General Petraeus Report

[Guest]

I bet the General would prefer to be in combat in Iraq than too many days like today in Washington DC with all the desk jockey, partisan blow hards all using him to make their points. Joe Lieberman hit the nail on the head....nobody here is going to say things are better, or improved or progress made.....because it does not serve the political agenda.

When one watches an inquisition like today is it any wonder NOTHING gets done in Washington.....too many peacocks strutting their stuff (stuff=BS).

Even our military heroes of yesteryear would not fare well in today's me first, my turn, self serving, party first, partisan thinking demagogues......what happened to country and people first?

Anyway hat's off to guys like Petraeus :super: and Crocker :bigthumbsup:....in my opinion I thought they handled the stupid questions must better this time than last.....they had good charts and did show progress that nobody wanted to talk about.....how sad >:(

BTK

[Guest]

There are a lot more of the "country and people first" folk within the DC Beltway and elsewhere than the Fourth Estate will ever portray, simply because portraying those folk doesn't create sensationalism, and sensationalism sells advertising space, and advertising $$$ is what feeds the the news peacocks.

People who have never spent a minute in harms way lack credibility in preaching tactics and strategy to people with the General's (and his staff's) credentials, training and experience. It would be like "me" telling a surgeon the better way to hold a scalpel and how to recognize healthy versus sick organs. The prattling of the amateurs only gives the professionals more credence.

[Guest]

SteveZ

When you refer to "people never in harms" way I assume you are refering to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Fieth, Wolfowitz, Kristol et al.

Truly the "prattling of the amateurs"!!!

[Guest]

SteveZ

When you refer to "people never in harms" way I assume you are refering to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Fieth, Wolfowitz, Kristol et al.

Truly the "prattling of the amateurs"!!!


Yes and no - - -

and Senators Obama, Clinton, Kennedy;
And Representatives (too many to list!)
and Former President Clinton;
and Former Secretaries of Defense William Cohen, William Perry, Harold Brown;

Those with military reserve records (GW Bush, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Aspin and others) have received military training (individual and unit) and experience to at minimum understand how the force structure works, what REALLY happens when call-ups occur, how deployments are managed, and what happens when things go both right and wrong.

I have to admit being partial to Presidents and Secretaries of Defense/State who have active-duty military training and experience (Presidents GHW Bush, Carter, Reagan, Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower; Secretaries Powell, Haig, Carlucci, Gates and many others) to include for most time-in-combat. It's not as easy to order military deployments when you know first-hand what the results will be and have lived through others making that decision for you. And it's just as hard to make the decision to bring them home, when you believe that in doing so may result in another generation having to face the same deployment decision, but only many times more dangerous.

Being Commander-In-Chief is not a hollow title and in my mind is the most important role the President has, and the fact that people will live and/or die based on a President's decisions means that person should make these decisions based on knowledge and skill, not political points or straw polls.

Would you like an amateur screwing around with your household plumbing or electrical wiring? Would you go to a hospital where decisions as to how treatment will be dispensed is made by persons with no knowledge or experience in medicine? Would you willingly accept medical treatment from someone who has no medical training or experience, but does have 'advisors' giving him/her suggestions as to what to do next? Of course not! So why are people so anxious to make someone who has no knowledge of military history, strategy, force selection, or deployment (administrative, logistics, etc.) the Commander-in-Chief of such a complex and sizeable entity as the US Military? Is this really the job someone should learn how to do totally by 'on-the-job training" ? ? ? ?

[Guest]

hmmmmmm, I think George W. Bush went AWOL during that "Reserve" Training. Have they found him yet?
http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/sherlocksmile.gif (http://www.millan.net)

"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!" —President George W. Bush, joking about his administration's failure to find WMDs in Iraq.

Oh yes, there he is . . . running the war. Over 4000 young Americans - gone.

[Guest]

Well, some in this forum would say that Bush made his decisions based on knowledge and skill.

[Guest]

SteveZ:

I think I've said it before in TOTV, but it bears repeating: The idiots in Washington are so inept in their understanding of the military as to be dangerous.

That doesn't say that military folks turned politicians are necessarily "better!" It takes a true military person (i.e., Eisenhower) to oversee the military as Commander-in-Chief. Non-participating Reservists (i.e., GWB) have, in my view, virtually no qualifications for the job!

'Nough said!

SWR

[Guest]

SteveZ:

I think I've said it before in TOTV, but it bears repeating: The idiots in Washington are so inept in their understanding of the military as to be dangerous.

That doesn't say that military folks turned politicians are necessarily "better!" It takes a true military person (i.e., Eisenhower) to oversee the military as Commander-in-Chief. Non-participating Reservists (i.e., GWB) have, in my view, virtually no qualifications for the job!

'Nough said!

SWR


Didn't say they were the best, not by a long shot - but the person who thinks they "understand" how, when, why, how much, what kind and when not to commit the military to anything because they have a glib catch-phrase and "advice" from others of similar ilk definitely miss the mark....

[Guest]

So, what do people think about Senator John McCain's qualifications as commander-in-chief??

Personally, IMHO the President's role as Commander-in-Chief is the least important role when judging whether or not one should vote for such-and-such a candidate. Would put what the President can do about the economy, education, civil rights, national security, diplomacy, the environment, the mess of our legal system, and a number of other areas as more important than his or her ability to fight a war. He or she does have the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Guest]

Commander in Chief? Saw the following in an article today:

"Today, as he was questioning Gen. David Petraeus, he (McCain) again confused the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.

What's worse is that he's done it at important times when you'd expect him to be at his best -- he did it today in the Senate while questioning the commander of American forces in Iraq, and he did it on a recent trip to the Middle East.

If John McCain can't remember such a simple fact at crucial times, how will he be able to do it as President?"

VK2

[Guest]

Commander in Chief? Saw the following in an article today:

"Today, as he was questioning Gen. David Petraeus, he (McCain) again confused the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.

What's worse is that he's done it at important times when you'd expect him to be at his best -- he did it today in the Senate while questioning the commander of American forces in Iraq, and he did it on a recent trip to the Middle East.

If John McCain can't remember such a simple fact at crucial times, how will he be able to do it as President?"

VK2




I really would not call al Qaeda a Sunni group unless you would also call Charles Manson's cult a Christian or whatever actual religion they were??? http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html

They are religous extremists using violence for specific political goals.

[Guest]

Well, some in this forum would say that Bush made his decisions based on knowledge and skill.
Was that before he spoke to the Easter Bunny or after

[Guest]

:agree: Village Kid.

[Guest]

The current President's rating from historians will probably be a lot better than the current media and politicians trying to be elected indicate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

This seems to happen with every sitting President unless one of the incumbent's protégés is trying to step into his shoes like with the first Bush and Ronald Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

I doubt if GW Bush will be in the top ten Presidents but cannot see him in the bottom ten either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

[Guest]

Commander in Chief? Saw the following in an article today:

"Today, as he was questioning Gen. David Petraeus, he (McCain) again confused the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.

What's worse is that he's done it at important times when you'd expect him to be at his best -- he did it today in the Senate while questioning the commander of American forces in Iraq, and he did it on a recent trip to the Middle East.

If John McCain can't remember such a simple fact at crucial times, how will he be able to do it as President?"

VK2


That's an incredibly good point. Its scary to think of him in the White House commiting such gaffs when so much is at stake.

[Guest]

That's an incredibly good point. Its scary to think of him in the White House commiting such gaffs when so much is at stake.


There are probably a large number of Senators and Representatives in the US Congress who also do not know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite.

Do not think that Senator John McCain is an intellectual who would keep track of differences like this even if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both seem like they have very gifted minds. Remember that any President's staff is going to have some first rate minds on it. Would not say that George W. Bush has a gifted mind. That's probably true of many US Presidents though that they are not academics but people of action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_George_W._Bush

[Guest]

Would not say that George W. Bush has a gifted mind. That's probably true of many US Presidents though that they are not academics but people of action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_George_W._Bush



I wouldn't call President Bush a man of action, but a man of reaction. And ALWAYS with an inappropriate reaction. Even hearing upon 9/11 he still sat reading to the children with that "deer caught in the headlights" look... for 7 minutes! 7 minutes! :edit:

Please, not more of the same.

[Guest]

There are probably a large number of Senators and Representatives in the US Congress who also do not know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite.

Do not think that Senator John McCain is an intellectual who would keep track of differences like this even if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both seem like they have very gifted minds. Remember that any President's staff is going to have some first rate minds on it. Would not say that George W. Bush has a gifted mind. That's probably true of many US Presidents though that they are not academics but people of action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_George_W._Bush

McCain is no intellectual. I read he graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. Obama, in contrast, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, an impressive feat, and was president of the Harvard Law Review. True, the President would have the benefit of astute advisors; I personally would be more comfortable with someone I felt was intellectually gifted.

[Guest]

McCain is no intellectual. I read he graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. Obama, in contrast, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, an impressive feat, and was president of the Harvard Law Review. True, the President would have the benefit of astute advisors; I personally would be more comfortable with someone I felt was intellectually gifted.


None of the three candidates are "dumb" by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as Sen. McCain's USNA standing, the context is not relative to the rigors of the institution. All of the service academies are known as being overall the most difficult institutions to complete, as they test considerably more than grey-matter capacity. My hat is tipped to all who have the fortitude to complete a service academy program, and one review of the curricula - to include required service activities during non-academic periods - can attest to their severity and content.

Call me old-fashioned, but character, integrity, ethics and concern for country-over-self mean more to me than someone's collegiate transcript. I'd like to know that when the going gets tough, there will be someone tough enough in the job whose concern is more about what's good for the country instead of what's good for his/her public image or party.

Sen. Obama definitely has the most impressive academic credentials, but I know a lot of smart people without the sense to get out of the rain. His past history does not show any concern-for-country, as evidenced by his missing over a third of all Senate votes during his one-and-only term (only half-completed) in the Senate. That to me indicates a me-first and everyone-else-second attitude, and I'm not that comfortable having someone as President that selfish.

Sen. Clinton is a very sharp and gutsy individual who has made it clear from the time she first crossed the 1600 PA Ave threshhold that her goal was to be President at any cost. I admire the ambition, but again there seems to be more concern with acquisition of title versus desire to serve the country as a whole.

Sen. McCain is definitely not the orator that Sen Obama is, and gaffs occur. Sen. McCain's academic credentials are not as impressive as either Sen. Obama or Clinton, however, when one looks at the chronolgical time-lines for the three, the person with a much greater record (at the same point in life) of unselfish service-to-country and experience in leadership, management and understanding of how the world works, Sen. McCain excels.

There is still a lot of campaign to go. Ironically, the only thing they all have in common is that they are U.S. Senators. That being the case, it seems the most logical means of comparison as to how they would perform as President would be how they performed as Senators - who fulfilled the duties of the office, who showed up for votes, how they voted, their abilities to work across-the-aisles with others, their understanding of issues (domestic and international). For those who want to discount Sen. McCain's military record, and those who want to attack Sen. Obama's cadre of private friends, and those who want to see Sen. Clinton as the sock-puppet of her husband - what other objective criteria is left other than Senatorial record?

Yes, comparing the records means not being swayed by glib catch-phrases and sound-bites, and not getting caught up in emotional demogogary - but actually doing "homework" to determine who can do the job based on track record. I'd do that just trying to select the person to fix my toilet, let alone trying to select the person to lead the nation.

[Guest]

That to me indicates a me-first and everyone-else-second attitude, and I'm not that comfortable having someone as President that selfish.




Steve Z, did you vote Bush in -- twice? Don't answer that, just a guess. Because he has been the most "me-first and everyone-else second' president of my time. And I found it appalling. Not taking McCain's war-record away from him, but I don't want someone that ended up at the bottom of his class, no matter what college or Academy they graduated from and I certainly do not want another war monger. Intelligence or, lack there of, very much counts.

