Michael Goldfarb, writing at The Weekly Standard, says file this story under fiction. He’s not buying it at all:

“Porter, relying exclusively on anonymous sources, has alleged that America’s top general (known to the left as General Betray Us) is acting in defiance of his commander in chief and angling to subvert civilian control of the military. Is it true? Well, Gareth Porter was the man who wrote a book, Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, attacking the “myth” that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were engaged in mass murder. I’m sure he had great anonymous sources for that story, too.”

Googling around, I discovered how the left is spinning this; as insubordination that our heroic president must immediately squash. Here’s a typical one:

Generals’ Revolt Threatens Obama Presidency

“If Commander in Chief Obama allows this insubordination and political opposition to exist among his senior generals, his presidency is toast. He will be a prisoner to a militarist policy in Iraq and Afghanistan that will drag down his presidency in the same way that Lyndon Johnson’s presidency was destroyed by the generals running the Vietnam War….

There is only one answer to this challenge to presidential authority: President Obama must sack both Petraeus and Odierno…

Got it. Obama the hero saves us from a fascist military takeover.

“Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

How disrespectful is this comment to Petraeus?? Petraeus is trying to keep us from coming back there. Barack said it himself, we pulled out of Afghanistan to soon, and now we have to go back to finish the job. Things are pretty good in Iraq, when in a year we could easily start the phased withdrawal. It would make more sense especially since we are kicking up a dust storm in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let’s not give those terrorists a new haven in Iraq.

I find it ironic, that anyone would make this comment. George Bush is a good an honorable man. To say that Barack is no George Bush would mean he is the opposite, and we all know that there is no such thing as a clean Chicago politician.

Of all his campaign promises this is the stupiest one to keep. It makes no sense when we are so close to completing this to jeopardize it by a matter of months. – Lorica

Even if Obama withdraws troops prematurely against the adivce of military advisors and Irq completely collapses on his watch, it will still get blamed on Bush.

Obama will get credit for “bringing our troops home”, and Bush will take the blame for a complete failure in Iraq, if it falls apart.

Its a win-win for Obama. Get used to it folks. No matter how stupid his decisions are, he will always come out of it the hero.

So much for Obama’s “one president at a time” stance!

My thoughts exactly when I heard about this.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however.

Now, let’s think about this one. Who do you trust more on Iraq and all military matters in general – those who have served a long time and have experience in this field; or some hollow, mental midget that likely couldn’t even find Iraq on a map of the Middle East? (Hey, the guy was dumb enough to try to get into the Oval Office through a window.)

None of this is very encouraging. Well, to paraphrase Red Forman, “You know what they say about Obama. He’s stupid.”

If this story is true it means Obama is as bad as we feared.

I was happy when he appointed Gates to stay as SecDef. But Obama is a bloody idiot if he goes against Petraeus and Odierno.

It means that he doesn’t give a hoot about the welfare of the Iraqis but just wants to pander to his nutcase antiwar base.