I think I feel comfortable with that timeline. I did back in December. I do now. We continue to work with the government of Iraq so they can meet that timeline, so that they are able to maintain stability once we leave. I still believe we're on track with that, as we talk about this today.

KING: You say you're comfortable with that timeline, sir. I want you to expound on that, a little bit. Because, back in -- I'm holding up a copy of Tom Ricks' book, "The Gamble." It's a fascinating book from the Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post journalist about the war effort in Iraq.

And you told him, in that book -- this is -- he's quoting you in that book. "When asked what sort of U.S. military presence he expected in Iraq around 2014 or 2015, well after Obama's first term, Odierno said, 'I would like to see a force probably around 30,000 or so, 35,000, with many troops training Iraqi forces and others conducting combat operations against Al Qaida in Iraq and its allies.'"

Now, certainly, this was before the agreement with the Iraqi government was negotiated -- and I want to make that clear -- when you made those remarks.

But you have to implement this strategy because it is a signed agreement between the government of Iraq and the United States of America. But do you personally think it would be best that, for the foreseeable future, to leave 30,000 or so behind?

ODIERNO: Well, again, what I would tell you is it really has always been about Iraqi -- Iraqis securing their own country. So the issue becomes, do we think they will be able to do that?

As they continue to improve in the operations they've been able to conduct, I believe that they will be able to do that by the end of 2011.

And so the most important thing for us is to help them now to reduce the risk that will be left with them once we depart at the end of 2011. We will continue to train and advise. We'll continue to assist; we'll continue to conduct combat operations, where we believe it's necessary.

And I do believe, now, that it is probably the right time frame.

KING: And on a scale of 1 to 10, sir, how confident are you, 10 being fully confident, that you will meet that deadline, that all U.S. troops will be gone at the end of 2011?

ODIERNO: As you ask me today, I believe it's a 10 that we will be gone by 2011.

KING: That's a -- that's a bold statement.

I guess King was buying the whole Time of London frame. Glad to see that General Odierno had him stammering over the truth. John King should spend less time reading the Times and more time reading Attackerman if you ask me.

Thank You Spencer Ackerman

I am sure I am not the only one who has been a little bit worried (ok maybe more than a little) about President Obama's relationship with the military leaders especially with respect to Iraq. Earlier this year I posted about a story that alledged that Generals Ray Odierno and David Petraeus were both seeking to undermine President Obama's intention to withdraw from Iraq. It turns out that the story didn't seem to be accurate much if at all. Still because of some of the rhetoric on the campaign trail my suspicions lingered. Well today I happened across a piece in the Times of London with the provocative headline "General Ray Odierno: we may miss Iraq deadline to halt al-Qaeda terror" and my antennae went crazy. Rather than reflexively posting on the article which again made it seem as if General Odierno was undermining President Obama in the press I decided to send Spencer Ackerman, one of the best foreign policy bloggers around, a tweet and ask him what he thought about it. Well he looked into it and did a great job of debunking much of the Times article. Not only that he gave me a shout out in said post. So I just wanted to publicly thank him both for fisking the article and throwing my link up on the post. It is GREATLY appreciated!

Treason

This is a very disturbing report from Gareth Porter in IPS. If ANY of this is true, President Obama should summarily and expeditiously bring all of these bastards from General Petraeus to General Odeirno to anybody in between and shit can their asses and publicly repudiate them. I will withhold final judgment until this story is more fully vetted but right now I am fucking appalled that anything like this could possibly be going on right now. Just to give you a sample.

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.

snip

The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was "open to alternatives".

The Times reported that Odierno had "developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama's campaign timetable" and had suggested in an interview "it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly".

The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama's withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama's pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months". He asserted that it would jeopardise the "stable political situation in Iraq" and called that risk "not acceptable".

The assertion that Obama's withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus's strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning.

snip

The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy.

If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the "collapse" they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops.

That line seems likely to appeal to reporters covering the Iraq troop withdrawal issue. Ever since Obama's inauguration, media coverage of the issue has treated Obama' s 16-month withdrawal proposal as a concession to anti-war sentiment which will have to be adjusted to the "realities" as defined by the advice to Obama from Gates, Petreaus and Odierno.

snip

Keane had operated on the assumption that a Democratic president would probably not take the political risk of rejecting Petraeus's recommendation on the pace of troop withdrawal from Iraq. Woodward quotes Keane as telling Gates, "Let's assume we have a Democratic administration and they want to pull this thing out quickly, and now they have to deal with General Petraeus and General Odierno. There will be a price to be paid to override them."

I don't know about you but that looks clearly like a plan for out and out treason. Firing their asses would be the least I would advise President Obama to do if this is found to be true. Prosecutions would be and should be on the table. I would love to see what the wingnuts would say if they EVER got wind of this kind of a conspiracy against a Republican President. I would bet the words "drawn and quartered" would enter the conversation.

I would say there were a few bright spots in the article for those who irrationally believe that President Obama is a pushover.

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."

Still this kind of a story demand that some kind of action be taken to get to the validity of it. Hopefully somebody will get to the bottom of it and if its found to be true appropriate action will be taken.

Gen Odierno, There's a New Sheriff In Town!

In honor of your recent comments, this one's on me!