Skip to comments.Bush's Iraq commander says he is not interested in presidency in the future (General Petraeus)
Posted on 12/23/2007 12:02:02 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON President Bush's top Iraq war commander said Sunday that as far as he knows, his command performances now and in the future will be strictly military, not political.
In fact, Army Gen. David Petraeus cited the words of Civil War-era Gen. William T. Sherman in declaring he has no interest in shedding his uniform and running for the White House, as Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower did 55 years ago.
None, Petraeus replied, when asked on Fox News Sunday if he had an interest in running. I have great respect for those who do choose to serve our country in that way. I've chosen to serve our country in uniform, Petraeus said from Baghdad.
And I think that General Sherman had it right when he gave what is now commonly referred to as a Shermanesque response when asked a similar question.
A leading Union general in the war, Sherman said in a telegram to the Republican National Convention in 1884, when he was being urged to run for president, I will not accept if nominated, and I will not serve if elected, according to The Yale Book of Quotations.
Merry Christmas to you and all the troops, General!
I don’t trust Generals with political ambitions. Right answer.
Only modern day MSM would bring up such a scenario to a real time commander.
This is good news for the bad news is getting slim for the MSM and they are scrambling for something to report!!
Sec of Defense?
Exactly—a serving General should NEVER answer yes to a question about his political ambitions. Whatever his real ambitions, Petraeus did the smart thing here (of course).
Why would such an intelligent man of character want to grovel for the entertainment of inferiors in the msm? Our presidential campaigns have become an affront to decency.
I see in postings against this same story on DU that those folks consider General David Petraeus to be a war criminal(!) - probably because he is denying them the defeat and surrender by our side that they so long for.
Jackson, imho, was an excellent president who, among other things, saw to it that the US debt was paid off entirely, and told both the banking interests AND the Supreme Court to go to hell. Pretty fine record, I'd say. And he, as the 'Hero of New Orleans' had known political ambitions from 1817 onward.
Grant, sadly, was a disingenuous man who believed that almost everyone he dealt with in DC was honest. He must go down as a very poor president. He was largely apolitical during his service, and I believe (can't prove) that he was drafted by a group of hardcore Republicans who knew that he could be manipulated.
Good decision General. You can do better work outside of the cesspool we call DC.
The scum at DU are calling him a war criminal and coward that belongs in prison, and are comparing him to Charles Manson.
It would have been appropriate to ask Weasely Clark the question during the time he was a Clintonista acolyte within the US Army and NATO.... but of course, IIRC, the MSM never did ask such questions of Clark, even though he owed his last promotions and prominent role to the fact that he was/is such as weasel for the Clintonistas.
Even if he were interested, it would be a distraction and he must never let it out until the war is over...
The Soldiers come FIRST.
He needs to stay right where he is for now, anyway.