The most astonishing comment about the War, so far...

On this topic, I would hope that the generals on the ground would have an inkling about whether or not the policy is making us safer, but I agree that this isn't really their "job" to determine, per say.

Would anyone in the admin really contend at this point that Iraq has made us "safer"? With a straight face?
 
Onceler said:
On this topic, I would hope that the generals on the ground would have an inkling about whether or not the policy is making us safer, but I agree that this isn't really their "job" to determine, per say.

Would anyone in the admin really contend at this point that Iraq has made us "safer"? With a straight face?
Click to expand...

Bush does, seriously. He always does. He is still saying we have to fight them over there so they don't paddle over here and fight us on our home turf.
 
Onceler said:
"The big picture in regard to the overall war on terrorism is the CIC."

Well, that certainly makes me feel all warm, fuzzy & safe.

Bush has been so spot on with his assessments & "gut feelings" about terror & his strategy's effectiveness against it, why should any of us question it?
Click to expand...

That's a decision for each person to make. But as far as Cypress' statement I think he's off base claiming the General is in charge of the overall war on terrorism.
 
Darla said:
Bush does, seriously. He always does. He is still saying we have to fight them over there so they don't paddle over here and fight us on our home turf.
Click to expand...


You're right - he does do this, and it is some scary, scary stuff. How can anyone accept a CIC who is so out of touch? Where is the outrage from the gang who doesn't think the Dems have what it takes to "protect us"?

On FP, both Dixie & SR - when challenged about the fact that Iraq is actually making us less safe - wouldn't outright disagree, and would instead counter with some variation of "what were we supposed to do after 9/11?", as though attacking Iraq was our only choice, even if it worsened our problem.

We just have to do SOMETHING. If more of us die, at least we're giving it the ol' college try!
 
"That's a decision for each person to make"

No - it's our patriotic duty as American citizens. When intelligence & facts show that Iraq has been a cause celebre for terrorists, had created a new generation of extremists & that Al Qaida is JUST AS STRONG now as they were in 2001, any American who doesn't at least question Bush's policies is putting party over country, and jeopardizing our national security...
 
Onceler said:
You're right - he does do this, and it is some scary, scary stuff. How can anyone accept a CIC who is so out of touch? Where is the outrage from the gang who doesn't think the Dems have what it takes to "protect us"?

On FP, both Dixie & SR - when challenged about the fact that Iraq is actually making us less safe - wouldn't outright disagree, and would instead counter with some variation of "what were we supposed to do after 9/11?", as though attacking Iraq was our only choice, even if it worsened our problem.

We just have to do SOMETHING. If more of us die, at least we're giving it the ol' college try!
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, the same on my old message board. You would swear there were only two choices after 9/11: Attack Iraq or Do Nothing. Well, and the third one which was "surrender immediately" the top choice of Democrats like Al Gore, so thank God he wasn't President. I mean, Gore tried to surrender, and he wasn't even President.
 
Darla said:
Cypress never claimed that, did he? I don't think he did.
Click to expand...

He said that the general should know the overall strategy and results of all that is going on in the War on Terror. That is essentially what he is saying when he complains the General doesn't know if the War in Iraq is going to make us safer.

The General fights the war. The President is the one who dictates overall strategy for the War on Terror and is responsible for how the war in Iraq ties into the overall strategy.
 
Darla said:
Yes, I know, the same on my old message board. You would swear there were only two choices after 9/11: Attack Iraq or Do Nothing. Well, and the third one which was "surrender immediately" the top choice of Democrats like Al Gore, so thank God he wasn't President. I mean, Gore tried to surrender, and he wasn't even President.
Click to expand...
That's because he is really a French Spy. Their main weaponry is white flags and cheese.

Thankfully we realized our mistake in feeding ourselves "French" fries and changed it over to "Freedom" because we wouldn't want subliminal messages in our food products.
 
cawacko said:
He said that the general should know the overall strategy and results of all that is going on in the War on Terror. That is essentially what he is saying when he complains the General doesn't know if the War in Iraq is going to make us safer.

