« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Petraeus on Lute -- and Hadley?
Looks like General Petraeus is getting in on the act of Hadley-bashing. CNN just asked Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq, for comment on Lieutenant General Doug Lute's likely confirmation as war czar. Petraeus lavishly praised Lute -- and then threw a bit of an elbow at Hadley's National Security Council: "I think [Lute will] probably have authorities, as I understand it, that individuals in the past that position not have had."
To be fair, Petraeus may have been referring to Meghan O'Sullivan. O'Sullivan until recently was deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, the position superceded by the war czar. But it's still a reflection on Hadley if he couldn't get his deputy for Iraq the needed bureaucratic heft.
Comments (4)
Robin Boerner wrote on June 7, 2007 5:22 PM:This guy Lute has to be one loyal son of a bitch. The fact that this war is on life support until Bush leaves office is pretty clear. Lost due to incompetence and corruption, not the inability of our troops. It was always about oil, Halliburton, Blackwater, and making Bush's cronies richer.
No way could a guy have enough grey matter to make it to general and not be able to see he is a scape goat as War Czar for the half wit CIC. Loyalty is the only answer as to why he even wants the job.
Cheryl wrote on June 7, 2007 7:33 PM:Spencer,
You may want to read the article by Robert Dreyfuss & Jason Vest "The Lie Factory", Jan/Feb 2004 in Mother Jones if you have not done so yet. I found it very informative when I read it years ago and still think William Lute was one of the main characters responsible for much of the misinformation in the leadup to the Iraq fiasco. I've wondered what happened to him after the Office of Special Plans.
Is William Lute related to Doug Lute? Hmmmm...
Jack wrote on June 7, 2007 8:44 PM:The Senate should not confirm this fraud of an appointment. The "war czar" is not a 5-star General of the Army. He isn't in the position of an Eisenhower or a MacArthur. He's just another advisor expected to take the fall to save the Bush legacy from the horrible errors his Administration has made. This nomination should be blocked, just as Bush blocked the will of the American people when he vetoed the withdrawal timelines.
Anonymous wrote on June 8, 2007 1:25 PM:"Loyalty is the only answer as to why he even wants the job."
That, and a 4th star.
d