"I'm going to try to see if I can remember as much to make it sound like I'm smart on the subject." --George W. Bush, answering a question about a possible flu pandemic, Cleveland, July 10, 2007

"There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today." John McCain --prior to visiting a Baghdad market while being flanked by 22 soldiers, 10 armored Humvees, and two Apache attack helicopters

[Guest]

I wouldn't call President Bush a man of action, but a man of reaction. And ALWAYS with an inappropriate reaction. Even hearing upon 9/11 he still sat reading to the children with that "deer caught in the headlights" look... for 7 minutes! 7 minutes! :edit:

Please, not more of the same.


Remember that from Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. I am not sure what people would have wanted President George W. Bush to do in that situation other than visit the kids as planned?? He probably had a very hard time dealing with that day as so many of us did.

Think that shows some courage not just going immediately to some kind of bunker as soon as the Secret Service or whoever knew that there were organized attacks being made against various prominent targets by terrorists.

[Guest]

Steve Z, did you vote Bush in -- twice? Don't answer that, just a guess. Because he has been the most "me-first and everyone-else second' president of my time. And I found it appalling. Not taking McCain's war-record away from him, but I don't want someone that ended up at the bottom of his class, not matter what the college or Academy they graduated from and I certainly do not want another war monger. Intelligence or lack there of very much counts.



Well, didn't vote for him the first time, did the second as the lesser of two BSers.

Again, I want to trust the person in the office to actually do the job. Yes, at this moment I'm leaning (and that's all it is) to Sen. McCain because he has fulfilled his duties as a Senator, making the votes, participating in the tough debates, and all of the unglamourous parts of the job. The other two seemed only interested in getting the titles of Senator so they could use it as credential for a higher title.

If they won't do the job as Senator because they are "too busy," I have a hard time believing they want to be President to actually do the job. Again, it seems they have more of a concern to later say "look at me, I'm President!"

All of the salesmanship on the campaign trail doesn't stack up to the track record to date. Actions do speak louder than words, and skating out of your current job's responsibilities doesn't demonstrate that you'll honor the next job's responsibilities.

Intellect is one thing, but true commitment to the job is another. That tell's me who will take the time to study the analyses, meet constantly with the advisors, and burn the midnight oil to keep up with the requirements of the job. Acquisition of the trappings (e.g., Senator ___ as a title) while shirking the responsibilities is not what I want in an employee - and the President is one of my (and millions of others') employees.

How anyone can label Sen. McCain as a war-monger is puzzling? Is it because he is a combat veteran? or because his academics have included military science? Or is it because he is honest enough to state the obvious as to the effects of military commitment? No one is more cautious and wary of committing the military to anything than someone who has smelt the cordite and experienced the results firsthand. The difference between the theorist and pragmatist is usually personal experience.

[Guest]

Steve Z, I actually do appreciate the way you think because it appears that you are, at least, open-minded. I called McCain a war monger because of his statements about Iraq going 100 years. Also, his temper tantrums are well documented and quite frankly, as I've stated before, I don't feel comfortable with a man with a short fuse being that close to the buttom. Just my opinion. :)

[Guest]

Steve Z, I actually do appreciate the way you think because it appears that you are, at least, open-minded. I called McCain a war monger because of his statements about Iraq going 100 years. Also, his temper tantrums are well documented and quite frankly, as I've stated before, I don't feel comfortable with a man with a short fuse being that close to the buttom. Just my opinion. :)


Looks like that will not be much of a factor -- McCain's temper tantrums-- http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2008/04/mccain_meltdown_unlikely.php unless he pulls a Howard Dean. :joke:

[Guest]

Tal, I'm not worried about Public Forums, I'm worried about in private as President. :(

[Guest]

Steve Z, I actually do appreciate the way you think because it appears that you are, at least, open-minded. I called McCain a war monger because of his statements about Iraq going 100 years. Also, his temper tantrums are well documented and quite frankly, as I've stated before, I don't feel comfortable with a man with a short fuse being that close to the buttom. Just my opinion. :)

Again, we both want the most for our money. There's a lot I don't like about Sen McCain position-wise, but the commitment to fulfill the oath of office is a big one to me, and having that oath mean something other than words for a photo-op. If either of the other two could show some 'commitment' to what they promised to do, they'd be viewed as more than opportunists.

[Guest]

President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history.

[Guest]

:bigthumbsup: Great post Junglejim!