Odierno: U.S. May Never Declare Victory in Iraq

By GottaLaff

Boy Georgie sure knew how to make America look like a winner... or is that "wiener"?

"I'm not sure we will ever see anyone declare victory in Iraq, because first off, I'm not sure we'll know for 10 years or five years," Army Gen. Ray Odierno told reporters at a Pentagon briefing.

"What we've done here is we're giving Iraq an opportunity in the long term to be a strategic partner of the United States, but more importantly, be a partner in providing regional stability inside of the Middle East," he said. [...]

"They have an opportunity to build an open economy," he said. "They have an opportunity to build, to continue to move forward with their nascent democracy."

But Odierno said Iraq won't be able to meet those goals in the next few years.

"It's going to be several years before we know," he said.

How's that legacy going for you, Bushie boy?

Of course, spending billions upon billions on Iraq is patriotic. On health care reform? Marxist/Socialist.

NBC: Obama will seek to delay detainee photo release

By GottaLaff

Can we get back to transparency, please?

Defense and military officials tell NBC News that President Obama will seek to delay the release of hundreds of photos that reportedly depict the abuse of prisoners by U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. [...]

Obama decided he "did not feel comfortable" with the release and last week instructed his legal team to fight it in court, said an official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the president's decision had not yet been made public.

Obama has instructed administration lawyers to make the case that "the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court," the official said.

"The president strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan," the official said.

But... but... that's what the Rushpublic line is.

The official said that Obama believes the actions depicted in the photos should not be excused and fully supports the investigations, prison sentences, discharges and other punitive measures that have resulted from them. But, the official said, the president does not believe that publicizing the actions in such a graphic way would be helpful.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq met with Obama at the White House Tuesday to ask the administration not to release the photos. Defense officials say Odierno is "vehemently opposed" to the release because he fears it could create a widespread "backlash" against military forces in both war zones.

According to one official, "It would put a bull's-eye on the backs of our forces."

Bingo. There he is. There's the Rushpublic who had the ear of the president. Newsflash: The bull's-eyes are already in place, and the backlash already exists, as it has since BushCo created it.

According to military officials many of the photos are similar to the infamous prisoner abuse photos out of Abu Ghraib prison, but some of these photos reportedly include mug shots of prisoners who appear to have been badly beaten during their capture or interrogation.[...]

The American Civil Liberties Union has sought the release of the photos and won a lawsuit against the U.S. government before the federal appeals court in New York. The only legal option left to the government was to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Instead the Obama administration had earlier made the decision to end the appeals and release the photos. [...]

"The decision to suppress the photos is profoundly inconsistent with the promise of transparency that President Obama has made time after time," ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer said.

UPDATE:
Robert Gibbs says he wasn't pressured by the military. Odierno was informed by Obama, not vice versa. I may have to take back what I posted above.

Gibbs:

"The president believes that the release will provide a disincentive for detainee abuse investigation. ... They are part of the potential evidence... Every time a photo is taken, it could be released... there's the disincentive. ... The photos provide a sensationalistic aspect... Photos were taken by Pentagon... If it was mandatory release, it would provide a disincentive...

Chuck Todd: Sensationalistic? Vs. transparency...?

Gibbs:

The existence of the cases are on the DoD website. So the photos aren't evidentiary.... They only pose harm.

Existence of detainee abuse not denoted by photos.

Q: Harms way argument made by Cheney re: torture memos.

Gibbs:

The existence of enhanced techniques were previously noted by BushCo speeches, autobiographies, etc. Not because of the photos.... Why do you do a graphic on CNN? The photos don't add to the understanding that [torture] happened. Pres. doesn't belief the release of photos illuminates the existence of the investigation.

Q: Is that his role? Whether it illuminates?

Gibbs:

No, as commander in chief, he feels it poses a threat thru the illumination of whatever, and he can make a legal argument that he doesn't believe was made.

Q: What is the new argument?

Gibbs:

Not seeking an exception for law enforcement... [Cell went off, Gibbs makes the reporter give it to him, to wild laughs and applause. Gibbs leaves with phone, comes back] The illumination of the sound was distracting to the briefing. [Another phone goes off... laughter... Gibbs collects it. The reporter takes the call and walks off, to laughter]. The specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops, security, hasn't fully been put in front of court. Will seek a stay... [Another phone went off...] Geez, put 'em on vibrate!

Q: Investigation?

Gibbs:

Senate Intel Committee is the venue ... that possesses ability to conduct an investigation, that's the appropriate place for an investigation. But the photos don't ADD to the fact that the cases are being looked into.

Q: Knoller: How is this consistent with what he said about standard of openness?

Gibbs:

Pres. made this determination as commander in chief, to protect our men and women in harm's way. ... The existence of the photos isn't the only thing that denotes the existence of an investigation. It's documentation of abuse that was being investigated. He doesn't think the existence, publicly, of the photos, adds to that.

Q: Was it the President's idea?

Gibbs:

Pres. didn't think the case being made was effective enough. The meeting he had was to inform of the way the case was being handled, that they'd make a different argument than they had made.

Q: How will he explain this?

Gibbs:

Compare to a murder case. Is it more important to show a picture of the crime scene?

And then my phone rang and I missed the rest. But I got most of the aggressive questioning and most of the answers.

Top U.S. general in Iraq: I believe we'll be gone by late 2011

By GottaLaff

So much for that inexperienced, dangerous, inept commander in chief we were supposed to have had:

General Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander on the ground in Iraq, said Sunday that he believes U.S. troops will be out of the country by the end of 2011.

CNN Chief National Correspondent John King asked Odierno to rate his confidence, on a scale of one to ten, that U.S. troops would be out by the agreed upon timeline between the U.S. and Iraqi governments.

“As you ask me today, I believe it’s a ten – that we will be gone by 2011.” [...]

“He’s our commander-in-chief,” Odierno said of President Barack Obama, whose opposition to the Iraq war and to the surge strategy became trademarks during the 2008 White House race. “As our commander-in-chief, we take direction from him.”

“He’s very attentive. He listens. He’s incredibly intelligent. He talks through the issues. . . .He makes a decision and then we execute those decisions and that’s all you can expect out of your commander-in-chief. And I’ve been very pleased with the interaction that I’ve been able to have with him.”

Whaddya know... The commander on the ground gave President Obama high marks. Scratch one Rushpublic (tea) tantrum from the list.

Generals have plan to put public pressure on Obama on Iraq withdrawal

By GottaLaff

President Obama is no George Bush... thank goodness. And unless I'm mistaken, I seem to remember that Obama won the election. However, it sounds like there are a few in the military who haven't gotten word of that yet:

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. [...]

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."

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. [...]

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. [...]

Obama told Petraeus in Baghdad last July that, if elected, he would regard the overall health of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps and the situation in Afghanistan as more important than Petraeus's obvious interest in maximising U.S. troop strength in Iraq, according to Time magazine's Joe Klein.

But judging from Petraeus's shock at Obama's Jan. 21 decision, he had not taken Obama's previous rejection of his arguments seriously. That miscalculation suggests that Petraeus had begun to accept Keane's assertion that a newly-elected Democratic president would not dare to override his policy recommendation on troops in Iraq.

Let's recap: President Obama is the commander-in-chief. He calls the shots. So is it me, or should these military officers defer to their boss rather than try to publicly humiliate and pressure him?

That's what I thought.