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 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

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.

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"!!!

Originally Posted by bimmertl

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" ? ? ? ?

hmmmmmm, I think George W. Bush went AWOL during that "Reserve" Training. Have they found him yet?


"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.

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

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

Originally Posted by swrinfla

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....

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.

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

Originally Posted by Village Kid

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.

Originally Posted by Lil Dancer

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

Village Kid.

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..._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/Histori...tes_Presidents

Originally Posted by Village Kid

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.