The Real Man of the Year

Screw Time magazine!

Here is someone who deserves it more!

Gen. Petraeus

Don’t like it? Tough. ‘Nuff said!!!

3 Responses to The Real Man of the Year

  1. tas says:

    Time’s problem seems to be naming the past year’s top newsmaker a title that seems worthy of an award — and, in many years, Time presents it like an award when they shouldn’t do such in any year. This is one of those non-award award years (it’s really tough pinning down a name for this concept).

    As for the General being nominated for the award, if Iraq changes, then it’s deserved. Otherwise, the idea of throwing more troops at the problem isn’t exactly genius — I mean, I’ve been saying such for years, and I’m certainly not a genius nor deserving of any awards. But now that troops are being pulled out, what happens then? Only time will tell.

  2. frznagn says:

    Well, you’d have to get the General credit for trying at least. Besides, it’s a lot more complicated than just tossing a few more troops out in the field. Think about all of the lives saved from his actions. Isn’t that worth something? Sure, rant about the ‘illegal war’ and all that crap but it doesn’t matter. You don’t put down the people in the military just because you don’t like the operations/conflicts the politicians start.

    What gets me is all of the changes that Putin has been making to drive his country away from Democracy and yet they reward him with this ‘honor’. Heck, hasn’t the left bitched about this crap with Bush? Shouldn’t they at least share this honor? It makes no sense at all!

  3. tas says:

    I’m considering this a non-honor year, if that’s possible… Time definitely lives by a double standard here. But, even given this “non-honor” year for Person of the Year, why does Putin get the nod? Did he make more news then, say, Musharraf in Pakistan? YEah, Russia’s in a shitty situation right now, but Pakistan is edging closer and closer to the brink and Musharraf has completely flipped out this year. Between the two, I’d think that is a bigger and more relevant story right now.

    As far as Petraeus goes, honestly.. Have I sensed anything exceptional about him? Not really. It’s the long run I care about here. There was more to the surge plan than just throwing more troops into Iraq: it was supposed to give Iraq’s government time to gel and form a cohesive body. An actual government. While more troops kept violence down (which, as I stated before, isn’t really a genius idea), there was an expectation that Iraq’s government would be become a better body — but no real plan to form such. Just, you know, the hope. And now that the Bush administration has to pull troops away and the government there hasn’t improved, the question is whether or not the levels of violence will increase.

    Petraeus can’t be blamed for this. He’s like the mop up pitcher in a bullpen… He’s not the pitcher a manager goes to to setup the 8th inning, or close out the game in the 9th… He cleans up a mess and hopes to quell the damage. The starters — Bush and Rumsfeld — really blew this game by not sending in enough troops, or having a plan to keep the peace, in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: