I don't generally care for Eugene Washington's opinions.. he's an Obama worshiper who never misses an opportunity to disparage anyone that disagrees with the chosen one.

So, being suspicious of his motives is justified...

But at least factually, he's correct. The president is the commander in chief, and the generals report to him.

Historically, it isn't uncommon for Generals to disagree with their civilian and military commanders.. and its been public in the past. But yes, the chain of command is in place for a good reason.

On the other hand.. Obama is not without fault.. and its obvious that his generals are frustrated with him. He's Jimmy Carter.. lots of talk, even smart talk, but is
not decisive. And for the young men and women walking around with loaded guns in harms way.. that's not good.

My opinion (and bias I guess).. Obama is playing out of his league. He's not nor was he ever presidential material.

"and its obvious that his generals are frustrated with him."

Names and credible links, please.

"and its obvious that his generals are frustrated with him."

Names and credible links, please.

#2 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

That's pretty funny. Why do you think it's always retired Generals that speak out against military command? Not good for a military career.

Did I say salute? Silly me.....I meant bow toward Mecca and get a footbath.

-Hussein Obama

"I don't generally care for Eugene Washington's opinions.. he's an Obama worshiper who never misses an opportunity to disparage anyone that disagrees with the chosen one."

I'm not sure who this Eugene Washington character is that you're speaking about or why you'd bring him up.

If the president needs to hear the argument, then why wouldn't the voters need to hear the argument? Robinson seems stuck in a Stalinist rut.....

Why do the voters need to hear the Generals arguements?

"If the president needs to hear the argument, then why wouldn't the voters need to hear the argument?"

Because decisions such as strategy should not be played out in the court of public opinion.

John Kennedy decided, against the advice of several advisors, not to send combat troops into Vietnam. His decision was reversed after his death. Just a good example of a President being right and his advisors being wrong. I hope Obama considers that decision made by Kennedy when he makes his about Afghanistan. The General kept saying "more troops" until we had over 500,000 but it still wasn't a winnable war. Let's not repeat that disaster.

danni, danni, danni

Nice try at rewriting history. Vietnam was lost because of public opinion and the leftist media, we were winning.

Five Key points:

One:
Truman was CORRECT to fire MacArthur. (McChrystal has not gone as far as MacArthur did, but he is approaching the line MacArthur crossed over...)

Two:
It is the General's job to ADVISE the President, and then execute the directives of the President (Based on current press reports, it looks like the ball was dropped on this one, but I don't much trust those reports. Having said that, it is obvious that even if not "dropped", communication between Commander and President is less than it SHOULD BE. BOTH are responsible for this.)

Three:
No matter how much the General thinks the president is an Idiot, part of the General's job is to not "ACTIVELY" undermine his President.

Four:
It is NOT the General's Job to state things he does not believe. If he disagrees with his orders, appropriate statements are those such as "I execute the Policy decided by the President". If pressed for more, "No comment". While such statements make it OBVIOUS that there is a disgreement, hiding such a disagreement is NOT the General's job. This could be seen as PASSIVELY undermining his President. There is a fine line between Points three and four.

Five:
Once the General retires, all bets are off.

#10 | Posted by USAF242

AGREED

Active generals need to tread carefully when they take a public role in the political process. It undermines the system for a general to openly challenge the president on decisions that involve military strategy.

Just as McChrystal would not tolerate a subordinate who went public with his criticisms of McChrystal's decisions, a president should expect his senior military officers to challenge policies in closed-door meetings, not in the press.

A general who can't do that should resign, at which point as USAF says he can loudly proclaim why he quit.

So Obama appointed a General that can't keep his yap shut, and can't seem to follow military protocol.

You guys were the ones touting Obama's judgement in the absence of experience, right? Are any of his appointments not fucked up?

For those who like to bring up Vietnam....

South Vietnam fell to an INVASION force of REGULAR ARMY troops from North Vietnam. The Vietcong got butchered during Tet, and never recovered.

The invasion force that North Vietnam used was LARGER than the German Army that conquored France in 1940.

The invasion force that North Vietnam used was fully backed up and supplied by the USSR. There was robust logistics support. Issues such as Ammo, spare parts, etc, were not issues.

North Vietnam did not need to have the ability t domesticly produce any of the things its army used for conquest. All was provided by the USSR.

South Vietnam had NO supply chain. No spare parts being provided for free, no free ammo.

South Vietnam had ONLY what was leftover from earlier days (which might have been enough with ammo and parts), and only what it could buy with cash from non-state arms dealers.

The left paints a LIE that South Vietnam "Collapsed Internally" after the U.S. stopped proping it up.....

Wrong.

The South was conquored by invasion.

I can't help but be a little excited by the prospect of a growing rift between the upper echelons of the military and this clueless little fucking punk who has found himself playing "president".

Obama despises this country, and is doing everything he can to dismantle its economic system, institutions, and global prowess as quickly as he can. If he continues to spit upon the greatest institutions in American civics (military, the CIA), as well as the productive citizenry, he is creating a powerful and legitimate alliance of Americans in position to stop him if his Marxist power grab gets out of hand.

#15

Haha stupid. You know that this rift lays precedent for presidents of our future.

Why would you wish for the breakdown of chain of command?

That is bad for america.

Of course you think america should be ruined.

Yeah we should have stayed in Vietnam and lost another 50,000 troops so that Vietnam would be a country we could do business with today.
What???
We are doing business with them everyday???
Then what was the war about???
What would a victory there have achieved and at what cost????
Gee whiz, at least we wouldn't be in Iraq and Afghanistan today if we had stayed....BECAUSE WE'D STILL BE FIGHTING IN VIETNAM!!!

You despise this country, Mao. No person would talk about a duly elected president the way you do unless you hated the form of government that put him in that position.

So Obama appointed a General that can't keep his yap shut, and can't seem to follow military protocol.

You guys were the ones touting Obama's judgement in the absence of experience, right? Are any of his appointments not fucked up?

#13 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-10-06 09:44 AM

"I can't help but be a little excited by the prospect of a growing rift between the upper echelons of the military and this clueless little fucking punk who has found himself playing "president"."

Do you remember a guy named Shinsecki????

If a "rift" should develop then that "rift" should be immediately forcibly retired.

"Are any of his appointments not fucked up?"

Are any of them the disasters that Rummy was????

Are any as bad as Brownie????

How about Bremer????

So far, none of the Obama appointees have been nearly as destructive to America as were just those three and there are plenty more Bushies that were utter disasters.

Haha stupid. You know that this rift lays precedent for presidents of our future. Why would you wish for the breakdown of chain of command?
#16 | Posted by klifferd

Because Chairbaby Jak-Off is stupid -- you named in your first sentence. He is a whiner and crier at best!

The "but bush" defense. How many times must it be pointed out that comparing Obama to Bush isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of the man you people so dearly worship.

If you feel the need to compare him to Bush in order to make yourself feel better about your vote, that should set off alarm bells.

I love how instead of discussing Obama's lack of judgement in appointing this general, Danni deflects to Bush.

and the fuckin liar president should get off his ass and do something instead of pushing the report to the side while men and women die to protect us.

The "but bush" defense

It seems to go both ways and it is getting old fast. If you go after someone for attacking Obama on something assinine, like the Olympics, they say, "well liberals attacked Bush for 8 years." If someone criticizes Obama's approach on Afganistan its, "This is Bush's mess Obama is cleaning up."

"...and the fuckin liar president "

This, from a guy who never said the same about the jagoff who lied about yellowcake uranium.

But you can come clean now, BL2: was Bush a "fuckin liar"?

Do you remember a guy named Shinsecki????

If a "rift" should develop then that "rift" should be immediately forcibly retired.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-06 10:03 AM |

Then go to huffington or Slate do an interview or write and Op/ed, rip on the Admin. and end up here. With YOU leading the cheer about how inept the Pres is for not listening.

How many comments did you make about Bush not listening to his generals? Or how many times did you echo a fired generals take as gospel when it was critical to Bush, Rummy or Cheney?

"If you feel the need to compare him to Bush in order to make yourself feel better about your vote, that should set off alarm bells."

Who are you going to compare a president to except another president???

I guess I could compare President Obama to God, the righties always do.

"Or how many times did you echo a fired generals take as gospel when it was critical to Bush, Rummy or Cheney?"

Except that he didn't listen to their advice, given privately, appropriately and which was about actual tactics and troop requirements not on the basic premise of the mission.

"and the fuckin liar president should get off his ass and do something instead of pushing the report to the side while men and women die to protect us."

Yeah, the "just do anything" approach. More brilliance from AFKBL2.

Except that he didn't listen to their advice, given privately, appropriately and which was about actual tactics and troop requirements not on the basic premise of the mission.

Let me guess... You aren't an expert, but you did stay at a Holiday Inn...

"a president should expect his senior military officers to challenge policies in closed-door meetings, not in the press."

And NOT his top elected officials?????? Like Pelosi? Murtha?

In fact HIMSELF.

Clean that swamp. Not happening.

As long as we are short of personnel, needed to do the 'MISSION' in Afghanistan, we are leaving the existing cadre of personnel open to more slaughter.. it is not productive to continue to wage a war with a shortage of personnel, as that is just sacrificing each life for politics... a mere presence does not intimidate this enemy.. it is also a far different war than VN... I think that we have a very weak civilian leadership in all phases of defense at this time, that does not mind giving up numbers to make political gains...

#29
How about you compare him to the best president you can think of instead of one of the worst? That would at least be intellectually honest. You choose the worst and you'll always look good, which I guess is your goal. But its not saying much.

Lincoln had problems with his Generals, Truman had problem with his Generals even George W. Bush had trouble with his generals at the start of the Iraqi War. But Of course President Obama is a new breed of President so if he has problems with the Generals it must be his fault, Pathetic, Hypocrites, fucking FOX-Republicans are truly a new breed of Assholes....This President has a big decision to make an it would be better if these Partisan FOX-Republicans, support our Country in time of WAR or at least shut the Fuck UP!!!!! Like they ask us to when GWB sent us into a unnecessary WAR...........

"...and the fuckin liar president "

This, from a guy who never said the same about the jagoff who lied about yellowcake uranium.

But you can come clean now, BL2: was Bush a "fuckin liar"?

#27 | Posted by Danforth

no pres can be proven as to having lied so much and in such a short period of time too.

"And NOT his top elected officials?????? Like Pelosi? Murtha?"

Elected politicians, even private citizens are completely within their rights to criticize the president or question his orders, on-duty military personnel are not.

"no pres can be proven as to having lied so much and in such a short period of time too."

Find them WMDs yet, has the Al Quaeda - Saddam link been found????

No, didn't think so.

Never worked for an idiot general before; served with a few idiot Lt Col and Colonels, (we'll not get into LTs and Captains) but never a General. You can sneak into middle management in the military these days, but you have to be pretty sharp in your game to get 2-4 stars on your collar.

Gen. McChrystal is an Operator, not just your average everyday soldier. You can bet he has weighed every aspect of this course of action and determined it as the best plan for the mission and his troops. It definately shows balls to operate so openly in a manner which could be percieved as contradictory to the CIC, can't say I agree with it, but I understand the motive.

And IMHO; continueing to "stay the course" hasn't worked... the new plan is definately a new approach, and it just might work!

"This President has a big decision to make...'

This Pres has had since Jan 2009 to make ANY decision. Remember when he met with Centcom back in March? Here we are in Oct, the death rate increasing daily, and Obama has not made one concrete decision, whether it be more troops or different tactics.

danni
start with the lie about aarp and move right along through the lie about illegals and health care by way of lieing about supporting the bill without a govt option which we now learn he is actively presuring people to include it

ah but we are now off the subject

this sort of thing between the pres and generals has been going since before we even had a president

washington and braddock during the french and indian war for instance...

its real simple..obama is looking weak and indecisive

YES I KNOW washington wasnt predident then...thats beside the point.

and what was the result of braddock not listening to washington.

he got killed in the middle of the road that washington warned him about going....him AND most of the men under his command

After eight years in a war it seems likely that real consideration needs to be given to the idea that we can't win a war in a country where no one has ever won a war. The Brits are on their fourth try with us right now. If Obama does commit to Gen. McChrystal's plan Americans need to realize that committment is not for six months or a year but for many years, many billions of dollars, many soldiers lives will be lost.
Personally, I used to think we needed to stay and finish the job in Afghanistan but I am lately starting to think it is just impossible for us to really succeed there and that we should probably do what we should have done in the first place, use tactical teams, drones and missiles to target Al Quaeda but not try to govern Afghanistan.

MOUNTAIN MANO

makes the point that McChrystal fully understood EXACTLY what he was doing and viewed as the "best" course of action.

Probably true.

(Note for Idiots: "Best" is not the same as "within proper rules of conduct")

This all says nothing about if the General was correct in his assesment on his "best" course of action. Like everyone else, Generals can be wrong too.

As for myself, I am somewhat split.

I lean HEAVILY to supporting the military that I devoted 22 years to.

But there are rules of conduct, and McChrystal bent (not broke) them. NOT something to do lightly. And NEVER appropriate to do with consequence.

McChrystal should face consequence EVEN IF HE HAD GOOD REASONS. My hunch is that he'd even agree with me.

"washington and braddock during the french and indian war for instance..."

Are you kidding me????

There wasn't even a United States much less a president at that time.

"makes the point that McChrystal fully understood EXACTLY what he was doing and viewed as the "best" course of action."

I don't doubt that his plan is probably the best if the president decides we are going to stay and NATION BUILD in Afghanistan but the decision of whether or not we are going to is not for the General to make nor should it be.

danni

read the post please...my point was the commander listening to advice which braddock didnt and it costs many of his men's lifes...

I explained the example clear enough for anyone to get it...

blame the general all you want

bottom line is obama is weak and indicisive and it will cost more lives.

If he continues to spit upon the greatest institutions in American civics (military, the CIA), as well as the productive citizenry, he is creating a powerful and legitimate alliance of Americans in position to stop him if his Marxist power grab gets out of hand.

#15 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

"he is creating a powerful and legitimate alliance of Americans in position to stop him if his Marxist power grab gets out of hand."

Treasonous. Jak Se Mao ought to be seeing the FBI at his door soon.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-06 11:06 AM |

Funny. I seem to remember you and most other experts here, whining about not enough troops were sent, and Bush took his eye off the ball. He should have sent another 10,000 into Tora Bora. What happened to this line of war criticism?

After eight years in a war it seems likely that real consideration needs to be given to the idea that we can't win a war in a country where no one has ever won a war. The Brits are on their fourth try with us right now. If Obama does commit to Gen. McChrystal's plan Americans need to realize that committment is not for six months or a year but for many years, many billions of dollars, many soldiers lives will be lost.
Personally, I used to think we needed to stay and finish the job in Afghanistan but I am lately starting to think it is just impossible for us to really succeed there and that we should probably do what we should have done in the first place, use tactical teams, drones and missiles to target Al Quaeda but not try to govern Afghanistan.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-06 11:06 AM

no pres can be proven as to having lied so much and in such a short period of time too.

#37 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-10-06 10:45 AM

There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Obama; then there's just hyperbole. (see above)

"Funny. I seem to remember you and most other experts here, whining about not enough troops were sent, and Bush took his eye off the ball. He should have sent another 10,000 into Tora Bora. What happened to this line of war criticism?"

It is still the feeling of most of us and most of the military people I've heard on the subject agree with it. They way our one real chance of success in Afghanistan was during the first two years there, now after being there for eight years it will be nearly impossible to convince the Afghanis that we can protect them from the Taliban. Why would they believe us now when they have watched for eight years and seen we can't???

Crispee....Alright Asshole who gave the Order to send 20,000 more troops over the Summer?????? Get your facts straight before you mas a complete Ass of yourself....

I wouldn't be surprised if the Army was trying to undermine the President on Afghanistan, after all, they financed part of McCain's campaign (www.opensecrets.org).

"Get your facts straight before you mas a complete Ass of yourself..."

It's way too late for that.

The little o needs to read 'the art of war'. He needs to tell the generals what their mission is and get out of the way and let them do their job.

And NOT his top elected officials?????? Like Pelosi? Murtha?

Pelosi and Murtha are not *Obama's* top elected officials. Last time I checked, the legislative and executive branches of the government were constitutionally separate and did not answer to each other.

^.^

*agrees with #9*

However, the general in the field was expressing a valid opinion, even if he did so perhaps in an "invalid" way, and is now seen to be airing the possibility of him and the President not being on the same page...

The point is this...

1): President Obama needs to seriously listen to and consider what the general on the ground in the theater of operations says when he talks about troops or equipment needed to do the job correctly.

2): The general on the ground in these matters needs to have these conversations privately with the President. I don't think that a President would not have an open door for any of his military commanders if they needed to come to Washington for some consultations. While conservatives poke fun at the fact that Obama has only met with McCrystal twice in 90 days, the fact remains that the general could have taken the initiative and come to Washington. This argument is a two-way street, with fault enough for both men.

What happened to this line of war criticism?

#52 | Posted by crispee_oc

seriously you are very crispee today!

That was then... this is now. It will require some serious redirection and redoubling of our efforts to drive the Taliban from the country now... again....as it was not done right the first time!

Have we even redefined what victory will look like now? I am sure that is what the General wants. Leadership. It is what we all want.

Let's see some time lines and bench marks to recover the edge we lost while Bush was playing Yosemite Sam in Iraq. The whole war needs to be rethought now as it was fucked from the beginning due to Bush's Big Bungle.

makes the point that McChrystal fully understood EXACTLY what he was doing and viewed as the "best" course of action.

Probably true.
AGREED

(Note for Idiots: "Best" is not the same as "within proper rules of conduct")
McChrystal should face consequence EVEN IF HE HAD GOOD REASONS. My hunch is that he'd even agree with me.
AGREED, and I'm sure that was weighed... we'll never see CJS McChrystal, bet on that.

"Funny. I seem to remember you and most other experts here, whining about not enough troops were sent, and Bush took his eye off the ball. He should have sent another 10,000 into Tora Bora. What happened to this line of war criticism?"
AGREED, in part... the war was won in the first 120 days, then Big Army and Big AF had to take charge. More resources at Tora would have dealt a debilitating blow to AQ and TB forces.

The little o needs to read 'the art of war'. He needs to tell the generals what their mission is and get out of the way and let them do their job.
So very much AGREED!

Crispee....Alright Asshole who gave the Order to send 20,000 more troops over the Summer?????? Get your facts straight before you mas a complete Ass of yourself....

The Pentagon ordered more troops in Dec. 2008. Regardless of Obama taking credit for his decision to add 17,000 back in Feb. 2009, the numbers were set for this year at about 65,000.

^.^

"You despise this country, Mao. No person would talk about a duly elected president the way you do unless you hated the form of government that put him in that position."

Total stoopidity. A person can HATE the President, but respect the country and the Presidency. That's why Presidents aren't elected for life in this country, and that's why Presidents who are respected, such as FDR, still have people who spit on the ground at the mention of his name.

Basically, all Presidents have supporters and detractors, and it's not a slap on a person's character or a view of their opinions of the country as a whole to say that this president or that president is ruining the country.

"AGREED, in part... the war was won in the first 120 days"

Huh??? They captured or killed Osama Bin Laden and destroyed Al Quaeda and eliminated the threat they posed???

If not then it is bull shit to claim the war was won at all. The war in Afghanistan has not been won, probably will not be won no matter how many billions we spend, no matter how many troops we are willing to sacrifice. Instead of telling Obama to read the art of war, which you have no way of knowing if he has or not, perhaps you should read a history book. Pay close attention to attemps throughout history to invade and conquer Afghanistan.

When the 'General's' ass is on the line for the operational aspects of the conflict, to tell him to shut up is assinine! He needs to input his ideas, inject factual assessments from the region, then let his CIC develop the policy under which he will suceed OR fail.

To many before McChrystal have had their HIND ENDS chewed off for the blunders of politicians taking half steps!

Has anyone thought about Pakistan being a SOVEREIGN Country, not governed by our laws, and therefore not subject to our WHIMS?

We cannot bomb at will, attack whatever shadow we see, or direct a self governing foreign nation to do as we would have them do! Think about it, what if Canadian separatists were going from No Dakota into Canada, to attack and destroy property? Would we then allow Canada to attack within our borders? Send MISSILES? TROOPS? I think NOT! The same thing applies in Pakistan! If that were feasible, we would have No Korea, Iran, and Syria by the Golden Nuggets.

Let Biden know, Pakistan IS a sovereign country, not subject to our laws, and we need approval for what we want in that region!

"AGREED, in part... the war was won in the first 120 days, then Big Army and Big AF had to take charge. More resources at Tora would have dealt a debilitating blow to AQ and TB forces."

There was no guarantee another 10,000 would have been anything more than target practice. The area is similar to the Rockies stretching from Colorado to New York. The landscape would have eaten these guys up. Not to mention the logistics landing and deploying.

#64...

Where are the two cheeks (danni and Celisary) that make up an ass? I thought they wanted the straight facts? You don't suppose they read the post and can't refute the fact Obama can't take credit for the extra troops.

"Where are the two cheeks (danni and Celisary) that make up an ass? I thought they wanted the straight facts? You don't suppose they read the post and can't refute the fact Obama can't take credit for the extra troops."

February 18, 2009

""Reporting from Washington - President Obama ordered his first major deployment of U.S. combat troops Tuesday, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country.

The deployment will double the number of American combat brigades in the nation at a time of tension with Afghanistan's weak government over civilian casualties of the campaign against the increasingly bold Taliban, and concern over neighboring Pakistan's ability to fight Islamic militants based there.

In a statement announcing the troop increase, Obama directed veiled criticism at the Bush administration, noting that a request from Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, had been pending for months.""

Gen. McChrystal is just the latest in the increasingly long line of people, nations, world leaders, and even members of his own party, who have realized it is perfectly safe to say "Fuck Off" to Obama without any risk of reprisal.

The Amateur-in-Chief, publicly taking it up the poop-chute from all sides.

In a statement announcing the troop increase, Obama directed veiled criticism at the Bush administration, noting that a request from Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, had been pending for months.""

www.latimes.com

"So, what do you have to say now Crispee????
Hmmmmm????"

The same thing I said in post #64. Did you even bother to read it? I guess you need to see it again. Notice the date is Thursday 11 December 2008. Let me know how you and the other idiot can praise Obama for making a decision already in place three months earlier? Hmmm....

"Pentagon sending thousands more soldiers to bolster UK forces in Afghanistan..."

US commanders have said they would like to almost double the number of American troops in Afghanistan, an increase from about 32,000 to 60,000.

The Amateur-in-Chief, publicly taking it up the poop-chute from all sides.

#71 | Posted by PublicTrough at 2009-10-06 12:42 PM

That is coming to close to my trademark... "The Obama Amateur Hour". Back off.

No person would talk about a duly elected president the way you do unless you hated the form of government that put him in that position.

#18 | Posted by rcade

This also applies to the 7-plus years of outright Bush hatred that has been posted on here since 2003, right?

Just checking.

"US commanders have said they would like to almost double the number of American troops in Afghanistan, an increase from about 32,000 to 60,000."

They would like to, but without an order from the President they would not get the troops. President Obama talked of sending more troops to Afghanistan early in the presidential campaign, long before these NATO Generals said "they would like to" send in more troops. When he took office he ORDERED the troops into Afghanistan which Bush had not done for months. No matter how you cut it, Obama took charge and ordered in the additional troops that Bush would not.

No matter how you cut it, Obama took charge and ordered in the additional troops that Bush would not.

#75 | Posted by danni

The war in Afghanistan has not been won, probably will not be won no matter how many billions we spend, no matter how many troops we are willing to sacrifice.
#66 | Posted by danni

^^ Oh, and In re #74, before some mealworm here tries the high-school debating club ploy of spinning this around your use of the adverb "duly", I can only point out that if one didn't consider Bush duly elected because SCOTUS had to make their vote in 2000 -- resulting in Bush being elected by the established process (however flawed) -- then you risk being categorized as an anti-Constitution person.

I was letting it go Hag. I noticed that Danni basically declared Afghanistan Obama's War.

"then you risk being categorized as an anti-Constitution person.

#77 | Posted by PublicTrough"

"Anti-Constitution" like in the 4 dissenting Supreme Court Justices? If so, count me in!

I was letting it go Hag. I noticed that Danni basically declared Afghanistan Obama's War.
#78 | Posted by kanrei

Some times I can't help it. I've got a sweet spot for the earth mother.

I've got a sweet spot for the earth mother.

Grow up with allergies and you will learn to hate the bitch. =D

"I was letting it go Hag. I noticed that Danni basically declared Afghanistan Obama's War."

He ordered the generals to give him a full report on what is happening in Afghanistan and the results were pretty awful, then the election was found to be corrupt and his new leader in Afghanistan is saying that only long term nation building will solve Afghanistan's problems....pretty good reasons to reevaluate.

Dec. 9, 2008: 20,000 More U.S. Soldiers for Afghanistan

Pretty much everyone here agrees:
--that the President SHOULD make military policy,
--and the Generals SHOULD execute military policy,
--and that the Generals SHOULD NOT undermine the President's intended policy.

....however.....

there seems to be a lot of disagreement on what a General should do if feels Presidental Policy is not merely flawed, but seriously flawed.

In my mind, ideally, the General would privately make things crystal clear, and if no satisfactory resolution was reached OFFER a resignation (which the President is NOT compelled to accept). Once the resignation is offered, the General is 100% free to state that he has offered his resignation PUBLICLY, and to state that he has differences with his commander, but should still keep his mouth shut on the details until such time as he is a civilan.

Having said all that.....

....the real world is not always so simple. I can think of a host of reasons a General might believe (correctly or incorrectly), that "making some waves" is called for, even if it is not proper behavior for a General.

As stated above, I'm divided on this one. Part of me is HEAVILY inclined to trust that the General had good reasons for his actions. But part of me firmly believes that there are some core rules of behavior for Generals that should NEVER be broken lightly.

"They knew back in Sept. that more troops were going to Afghanisatn? But, but Obama wasn't even president then?"

Yeah, big deal, Obama was saying they needed more troops in Afghanistan long before that. He like lots of us thought they should have sent far more troops in when we first entered the country but some moron, can't remember his name, sent them to Iraq instead.
Your goal is simply to try and prevent President Obama from taking credit for anything he actually has done, I don't want to play that game any more.
Fact is, he ordered in the additional troops (for better or for worse), Bush didn't.

^.^

Just because Afghanistan has been the "place where superpowers die" does not mean that the US should not have attempted to take down the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the area. These idiots were using this country as a base to plot and plan the attacks on September 11th, and retribution was very well warranted.

Now, as to the current dust-up between Obama and McCrystal, as I said before, the guy on the ground knows how to handle the situation best, but the CIC has the overall responsibility for conducting the war plan ... it's both of their arses, so to speak, if the thing gets botched.

As for Osama bin Ladin, most experts say he is in Pakistan, so some honest talk needs to be done to the government in Islamabad. If they don't want to be seen as collaborating with the biggest terrorist on the planet, they need to come up with a means to cooperate with the war effort...

There is some good news in that area though! Recent news reports say that Pakistan is gearing up for a major offensive against the Taliban, with a force size about triple what the Taliban have in that area.

I hope it goes well.

The Tillmans don't like this guy. Neither does the Red Cross...

When he took office he ORDERED the troops into Afghanistan which Bush had not done for months. No matter how you cut it, Obama took charge and ordered in the additional troops that Bush would not.

#75 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-06 12:52 PM

According to the dates linked, you seem to be in a quandry. If Gates said in Dec 2008 20,000 troops would be supplied by the US, was Bush the one who ORDERED them? Or are you still claiming Obama took charge and ORDERED them in Feb. 2009? If the Pentagon already had a plan in place to have 65,000 troops in Afghanistan by years end of 2009, was that Bush who ORDERED them? Or are you giving Obama credit for TAKING CHARGE and the number of troops around 60,000 today are his ORDERS? Which is it Gen. Danni Clarke?

What the fuck are we doing in afganistan in the first place????

Why are we still there?????

Oh, we are policing the taliban from the people while the people are shooting us....good plan.

#85...

Proven you are full of shit and are shamed into going home and taking your ball with you?

No doubt will ignore post #88 for said reason stated above.

^.^

"Your goal is simply to try and prevent President Obama from taking credit for anything he actually has done, I don't want to play that game any more."

Apparently it was also the goal of Saturday Night Live this past weekend. :)

Obama Begins Afghanistan Tour
By Aryn Baker/Kabul Saturday, Jul. 19, 2008

"" Obama has promised that he would redeploy two more US combat brigades to the Afghan theatre, ask NATO for more troops and fewer restrictions on those troops, accelerate the training of the national army and police, encourage alternative livelihood crops for opium farmers and help support the fledgling Afghan government.""

It's true that the president is the Commander in Chief and the generals should "shut up and salute". Too bad for the USA that the commander in chief is a clueless idiot.

Damn, you guys are trying to write yourself a get out of trouble card by mentioning Bush. Bush didn't have a problem producing a clear strategy. He had problems allowing his generals execute the right strategy which was corrected when Rumsfield was removed.

Obama has had the damn report since August while stating the war was a priority. Instead of addressing the report then, he's gone on a couple of world apology tours, embarrassed himself in Copenhagen by making the Olympics about himself and Michelle, and Tried pushing his dead fish smelling health care plan and now 2 months later, he's upset because the general has talked to the media and he's being forced to address the damn report.

How man body bags should the general sit quietly and watch come through because the president can't make a decision? What amount is acceptable to you guys? In my opinion none is acceptable. If the Commander-in-chief can't make a decision, he should give the General the authority to change it and be done with it. From what I've heard, the problem is we have troops in remote areas without the right number of people to hold the ground so we are in fact allowing these casualties to take place. The general is speaking out because he's tired of seeing the casualties. In Obama's and liberal's in general minds, the general should just shut up. I'm sorry, I don't see it that way. The General is responsible for each and every person assigned to him.

Lonnie

Too bad for the USA that the commander in chief is a clueless idiot.

They are used to it by now I am sure. 8 years can get you used to anything. I doubt they would honestly know how to function under a clear goal.

Crispee... I've humped those hills, very familiar with the terrain, and worked on both ends of the spectrum as grunt and civilian advisor. Using a coalition of LOCAL forces (notice I did not say Afghan Nat'l Army) the US/Coalition SOF and airpower hamstringed and decapitated the QA and TB in 120 days. That's why they all ran to Pakistan, a soveriegn nation with a minority of dedicated like minded fanatics. Then the big boys saw a war being won on the cheap and stepped in for their piece of the pie. When the TB forces were concentrated in Tora Bora, then the conventional Army should have been (IMHO) committed in full strength to surround and crush the whole mess.

All who say war is a tragedy, I'll agree... that doesn't mean it isn't necessary.

You despise this country, Mao. No person would talk about a duly elected president the way you do unless you hated the form of government that put him in that position.

I never thought I'd see rcade step into bOoB territory.

I wonder if rcade thinks that all the libs who spoke against Bush in the most derogatory of terms also hate "the form of government that put him in that position"?

#92...

I thought you took your ball and went home? Seeing as you came back with another ball I assume, can you answer post #88? The links have been provided in the thread. A person of your intellect should have no problem answering the question. Plus it would shut me up. A win win situation. Proving how brilliant Obama is and dummying up some rightwinger.

They are used to it by now I am sure. 8 years can get you used to anything.

I thought McChrystal was appointed by Obama.

I wonder if rcade thinks that all the libs who spoke against Bush in the most derogatory of terms also hate "the form of government that put him in that position"?

#97 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-06 01:51 PM

Boy that is a pickle. How does he get around the Majority leader of the Senate saying the war is lost and the Pres is a loser. Amongst the other comments by leading dems...

(T)he commander in chief is a clueless idiot did not start with Obama, he is simply par for the course now.

Crispee I have proven that Obama's intent to send in more troops was long before he was even elected, then once elected, as ai proved, he did exactly that. The fact that the generals agreed with him, in now way diminishes the fact that he carried out the plan he said he was going to carry out long before he even had the nomination. YOu just like to keep picking at the scab on your wounded ego, leave it alone and it will heal.

And I don't think Obama is an idiot, but I cannot argue with clueless or naive at best.

"(T)he commander in chief is a clueless idiot did not start with Obama, he is simply par for the course now."

It's not really his fault. People forget he is a Jr. Senator with no miltary or foreign policy experience.(Of course he could have actually held hearings or did something as a member of a Senate Foreign Committee.) Maybe had he waited an election or two, at least one of those negatives wouldn't be included in his resume.

Crispee,
Not only that, but he is a Jr. Senator who spent his entire term in the Senate running for President, not serving in the Senate. His ideas of how government works are all theoretical.

#102...

Of course danni. It has nothing to do with your lies or imagination. It is all about me wanting Obama to fail, as opposed to pointing out your hypocrisy and reality challenges.

This also applies to the 7-plus years of outright Bush hatred that has been posted on here since 2003, right?

I thought Bush got the presidency through bogus means in 2000, but I still respected the office. If I had a chance to meet him, I would've treated him with respect.

I never during Bush's term said anything on par with the way Mao talks about Obama.

"The fact that the generals agreed with him, in now way diminishes the fact that he carried out the plan he said he was going to carry out long before he even had the nomination."

