Conservatives, explain to me being against a time line in Iraq - Page 4

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 03:36 PM

Saying "the generals should decide" is BS because the generals are just subordinates to the commander in chief, Bush, so they'd be doing his bidding, it'd be Bush deciding and everyone else listening...aka more disaster

6SpeedTA95 · 05-12-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Saying "the generals should decide" is BS because the generals are just subordinates to the commander in chief, Bush, so they'd be doing his bidding, it'd be Bush deciding and everyone else listening...aka more disaster

I think you raise a good point. Although in general I would disagree with it and perhaps you would too, but right now given the circumstances you hit the nail on the head. The generals SHOULD run the war, but Bush has decided to out jsut about everyone who disagrees with him resulting in chronies running the war.

JaJae · 05-12-2007, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think you raise a good point. Although in general I would disagree with it and perhaps you would too, but right now given the circumstances you hit the nail on the head. The generals SHOULD run the war, but Bush has decided to out jsut about everyone who disagrees with him resulting in chronies running the war.

The current general was the man the Democrats had wanted, when Bush finally selected him he got 100% support from both parties. Not a single senator voted against him. This general is not a Bush chrony. It's who the Senate wanted.

6SpeedTA95 · 05-12-2007, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The current general was the man the Democrats had wanted, when Bush finally selected him he got 100% support from both parties. Not a single senator voted against him. This general is not a Bush chrony. It's who the Senate wanted.

Who are you speaking of? I'm not speaking of the current general. Bush didn't have a choice but to put him in. I should have been more specific. If I remember right this guy has been there since what feb/march?

JaJae · 05-12-2007, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Who are you speaking of? I'm not speaking of the current general. Bush didn't have a choice but to put him in. I should have been more specific. If I remember right this guy has been there since what feb/march?

Yes that's correct, Petraeus. He's been the general during the timeline debates in the House and Senate.

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes that's correct, Petraeus. He's been the general during the timeline debates in the House and Senate.

His job is not to question the commander in chief, he'd have to resign to really do that, and to be honest I am sure he thinks anyone other than him would do an even worse job, so he'd be forced, for the good of the country, to be dishonest about Iraq because if he quit and told the truth they'd be worse off

6SpeedTA95 · 05-12-2007, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

His job is not to question the commander in chief, he'd have to resign to really do that, and to be honest I am sure he thinks anyone other than him would do an even worse job, so he'd be forced, for the good of the country, to be dishonest about Iraq because if he quit and told the truth they'd be worse off

You think he's lieing to the senate and house committees? Come on, give me a break. He's not lieing. He doesn't have to "question" the commander and chief he has to report to the congress the progress being made if they dont like it they have the ability to stop funding. It has nothing to do with him "quesitoning" the president.

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 04:56 PM

last general to question the president was macarthur and he was fired immediately, its the standard policy

It's also standard policy that you don't publically question your superior officer, you think a division general in Iraq is going to talk to reporters in DC about how things are lost in Iraq, even if he was asked to testify? No because the policy of his commander is to surge, he doesn't have a right to question it

Neither does Petraeus, if Bush tells him that there's a Plan B and it involves keeping a strong face to the Iraqis and American people, he is obliged to follow

Did Petraeus highlight how American deaths jumped up, how the break in Anbar is temporary at best because all of them hate Shias and even if the AQ is kicked out, it's going to go right back to a "lost cause" because they hate Shias and any US force is going to be allied with a Shia-dominated government

6SpeedTA95 · 05-12-2007, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

last general to question the president was macarthur and he was fired immediately, its the standard policy

It's also standard policy that you don't publically question your superior officer, you think a division general in Iraq is going to talk to reporters in DC about how things are lost in Iraq, even if he was asked to testify? No because the policy of his commander is to surge, he doesn't have a right to question it

Neither does Petraeus, if Bush tells him that there's a Plan B and it involves keeping a strong face to the Iraqis and American people, he is obliged to follow

Did Petraeus highlight how American deaths jumped up, how the break in Anbar is temporary at best because all of them hate Shias and even if the AQ is kicked out, it's going to go right back to a "lost cause" because they hate Shias and any US force is going to be allied with a Shia-dominated government

I'm not disputing that, I agree with that, my point is the House and Senate has the ABILITY to get the information from him that they need. Closed session requires nothing special and no advanced notice although its preferred. They can easily go to a closed session with the General and no one's credibility or procedure is questioned.

I personally think the House and Senate are playing games with the war, talking out one side of their mouth to look good for their constituents while not cutting off the funding that they know the war needs.

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 05:22 PM

you know it would be leaked, and so does the general...he can not, in good faith, give the "real word" to congressmen who will leak it, and im not just talking about democrats

They passed a stand alone bill giving full funding for the next few months, no pork no claims of BS

They tried very hard, IN GOOD FAITH (despite what others say, to cut off all funding for the war

Honestly, what can the Democrats do to make you happy, I'm sorry they don't have a quick solution for 4 years of GOP Iraq mishandling, I'm sorry not every democrat is a robot and going to vote lock-step with the leadership

6SpeedTA95 · 05-12-2007, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

you know it would be leaked, and so does the general...he can not, in good faith, give the "real word" to congressmen who will leak it, and im not just talking about democrats

They passed a stand alone bill giving full funding for the next few months, no pork no claims of BS

They tried very hard, IN GOOD FAITH (despite what others say, to cut off all funding for the war

Honestly, what can the Democrats do to make you happy, I'm sorry they don't have a quick solution for 4 years of GOP Iraq mishandling, I'm sorry not every democrat is a robot and going to vote lock-step with the leadership

You think the democrats would leak that info?

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You think the democrats would leak that info?

If the info was "listen, Iraq is hopeless and I'd like to get out ASAP, but don't tell you know who because I'm not allowed to publically disagree with him" I think democrats would rightfully leak, and there is a spectrum of comments he could make that would be not-so-blatant that I also think they should leak

How can democrats hear that things in iraq are not going good...are about to have a vote to save american lives...and NOT release the info to put pressure on congressmen to vote to end the war?

It's violating one principle to protect a higher one