The General fights the war. The President is the one who dictates overall strategy for the War on Terror and is responsible for how the war in Iraq ties into the overall strategy.
Click to expand...

You're a terrible spinner. You did the same thing on another thread the other day; you have a bad habit of putting words in people's mouths.
 
cawacko said:
He said that the general should know the overall strategy and results of all that is going on in the War on Terror. That is essentially what he is saying when he complains the General doesn't know if the War in Iraq is going to make us safer.

The General fights the war. The President is the one who dictates overall strategy for the War on Terror and is responsible for how the war in Iraq ties into the overall strategy.
Click to expand...

No he said the General should be able to give an opinion on whether the war he is fighting in Iraq is keeping Americans safer. I think he should be able to give an opinion. As Onceler points out, there is too much evidence stating the opposite. Maybe that's why the General didn't want to venture there.
 
cawacko said:
He said that the general should know the overall strategy and results of all that is going on in the War on Terror. That is essentially what he is saying when he complains the General doesn't know if the War in Iraq is going to make us safer.

The General fights the war. The President is the one who dictates overall strategy for the War on Terror and is responsible for how the war in Iraq ties into the overall strategy.
Click to expand...


Your saying that the Top Allied commander in the theater - the equivalent of a MacArthur or an Eisenhower - doesn't know if "winning" his Iraq war will make america safer?
 
Umm, Cawacko?

The question about whether the Iraq War and Patreus' strategy would make america safer was asked by republican Senator John Warner. Probably the top, and most respected republican, on the Armed Services Committee and on Foreign Policy.

Evidently Senator Warner thought Patreus might at least have an opinion if the Iraq War he was executing would make america safer.

So, Republican Senator Warner, agrees with me: Patreus probably should be expected to know.


Anonymous poster, Cawacko, thinks that Senator Warner and I are out to lunch.


LOL
 
Darla said:
No he said the General should be able to give an opinion on whether the war he is fighting in Iraq is keeping Americans safer. I think he should be able to give an opinion. As Onceler points out, there is too much evidence stating the opposite. Maybe that's why the General didn't want to venture there.
Click to expand...

But as Wacko said, his job is to determine the best way to proceed in Iraq. He is not in charge of what happens with the border, with port security etc... so how the hell should he know? He may have a more detailed opinion on the subject, but why should he provide it to a bunch of political hacks? Because you and I both know that if he were to state his opinion and then something contrary to his opinion were to occur, the childish political pieces of shit would start screaming bloody murder at him. Thus, he is wise in only answering questions that are relevant to his particular theatre of operation.
 
Cypress said:
Umm, Cawacko?

The question about whether the Iraq War and Patreus' strategy would make america safer was asked by republican Senator John Warner. Probably the top, and most respected republican, on the Armed Services Committee and on Foreign Policy.

Evidently Senator Warner thought Patreus might at least have an opinion if the Iraq War he was executing would make america safer.

So, Republican Senator Warner, agrees with me: Patreus probably should be expected to know.


Anonymous poster, Cawacko, thinks that Senator Warner and I are out to lunch.


LOL
Click to expand...
Okay, and anonymous poster Cypress think that R. Paul and I are out to lunch....

blah, blah...

I can definitely believe that a Senator asked a question that was a bit dumb. Nobody is perfect. His focus is Iraq. Keep your eye on the prize.
 
Superfreak said:
But as Wacko said, his job is to determine the best way to proceed in Iraq. He is not in charge of what happens with the border, with port security etc... so how the hell should he know? He may have a more detailed opinion on the subject, but why should he provide it to a bunch of political hacks? Because you and I both know that if he were to state his opinion and then something contrary to his opinion were to occur, the childish political pieces of shit would start screaming bloody murder at him. Thus, he is wise in only answering questions that are relevant to his particular theatre of operation.
Click to expand...


"so how the hell should he know? "


http://justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=127483&postcount=37
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top