Login
Subscribe
More About This Website

This is my effort to share my thoughts with readers about concerns facing our country today.  I believe there is a good chance my grandchildren may be the first generation in the history of this great country not to have a better standard of living than their parents. If so, our generation is to blame. The clock is running out for damage control. .

<a href="http://technorati.com/claim/sdept8b5a6"rel="me">TechnoratiProfile</a> 

Navigation
Search
Powered by Squarespace
blog index
« Fix the Blame don't Fix the Problem | Main | No Erasers in Washington »
Wednesday
Jan302008

Hillary Clinton or David Petraeus

Turning our country around is a bigger job than fixing Rumsfield's problems in Iraq. We used a career politician in Rumsfield to resolve Iraq. I know he ran a couple of companies, but he got the jobs because of his political clout, not track record. How did that work out? Then we put the Gates/Petraeus team in there. Gates is one tough hombre who takes no prisoners. Straight talking guy. He lets Petraeus run his show.

Here's the question. Could Hillary have fixed Iraq? I know how I think that would have gone. If Hillary could not have fixed Iraq, why do we think she can fix the whole mess in Washington? Speaking of Washington, he was our first president wasn't he? General Washington. Lot's of generals have followed. When did we get off that kick? Eisenhower I guess. Let's be fair and look at all the candidates: Obama, fix Iraq, don't think so. Edwards is gone, but he would have sued the Iraqis. Romney probably not. Huckelby would be preaching to the choir. Paul he would have pulled us out. That brings me to Mc Cain. In his day, no doubt. Today, maybe too much to ask a 71 year old to do.

The question begs the question: Why not someone like David Petraeus now? Do we need him more in Washington now than Bagdad? I think we do. Is it going to happen, no. Why not? I have no idea. He might not take the job. But how do we ask him? Guess enough of us don't think we need him or that he might be the most qualified to do the job. He would probably sack half of establishment the first month.

If the best man available is not available should we not still select our president by asking if he or she could have done the job that the general has done in Iraq as a qualifier for the bigger job. That turnaround is the best leadership job I have witnessed in many years. I will measure all candidates against that performance and pick my second choice if my first is not available. That's my screening process and I'm sticking to it. 

Reader Comments (1)

The General met Chelsea Clinton recently. She asked if he was afraid of anything?
The General responded: Onlt three things:

Osamma
Obama
and
Yo Mama

February 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJoe Beatty

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>