Maybe Obama should tell us. Or at least McChrystal, Gates,...

"I never during Bush's term said anything on par with the way Mao talks about Obama.'

You never condemned the likes of Kennedy or any other lib here when they did. But you chose to call Mao out?

I never during Bush's term said anything on par with the way Mao talks about Obama.

No, you didn't, but other libs did.

I wonder if rcade thinks that all the libs who spoke against Bush in the most derogatory of terms also hate "the form of government that put him in that position"?

#97 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-06 01:51 PM |

All of y'all claiming Obama is "a clueless idiot", etc. don't really have anything concrete to even base your opinions on. The guy entered the presidency with two wars, one going extremely badly due to mismanagement by his predecessor, an economy ready to go into a deep depression and then you want some kind of miracles now.
I'd have to say that if you presented the information to a truely unbiased judge I believe he would say that those expecting miracles are the clueless idiots.

"You never condemned the likes of Kennedy"

Did Kennedy advocate a coup???? I don't remember that.

All of y'all claiming Obama is "a clueless idiot", etc. don't really have anything concrete to even base your opinions on.

But you do? Funny how enough proof is not there to condemn him, but there is enough for you to tout him.

I never during Bush's term said anything on par with the way Mao talks about Obama.

#107 | Posted by rcade

Maybe you didn't, but countless other libs said some of the nastiest shit imaginable regarding Bush.

Did Kennedy advocate a coup???? I don't remember that.

#112 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-06 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag: Was sick the day Bay of Pigs was taught in history class

#113

FF

"But you do? Funny how enough proof is not there to condemn him, but there is enough for you to tout him."

I've criticized him here on DR plenty of times but I don't have enough information yet, were you ready to trash Bush after nine months?? Like about three weeks after 9-11??? If I recall many of y'all were still blaming Clinton for just about everything under the sun.

were you ready to trash Bush after nine months??

I trashed Bush after 5 minutes. HE stole an election.

Nice try at painting me as a Bushie though. Low, even for you.

"Was sick the day Bay of Pigs was taught in history class"

You don't know your history. Kennedy never agreed to the Bay of Pigs invasion which was planned by Richard Nixon for an October surprise to help him win the election. Kennedy had told them that he was not going to send air cover for their, in the end, illegal invasion of a foreign country. Clue here: private citizens do not have the right in America to declare war on foreign countries. And they especially don't have the right to order the US military to participate in their illegal wars.

"HE stole an election."

No he didn't (*Eyes closed, hands over ears... lalalalalalala....).

It was Ralph Nader's fault.

"were you ready to trash Bush after nine months??"

I wasn't calling you a Bushie, I'm just saying that my defense of Obama isn't quite the same thing as "touting" him. I just want to give him a chance, see what he does, he'll be in office another three years at least. I would imagine though that you weren't bashing Bush three weeks after 9-11 were you??? I wasn't.

Kennedy never agreed to the Bay of Pigs invasion

???

He was the fucking president! Are you saying the Bay of Pigs took place without his consent? Furthermore that he didn't advocate it?

Please, danni . . . .

Kennedy never agreed to the Bay of Pigs invasion which was planned by Richard Nixon for an October surprise to help him win the election. - Danni

Can you cite a credible source for that.

The history that I've read puts the Bay of Pigs decision squarely on JFK's shoulders. It went awry largely due to shitty intel from the CIA. I know, what a shocker.

"Nice try at painting me as a Bushie though."

You're no Bushie; you manscape.

You're a fence turtle.

;|

I would imagine though that you weren't bashing Bush three weeks after 9-11 were you???

Yes. It was not until about two months later that I stopped.

Robinson is wrong again. The General is right on target with his assessment of the Afghanistan war, and the need for more troops. His actions and willingness to speak out show how much of a leader he is, and how open he is in his opinion. He must appear to be strong or look weak. This is a four star general who has dealing with military affairs his entire adult life. He knows what he is doing. I can not say the same for President Obama. He has only be Commander in Chief for less than a year. He rarely focuses on military affairs and he has an appeasement agenda from a foreign policy perspective. BHO has to his credit set out a strategy in March that was sound and he had the General working toward those ends. In the past six months there has been very little that has changed to alter the strategy set in March. The elections were corrupt, but that was expected, and should have been a branch and sequel in the strategy. It was known and anticipated. The fact that the demos want to cut and run from every war in history since WWII. BHO is left with the in fighting among his party, over whether to stay or run from Afghanistan. If he runs from the March Strategy, then he will be another flip flopping demo, ala Jimmy Carter. From a historical perspective, If BHO drops the ball here that will be the end of his presidency. If healthcare continues to be his main focus, it will be the end of his presidency. This guy has a lot of work to do, and if he doesn't move toward the center he won't make it past 2012.

I remember saying out loud on 9-12 when they "found" that car at the Boston airport filled with "how to fly" written in Arabic that it sounded like a plant. There was no way people smart enough to pull off 9-11 would be dumb enough to leave so much behind.

It amazed me that on 9-10 we knew nothing, but by 9-12 we knew how many hijackers there were, all the names, who was at what airport, we had video of them at security, etc, etc,etc.

#127 cause we are amazing like that!

But, it seems just can't figure out how to find a creepy old man on dialysis who is living in a cave even after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives and eith years to do so.

eith=eight

Jeff I just reviewed the Bay of Pigs invasion and I got it somewhat wrong but then from what I just read so does pretty much everyone else.

This site seems to be pretty informative with actual testimony from the investigation ordered by Kennedy after the invasion failed. It was classified for a long time so that accounts for much of the confusion about it.

"then you risk being categorized as an anti-Constitution person.

#77 | Posted by PublicTrough"

"Anti-Constitution" like in the 4 dissenting Supreme Court Justices? If so, count me in!

#79 | Posted by mOntecOre

Ummm, no. I'll try speaking slower so you can follow: You see, the 4 dissenting justices also followed the established constitutional process and cast their votes and lost, and then they stopped whining and went back to work. That's the way it works in this country. We vote. Sometimes our position wins; sometimes it doesn't. Basic civics class stuff from 4th grade. I know that's a difficult concept for those like you who think we shouldn't keep score in kids soccer games, or who believe through some convoluted logic that everyone deserves to own a house just because they want to. But in the real world (e.g., not your world, and not Obama's) it is quite different. This isn't 'nam. There are rules. Even the ones that you disagree with apply. Sorry, tyke.

"The fact that the demos want to cut and run from every war in history since WWII."

Is George Will now a Democrat???
BTW, how many more thousands of American troops should we have sacrificed for a victory in Vietnam and if we had won there what would be different today???

#125 Good post... realistic perspective

I trashed Bush after 5 minutes. HE stole an election.

Nice try at painting me as a Bushie though. Low, even for you.

#118 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-06 02:25 PM

Kennedy never agreed to the Bay of Pigs invasion

???

Can't wait for the Carter wasn't responsible for the failed hostage rescue and that it was Reagans or Ford's fault.

I am beginning to think danni reads some sort of Grimms version of history.

"I am beginning to think danni reads some sort of Grimms version of history."

Which would be more than you read that is for sure.
At least when I discovered my own error I corrected myself, you won't even admit it when you make one.

"I am beginning to think danni reads some sort of Grimms version of history."

Which would be more than you read that is for sure.
At least when I discovered my own error I corrected myself, you won't even admit it when you make one.

Maybe you didn't, but countless other libs said some of the nastiest shit imaginable regarding Bush.

And I'm sure some of you called them out the way I'm calling out Mao. You can't talk about the president the way he does and truly love your country. Our form of government means that one of two people is going to be president: Our Asshole or Your Asshole. When it's Your Asshole, I still think the office is worthy of a certain amount of respect.

The fact that the demos want to cut and run from every war in history since WWII.

John McCain helped normalize relations with Vietnam in spite of being a tortured POW. If he was willing to let it go, maybe it's time all other Americans stopped fighting this 44-year-old war.

#137 Danni> At least when I discovered my own error I corrected myself, you won't even admit it when you make one.

Like all the times you've claimed that Reagan's tax cuts CAUSED the ballooning deficit? I've pointed out your error numerous times but you've blithely ignored it.

Hint: pot/kettle/black. LOL!

You can't talk about the president the way he does and truly love your country

There are a lot of America haters on the left, then. Or did they suddenly become Ameica lovers the instant Obama took his hand off the bible last January?

Please . . .

I honestly can't believe you've slipped into bOoB's "if you dislike my guy, you hate America" mode, rcade.

I still think the office is worthy of a certain amount of respect.

