Note: Since General Petreaus has now commented publicly on the McChrystal leak, I felt I should repost this diary.
As a hobby, I like to handicap the republican field, and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each matchup. Up until a few days ago, my money was on the duo of Mitt & Newt. (my "reasoning" is down yonder)
That has now changed. This is completely a gut feeling.
However, if you knew me personally, you'd know my gut is pretty good at such things.
A major part of my gut's prognostication has to do with the perception (I'm being nice) that the republicans will do everything and anything in their power to regain the reins of power on this country, regardless of the consequences to the rest of the world.
This diary is highly speculative, but it should be a great conversation starter if you're into that kind of thing. Hopefully, it'll give us some good ideas about how we Democrats should view the upcoming drama that will engulf our lives in the somewhat near future.
The fuse has been lit. This diary will explode in 5, 4, 3, 2....
I have a sneaking suspiscion that the leaked McChrystal report is part of a plan to get David Petreaus elected President in 2012. ANd he's deliberately undermining the President to gain political points.
Now, I know this is coming from waaaay out of right field, and many people would not consider this plausible in the least. Many more would say it's way too early to start talking about such a thing. However, almost like clockwork (and well after I came to my assessment of a possible Petreaus run), Condi Rice has piped up and pulled a full Cheney, prognosticating doom and gloom if we pull out of Afghanistan.
Is it all coincidence? Is Condi just being opportunistic?
Well, to the latter question, Condi may just be doing that. However, as long as I've been observing the party of Tricky Dick, there ARE NO COINCIDENCES.
And you KNOW that the rethuglicans ARE thinking about this very subject. They're probably plotting and scheming as you read this.
Midterms? Bah! Small potatoes! There's no data that suggest another huge swing that would land them congressional majorities. It's all smoke and mirrors on that front.
What is interesting is that, right now, there is a lot of speculation about who leaked the McChrystal report to Bob Woodward, and the motivations of said persons. Of course, there's much intrigue surrounding the question, because of the breach of national security and the pressure from a public restless about our mission there. The argument between "we must capture Osama" and "the place where empires do to die" is very much the driving force behind this debate, from our kitchen tables to the White House situation room, and also will have a definitive effect on what the political climate will be in 2010, and definitely 2012.
On top of that, you have to admit that the republican field is very weak. If Mike Huckabee can win a straw poll of "Values Voters" over Mitt Romney, the de facto frontrunner by my estimate, and the darling of the Ms. Dominionist beauty pageant comes in 5th, then there are serious credibility problems for the other team. Their numbers are in the tank across the board. There is no one on the national stage that has a snowball's chance to unify their party, much less make a credible run at Obama.
I've felt for some time that we have not seen who would be their standard bearer for the republicans. The reason I went ahead and made my earlier pick of Romney/Gingrich was because those were the only players that seemed like they could bring enough people together to create a feasible coalition in MegaJesusLand, Inc. Mitt is the THE money guy, the man Wall St. has a hard on for. Newt, while insane and mostly discredited, is still a brilliant tactician when it comes to political gamesmanship. Plus, he's been catering to the fundies as of late, out to undercut Ms. Loonie USA and the Huckster. The other early names, Ensign and Sanford, are out. Mitt and Newt win by default.
Would a general with presidential ambitions intentionally create a crisis in a theatre of war, that wouldn't neccessarily endanger the mission, but undermine a sitting president and beef up his resume for said presidential run? It's not like it hsn't happened before. Basically, that's why Truman fired MacArthur.
It hasn't got to this point yet, but I am deep into speculation here.
I could be very wrong. Actually, I hope I am. However, I have a healthy skepticism of right wing authority figures, and I think for good reason.
Hello! Corporate CEO's? Lt. Gen. Boykin? James Dobson? Not good people!
Especially ones that have already shown a propensity to play politics with the likes of Bush and Cheney. You know, like Petreaus.
And there it is, in all its' detonated glory. I've written up a fine mess. Now, what I want to know is, WHO LEAKED THE REPORT?