I agree. Was Jak denigrating the office or the man?

Which would be more than you read that is for sure.
At least when I discovered my own error I corrected myself, you won't even admit it when you make one.

#136 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-06 03:23 PM |

You discovered ONE of your own errors? Saying Kennedy wasn't responsible for the Bay of Pigs is a whopper. What makes it more memorable, was the intended partisan jab at Nixon. An error would be praising Obama for ordering troops, two months after the Pentagon said they were sending them.

The funny part about this Kennedy gaffe, is I wasn't even speaking of JFK in my post to rcade. The fact you trolled and predictably hung yourself, was the reason I waited to point this out.

At least when I discovered my own error I corrected myself

#136 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-06 03:23 PM

We all make errors all of the time on this site and elsewhere. I for one appreciate any individual when they acknowledge their errors. Said acknowledgement is a very rare thing in these parts.

I've got to go to bat for Danni. She is right. She usually 'fesses up to her errors. Not every time, but she is far more likely to admit her mistakes than anyone else on this blog IMO.

"We all make errors all of the time on this site and elsewhere."

For example, just the other day there was this banner at the top of a thread and....

:)

#145...

Arerica???

And I'm sure some of you called them out the way I'm calling out Mao.

Oh. I'm sorry, Roget.

I didn't realize you were "calling me out".

You can't talk about the president the way he does and truly love your country.

Well, yeah, actually you can. Especially when the president is an inherently un-American piece of shit who's doing everything within his power to undermine this "form of government" you keep blathering on about.

This guy used an apathetic electorate and a sycophantic, criminally negligent media to bullshit his way into power---and has done nothing but attempt to fundamentally change the relationship between the State and the individual citizen that has made this nation exceptional for 200 years.

Chocolate Carter doesn't respect me. He doesn't respect the country leads or the institutions that comprise it. He doesn't respect our allies. He doesn't respect the military. He doesn't respect the CIA. He doesn't respect the Constitution. He doesn't respect the most basic goddamn premises of macroeconomics. He's undermining the nation with his stupid ass, youth-hostel level worldview.

So fuck him. He's not my president, and he's not due a modicum of respect from any decent, clear-thinking American.

"I've got to go to bat for Danni. She is right. She usually 'fesses up to her errors."

Let's be honest. Did she really have a choice about the Kennedy post?

Well, yeah, actually you can. Especially when the president is an inherently un-American piece of shit who's doing everything within his power to undermine this "form of government" you keep blathering on about.

Yet you supported Bush. Go figure,

"Our Asshole or Your Asshole. When it's Your Asshole, I still think the office is worthy of a certain amount of respect."

Spoken like a true republican. Why the dems think getting BJ's doesn't stain the respect of the Office...

"Chocolate Carter doesn't respect me. "

Who in the fuck does, you hateful piece of shit.

Who in the fuck does, you hateful piece of shit.

LOL.

I honestly can't believe you've slipped into bOoB's "if you dislike my guy, you hate America" mode, rcade.

You need to get over your Bob fixation, Goat.

This guy used an apathetic electorate and a sycophantic, criminally negligent media to bullshit his way into power -- and has done nothing but attempt to fundamentally change the relationship between the State and the individual citizen that has made this nation exceptional for 200 years.

You'd say the same thing about any Democratic president. Every Democrat who is elected by making Democratic campaign promises is then called a traitor for attempting to keep them. Republicans are such crybabies the pacifier market must be booming.

69,456,897 Americans voted for him. If you think apathy and media admiration are all it takes to get that many votes, you don't know jack about politics.

his guy used an apathetic electorate and a sycophantic, criminally negligent media to bullshit his way into power---and has done nothing but attempt to fundamentally change the relationship between the State and the individual citizen that has made this nation exceptional for 200 years.

And yet you supported Bush

He doesn't respect the country leads or the institutions that comprise it. He doesn't respect our allies. He doesn't respect the military. He doesn't respect the CIA. He doesn't respect the Constitution. He doesn't respect the most basic goddamn premises of macroeconomics. He's undermining the nation with his stupid ass, youth-hostel level worldview.

And yet you supported Bush

Hey Robinson, the last time we had some blithering idiot making decisions it was call Vietnam. If I recall correctly, the US didn't exactly like the way it turned out. Battlefield decisions should be made where they are best suited, on the battlefield and not in DC where you can fish for weeks and never find a spine or backbone. Sure "O" will make a decision, problem is most of the soldiers in the field will be saying o-shit.

WTFUA!

"Richard Nixon stated in Six Crises: "The covert training of Cuban exiles by the CIA was due in substantial part, at least, to my efforts. This had been adopted as a policy as a result of my direct support."[1] "President Eisenhower had ordered the CIA to arm and train the exiles in May of 1960. Nixon and his advisors wanted the CIA invasion to take place before the voters went to the polls on November 8, 1960."[2]"

You need to get over your Bob fixation, Goat.

What can I say? He's an easy punching bag and I too am guilty of going after the low hanging fruit at times.

Besides, if I did, what would null whine about?

#158 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-06 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag: Enjoys Hanging Fruit; Should Meet Andy

Oh, he's just pissed because a general spoke his mind and the truth, and he did it out loud. Obama wants a general who will say that the war is un-winnable and we should just leave Afghanistan. The problem is that there are no generals who will say that because it isn't true. Obama can't get his generals to lie for him.

"Who in the fuck does, you hateful piece of shit.
#151 | Posted by nullifidian"

I guess I could compare President Obama to God, the righties always do.

#29 | Posted by danni

Sorry, Danni, but it was a black, male, liberal who first called Obama the Messiah, not the right wing.

#157...

Looks like danni may be changing her mind about her mea culpa. Or she is still intent on her partisan dig at Nixon. lol

This President has a big decision to make an it would be better if these Partisan FOX-Republicans, support our Country in time of WAR or at least shut the Fuck UP!!!!! Like they ask us to when GWB sent us into a unnecessary WAR...........

#36 | Posted by celisary

Right. And he doesn't need generals who are in charge speaking their minds about what to do over there. Yeah, we got it, Celisary.

Obama wants a general who will say that the war is un-winnable and we should just leave Afghanistan. The problem is that there are no generals who will say that because it isn't true.

Define what it means to win the war in Afghanistan -- what the conditions are that constitute a victory.

These gals: media.businessreport.com

#161 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-10-06 04:21 PM

Do you know them by name? Or are gals slang?

Elected politicians, even private citizens are completely within their rights to criticize the president or question his orders, on-duty military personnel are not.

#38 | Posted by danni

Oh, so now the general's opinions do not matter? If they can't question his orders then why in the hell are we still there? If Obama wants out then he should be able to get out. He must be listening to those generals a bit much for your liking.

"Sorry, Danni, but it was a black, male, liberal who first called Obama the Messiah, not the right wing."

I don't know who started it but I do know who says it all the time.

This Pres has had since Jan 2009 to make ANY decision. Remember when he met with Centcom back in March? Here we are in Oct, the death rate increasing daily, and Obama has not made one concrete decision, whether it be more troops or different tactics.

#41 | Posted by crispee_oc

That deserves to be said again. Soldiers are being killed and Obama hasn't been able to make a single fucking decision about where to lead them. The reason for that is because he's not a leader. He's not the guy who should have been elected with two wars going on. He's a pussy who can't keep his word and doesn't know how to take advice either. What a fuck up this guy is.

Right. And he doesn't need generals who are in charge speaking their minds about what to do over there. Yeah, we got it, Celisary.

#164 | Posted by everlong

Everwong the problem is Generals who are in charge do NOT need to be speaking their mind to YOU. If he was testifying before Congress that would be one thing but to speak against the President in the media is especially in a time of WAR is pretty much criminal. It would be grounds for firing where I work.

I would probably fire him.

He's a pussy who can't keep his word and doesn't know how to take advice either. What a fuck up this guy is.

#169 | Posted by everlong

oooh! another internet tough guy! I bet you could not say that to his face. You know I don't agree with everything Obama is doing and I would like to see more Leadership in every part of my Government but the hatred you guys display for our President is really getting to be offensive. You have no clue what it would be like to walk in his shoes each day and deal with the decisions he faces yet you are so easy to judge this man as a "fuck up".

Says a lot about you.

And yet you supported Bush

Ooh! A Bush deflection. What an outstanding rejoinder.

And if Bush were a Fabian socialist punk attempting to nationalize huge swaths of our economy, it might even make sense.

Don't let a fence picket accidentally impale your ass while you're sitting up there, you wishy-washy schmuck.

And I'm sure some of you called them out the way I'm calling out Mao. You can't talk about the president the way he does and truly love your country. Our form of government means that one of two people is going to be president: Our Asshole or Your Asshole. When it's Your Asshole, I still think the office is worthy of a certain amount of respect.

#138 | Posted by rcade

Then why is it that you never said anything like that to the left? Surely you recall the non stop bashing of Bush and the incredibly horrible things he was called during his 8 years by the very people on this board that you align yourself with. But you never said anything to them about loving their country. Why is that?

"Don't let a fence picket accidentally impale your ass while you're sitting up there, you wishy-washy schmuck."

#172 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

Kanrei?!?

You ought to lend that fence rider Kanrei some of your leather cattle-riding chaps, Jacque.

"69,456,897 Americans voted for him"

Uhh.

Barack Obama
67,066,915
52.7%

And if Bush were a Fabian socialist punk attempting to nationalize huge swaths of our economy, it might even make sense.L

Forgot attempted selling of social security to Wall Street I see.

Face facts Jak, you define hypocrite.

^.^

"The history that I've read puts the Bay of Pigs decision squarely on JFK's shoulders. It went awry largely due to shitty intel from the CIA. I know, what a shocker."

The Bay of Pigs was initially planned in the closing days of the Eisenhower administration, and it was one of plans that Kennedy could operate on. It failed because Kennedy did not set up the air support needed to carry out the mission. It was a screw-up on his part, and he publicly said so in the aftermath, which I think was a good thing to do. Just as the commander takes responsibility for his men, so too, the CIC should take ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of the mission.

Obama might do well to remember that.

"And if Bush were a Fabian socialist punk attempting to nationalize huge swaths of our economy, it might even make sense."

"Forgot attempted selling of social security to Wall Street I see."

Considering that the term "nationalize" means to take into public or government ownership, I'm not sure how your statement makes any sense at all. "Selling" Social Security to Wall Street would be the opposite of nationalization.

Actually, no it wouldn't. I would not get my money. The government would continue taking it and investing it in the stock market. Nice try though.

Forgot attempted selling of social security to Wall Street I see.

No. He attempted to allow people to invest their own fucking money from their own fucking paycheck rather than continue to pay into an insolvent Ponzi scheme.

Face facts Kanrei, you're as shitty with reality as you are with analogies.

Face facts Kanrei, you're as shitty with reality as you are with analogies.

I read your posts Jak and that is a compliment. I would be scared if you ever agreed with me as then I would know I was wrong.

"The government would continue taking it and investing it in the stock market."

As opposed to the government taking it and sitting on it or spending it.

Again, how would "selling SS to wall street" constitute "nationalization" when SS is already a government program?

"Right. And he doesn't need generals who are in charge speaking their minds about what to do over there. Yeah, we got it, Celisary.

#164 | Posted by everlong"

If you're talking "speaking publicly," you're right. He needs to STFU and makes his views known to his CoC privately. Period.

John B.
If you click on the link I posted above you'll learn that it wasn't that simple. Kennedy did take responsibility but he also ordered an investigation into the matter which was classified for many years. The link sheds new light on the story which Kennedy did have a role in but not as direct as people previously believed and much of the story which has been out in the world was the version told by the three CIA officials Kennedy fired for screwing up.

"And if Bush were a Fabian socialist punk attempting to nationalize huge swaths of our economy, it might even make sense."

Hate to break it to you Jak, Bush did socialize a huge swath of our economy, specifically the banking industry. You didn't notice the TARP bail out of investment bankers???? What else would you call that?? And yes, nasty things were said by me and others about Bush, but we did not advocate a coup. We never advocated an assasination. MOst of us never referred to him as Hitler though some of us did think he had fascist tendencies and quite honestly, I still do.

Then why is it that you never said anything like that to the left?

Show me anybody on the left who said "Bush despises this country" (and comments of that nature) day after day after day. It's completely looney tunes.

So Obama picked McCrystal--

The General said on Meet the Depress that more troops are needed and he has requested 40k more.

The General also said things like this is a policy debate and the POTUS needs be taking information from every angle (or some such).

And he also said that the POTUS should take the time so the decision(s) are right. Although he seemed to insinuate that time was short. Gates certainly has..

And how many Generals were talking like this to Bush? Through the news and media? Probably a half dozen--and a couple were resigned.

Obama is not experienced and waiting on this issue too long IMHO.

Either he gives the cure to victory or pull out to be killed by the enemy.

I was talking to a hardcore Republican friend of mine today. He believes we should pull out of Afghanistan altogether. He thinks there is no viable definition of "victory" we can obtain over the long run. He points to the failure of other nations throughout history to "conquer" that region of the world. He also believes that following such an American pull out we should feel free to bomb suspected Al Qaeda / Taliban locations within Afghanistan at will whenever we locate them. And if we happen to kill some civilians in the process then so-be-it.
Not sure I agree, but an interesting perspective.

Nice try at rewriting history. Vietnam was lost because of public opinion and the leftist media, we were winning.

#9 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-10-06 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Now that is some revisionism right there.

56,000 dead soldiers and we had nothing at stake in 'victory'.

What were we really going to win?

"we were winning."

#9 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-10-06 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag: YAWN

Your earth history is mildly interesting, but even I can see this individual is lacking a cerebral cortex.

"Vietnam was lost because of public opinion and the leftist media"

Good God, I've read some ignorant bullshit around here, but few that have risen to the level of that idiocy. Nixon and Kissinger agreed to virtually the same terms they were offered four years earlier. Add that to the "plausible deniability", where they made a deal hanging out our soldiers to dry...strike that, to die, and anyone claiming it was "public opinion" or the "leftist media" that lost Vietnam is clearly a moron.

I'm not sure who this Eugene Washington character is that you're speaking about or why you'd bring him up. #5

Sorry.. neither do I.. thinking Gene Robinson of the Washington Post.. and typed "Washington" maybe ...

Obama doesn't know the first thing about how to run a war. That's the General's job. The bottom line is that we are at war right now, and Obama should send more troops. America fights to win.

Poser-in-Chief couldn't run a boy scout troop, much less our military forces. Your safety is in his hands.

judging by all the FFs on post 153, (5!)there are a lot of ass-sniffing sycophants here. I've seen other people say the same thing and not one ff.

Fucking brown nosers

On the issue of "Supporting the Troops"

It is not merely a matter of supporting "current" Presidential policy. In fact, its not really a matter of current Presidential policy at all.

Furthermore it is not simply a one facit issue at all. While "winning" IS part of it, it is NOT merely about "winning".

In fact, one argument often used by the left is, on its face, 100% valid: Never spend the lives of our troops without a compelling issue of national security. (They just always redefine "national security" so troops can NEVER be deployed)

Lefties and Righties aint going to agree on what is a "compelling issue of national security" any time soon.....

Having said that.....

Once engaged, pulling a Vietnam style cut-and-run is NOT supporting the Troops.

Supporting the Troops means supporting them to the best victory possible. Ideally a full 100% victory, but even a partial victory can be good. Today, South Korea is a rather prosperous Asian state. I CAN ONLY IMAGIN WHAT OUR CURRENT DAY LEFTIES WOULD BE SAYING DURING THE DARK DAYS DURING THE RETREAT TO PUSAN.

On 911 the United States was attacked, and NO STATE ON EARTH LAUNCHED THE ATTACK. The lefties would like us to have wimpered in a corner and called the cops, while commenting on why we "deserved it".

Afganistan harbored our enemies. Enough Said.

If you are not willing to TOUGH IT OUT 1950s Chosin/Pusan style, then I don't by it when you say you support the troops.

(I can argue Iraq too, but my points ramble to much as it is....)

On 911 the United States was attacked, and NO STATE ON EARTH LAUNCHED THE ATTACK.

Kinda the point though, isn't it? Too bad we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan before getting sidetracked.

Yeah, gee that durn Obama doesn't listen and automatically do everything his generals tell him to......unlike whom?

Outmaneuvered And Outranked, Military Chiefs Became Outsiders
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 8, 2008; Page A01

At the Joint Chiefs of Staff in late November 2006, Gen. Peter Pace was facing every chairman's nightmare: a potential revolt of the other chiefs. Two months earlier, the JCS had convened a special team of colonels to recommend options for reversing the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Now, it appeared that the chiefs' and colonels' advice was being marginalized, if not ignored, by the White House.

Once engaged, pulling a Vietnam style cut-and-run is NOT supporting the Troops.
Supporting the Troops, etc

#197 | POSTED BY USAF242 AT 2009-10-07 08:09 AM

Hmmm? So, how long (1954-1973) and how many US troops above/beyond the 58k KIA and over 250K WIA, and hundreds of thousands who returned with PTSD, etc would have insured a "victory" over the insurgency?

Show us one time in history that a foreign conventional occupying army defeated a homegrown guerilla insurgency?

And one other thingy....it wasn't a LEFTY that cut and ran in VN, it was the criminal nixon,.....and the beginning of the neocon nightmare for America who pulled out....

Let me ask you. Do YOU support all our troops, even the WAR VETS who return and speak truth to power about the clusterfucks they've suffered as a result of unnecessary invasions/occupations for the profit of giant GLOBAL oil/war corporate profiteers??

Finally, have YOU or any other poster on this site SERVED in an actual WAR ZONE/insurgency that you advocate?

If you think these incursions are necessary, time to join up, eh?

#192...great point Danforth

And not only did nixon agree to the same terms offered 4 years earlier......but a THIRD of all US casualties in VN occurred during those 4 years.....

If folks want to talk Vietnam...

According to NORTH VIETMANESE history:

"It is a major irony of the Vietnam War that our propaganda transformed this debacle into a brilliant victory. The truth was that Tet cost us half our forces. Our losses were so immense that we were unable to replace them with new recruits,"

By 1969, ACCORDING TO NORTH VIETMANESE HISTORY, over 70% of vietcong were NORTHERN troops.

The simple fact of the matter is that a VIABLE state, allied to the U.S. was abandoned by the U.S. when Congress REFUSED Ford's request to sent military support.

South Vietnam was conquored by INVADERS from the outside, and was abandoned by its allies.

The "but bush" defense. How many times must it be pointed out that comparing Obama to Bush isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of the man you people so dearly worship.

If you feel the need to compare him to Bush in order to make yourself feel better about your vote, that should set off alarm bells.

#23 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-10

okay then

lets look at pelosi

the twat said that the general should go with the chain of command
quite a bit different take when she was glowing about general who bush fired...rightly or wrongly..
for spouting off about shit he had comparitivly little info about..

ah but of course that wont matter to the selective memory of the left

also credit due

barry met with all those people..

and IF its not just a way for him to look godd

then
good job mister president

How can you even truly quantify this?

There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Obama; then there's just hyperbole. (see above)

#54 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

again

aarp lie

lies about individuals and health care experinces

not for single payer when audio says otherwise

okay with no govt option when we hear behind the scenes a different story

didnt know acorn got all that money...no HARD proof but do you really think he's that ignorant of acorn?

dont have time to go on

"didnt know acorn got all that money"

And you do? Tell us...how much money has ACORN received?

reports are that they are set to recieve almost one million dollars from homeland security for
"FIRE SAFETY"..

yeah sure it is...

and have you been in a coma as well...there is NONONE who denies they have recieved a lot of money except for obama on ABC on his sunday show tour.
well except for being a chickenshit pussy when it comes to chris wallace

"...have you been in a coma as well...there is NONONE who denies they have recieved a lot of money"

Bullshit.

How much have they received, Afk...do you know? Give us a number.

"South Vietnam was conquored by INVADERS from the outside, and was abandoned by its allies."

Yeah, it was conquered by Vietnamese people.
And you are whining that Congress wouldn't send troops back into Vietnam????
Crazy, crazy, crazy.

danni

come on..
so you would also say that its okay for north korea to invade the south because they are all koreans..
or am I not reading your post correctly

and it was apparently okay by you that the several million were then killed after we left

JUST yesterday afternoon on the way back from the golf course, I heard a middle east expert from pakistan say that if america left afghanistan it would be a "disaster for the west".
this was on npr so it HAS TO BE TRUE...

dan....you cant be serious...

DANNI

Your argument is with offical NORTH Vietnamese history.

Its not some bitter Rightie making stuff up (which sadly does happen on the right as well as the left...)

Its the damned history as per the NORTH Vietnamese.

And given that Communists Governments don't tend to be the most honest, with a rather extreme tendency to slant things to make them look good, what actually happened was probably even worse.

"and its obvious that his generals are frustrated with him."

Names and credible links, please.

#2 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

your an idiot, if there isnt a link for you, it is dismissed. well i talk to the ground pounders every friday night in the USO and they are livid with your lord obama.

"dan....you cant be serious..."

I'm dead serious. Idiots like you have been lying about ACORN since the start.

Tell us...exactly how much money has ACORN received?

Whatever loonietunes, we finally got out of Vietnam and you crazies wanted us to go back in.

Shaking head in amazement.

" heard a middle east expert from pakistan say that if america left afghanistan it would be a "disaster for the west"."

I can find "a middle east expert from Pakistan" to say the exact opposite. The decision about Afghanistan will not be made by loonies like you fortunately. The committment if we stay and nation build will be decades and a trillion dollars that we don't have and hundreds or even thousands of American soldiers lives....for what???
Whenever we leave, be it now, in a year, in ten years....the place will revert to the same way it was before we went there. American can't create democracies in Muslim countries where we don't belong. How many times do we have relearn the same lesson we should have learned from Vietnam.

""and its obvious that his generals are frustrated with him."

They were pretty angry when Kennedy didn't want to send combat troops into Vietnam but he was right and they were wrong. Too bad his decision was reversed by Johnson, too bad Johnson kept exaccerbating the problem by allowing them to pressure him for more and more and more troops until we had 550,000 over there and still couldn't win.
Presidents are elected to decide policy, Generals are promoted through the ranks to carry out that policy.
As it should be.
BTW, remember when you say presidents should listen to the generals on the ground, he can change those generals on the ground and most war time president have done exactly that including George Bush.

Again, Afk...tell us...exactly how much money has ACORN received?

It appears as though ACORN has received at least $12.5 Million dollars.

"It appears as though ACORN has received at least $12.5 Million dollars."

Wow...nowhere near the "billions" the Hannitys of the world claimed, huh?

C'mon, Afkabl2...how much has ACORN received?

Admittedly too lazy to look it up, but where did the $5,000,0000 that was embezzled from ACORN come from? Donations?

That organization does seem to have more than their share of scandals. You'd think they were a major political party for shit's sake.

Whatever loonietunes, we finally got out of Vietnam and you crazies wanted us to go back in.

Some people in this country have never met a war they didn't want to fight forever, no matter the costs or casualties. Sadly, there are some Democrats among their number.

AFK

According to common sense, 100% of VC were Vietnamese, eh?

Ho Chi Mihn attempted to gain support of the USA for independence after he defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu, but the 'powers' at the time decided that wouldn't be friendly to our ally France, so we took over occupying VN...

Revise that history son.

Some people in this country have never met a war they didn't want to fight forever, no matter the costs or casualties.

#220 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2009-10-07 11:51 AM

Well, as long as THEY don't have to be the ones fighting and dying and becoming maimed for life, mentally and/or physically, eh?

Again, how many posters supporting these wars on this thread have actually ever served in a war zone insurgency/occupation?

Just curious.

btw

I keep asking that question on every "war" thread here on DR and get no response.

I guess the answer to how many DR posters who support these occupations have ever served in one is ZERO, eh?

Not to say you cannot have an opinion without serving, but it would certainly lend some credibility to that opinion to have experienced it firsthand?

No?

219

Interesting when some posters have nothing of validity to say on a subject, they attempt to change it....to the rw talking point of the month...eh?

LOL@ the DUPE

Interesting when some posters have nothing of validity to say on a subject, they attempt to change it....
#224 | Posted by woke

You, on the other hand stay on course.

or they attempt to smear others with ad hominem attacks, eh wis?

LOL

Newsflash

OBAMA is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF and the Generals and military work under his command, not the other way around, no matter how much neocon supporters would wish it otherwise.....

There is no such thing as a Conservative Bible or a Liberal Bible... it's simply the Bible. The only other thing I'll say on this is these guys need to read Revelation 22:18-19

Sorry... wrong thread

Why would any Patriot Salute and Enemy of the State?

Why would any American claim their president is an enemy of the state?

Because they place political ideology ABOVE their country, eh?

THINK about it.

Robinson recently won a Pulitzer Prize in Journalism for his coverage of the last presidential campaign.

Not sure if he is a vet, but I know he writes for veteransforcommonsense.org and has written many columns supporting veterans and their return to the us....following their war service as well as covering iraqnam to some degree, also.