MoveOn.org needs to move on
senojekips
Active member
It's nothing to do with "hate", it's more to do with "distrust". Once Generals become politicised, they cease to be trustworthy as military leaders.
You can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
You can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Mmarsh, you don't get it.
The military's job is to execute the orders of the President. Candidates who turned down Bush's request are those who simply do not have confidence in handling the situation. General Petraeus is willing to give it a try. His job is to win the war in Iraq (whether or not this is possible is an entirely different topic) and he's not going to get that done by giving a very negative report. He's going to have to get whatever support he can get in order to do this and since he's got a crowd of people who want to cut the whole thing off, he's also got to find a way to get people to give his plan a chance. If you will accuse the report of being entirely false, then prove it. And I don't mean proof that the White House wrote it, proof that the information is indeed false. Do you see how this is an extension of his duty?
In the military Mmarsh, you are given a set of orders and objectives and you follow them. You don't debate it, you do it. You make it happen. Lawyers are given a case. Sometimes they will defend someone who is innocent, other times they will defend someone who is guilty. If you have a problem with the report and in fact have proof that the White House wrote it, then fine, go scream at the White House.
Mmarsh, that's how it works. I know to an extent I do have politics but I try not to think about it too much. No one has ever paid me to dictate policy and although I do have my opinions the order from the top comes first. My politics will show up in the next election.
The public picks the leader. The leader decides what to do. If it involves the military, the military makes sure it's done as best as possible. If the public don't like it and want a change, there's the next election. Elect new leader with different plan. New president gives the military a new set of orders. Military complies and carries out the new orders to the best of its ability.
I know in movies you see soldiers making political decisions etc. like for example, Die Hard 2... but that's not how it works in the real world.
The military's job is to execute the orders of the President. Candidates who turned down Bush's request are those who simply do not have confidence in handling the situation. General Petraeus is willing to give it a try. His job is to win the war in Iraq (whether or not this is possible is an entirely different topic) and he's not going to get that done by giving a very negative report. He's going to have to get whatever support he can get in order to do this and since he's got a crowd of people who want to cut the whole thing off, he's also got to find a way to get people to give his plan a chance. If you will accuse the report of being entirely false, then prove it. And I don't mean proof that the White House wrote it, proof that the information is indeed false. Do you see how this is an extension of his duty?
In the military Mmarsh, you are given a set of orders and objectives and you follow them. You don't debate it, you do it. You make it happen. Lawyers are given a case. Sometimes they will defend someone who is innocent, other times they will defend someone who is guilty. If you have a problem with the report and in fact have proof that the White House wrote it, then fine, go scream at the White House.
Mmarsh, that's how it works. I know to an extent I do have politics but I try not to think about it too much. No one has ever paid me to dictate policy and although I do have my opinions the order from the top comes first. My politics will show up in the next election.
The public picks the leader. The leader decides what to do. If it involves the military, the military makes sure it's done as best as possible. If the public don't like it and want a change, there's the next election. Elect new leader with different plan. New president gives the military a new set of orders. Military complies and carries out the new orders to the best of its ability.
I know in movies you see soldiers making political decisions etc. like for example, Die Hard 2... but that's not how it works in the real world.
Spartacus
Active member
mmarsh
In regards to your post to me.
I agree to a point. When a politician's agenda puts the nations interest at stake, I consider that on the brink of treason. HOWEVER LET US NOT JUSTIFY THE AD BY POINTING FINGERS.
Right. Sure I may or may not be naive, but I do not think that you can judge that. As 13th put it, as soldiers, we dont ask why. As soldiers, we obey. I will do that for this president, the next president, a democrat, a republican, or an independent. Again, while the General would have this same mindset, his duty extends to what is best for his forces, the mission, and the country. In that viewscope, a single presidents reputation is minor, correct? If he lies to protect the reputation of one man, he jeopordizes what he has spent his life protecting.
Do you remember just recently when several Chief Editors and Publishers sent out memos to their news staff and published in the paper their comments about the staffers cheering about Alberto Gonzales resignation? You mean to tell me that the media does not have a left leaning bias huh? I work in the media. I see first hand daily how the machine works. While President Bush "is out stumping for..." Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, "is championing...". Until you have sat in a news room and have seen two stories come in, one positive and one negative about the administration, and the only one ever aired is the negative, you havent seen the bias. I see how facts become incorporated into an agenda. By the way, the biases I see have all been in the direction of left, as are what I see at home. I am not saying go home and watch fox news channel because they are truly fair and balanced, but rather STOP BEING SPOON FED INFORMATION BY THE MEDIA, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. BTW "research" does not include blogs.
NO, the report was written by Patraeus. The public version was EDITED by the Pentagon (thus WH). Again, I highly recommend that you actually watch the report before drawing a conclusion on it.
There is an intelligent answer. You can believe they lied about everything. Florida recounts, 9/11, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, AG's, Rumsfield, yep every one a lie. My friend, you call me naive and yet believe that the men serving our nation have only, ONLY their own interest at heart and will lie to protect themselves, something put out by the Liberal Political Strategists.
Of Kings and pawns...
In regards to your post to me.
I also had my college level writing courses.mmarsh said:
Again I say, who here ran an ad in the NYT declaring ANYONE a traitor?? In fact did ANYONE AT ALL do such a stupid action? NO. I agree with you, up and declaring someone a traitor simply because of a disagreement is wrong, no matter who does it. But rather than say "Its ok because they did it" I am not willing to accept it from either side. Your statement was addressed to the third person "you" which included me as if we had conspired to run such an ad.
There is a difference between flaming and calling out.
I agree to a point. When a politician's agenda puts the nations interest at stake, I consider that on the brink of treason. HOWEVER LET US NOT JUSTIFY THE AD BY POINTING FINGERS.
Right. Sure I may or may not be naive, but I do not think that you can judge that. As 13th put it, as soldiers, we dont ask why. As soldiers, we obey. I will do that for this president, the next president, a democrat, a republican, or an independent. Again, while the General would have this same mindset, his duty extends to what is best for his forces, the mission, and the country. In that viewscope, a single presidents reputation is minor, correct? If he lies to protect the reputation of one man, he jeopordizes what he has spent his life protecting.
Do you remember just recently when several Chief Editors and Publishers sent out memos to their news staff and published in the paper their comments about the staffers cheering about Alberto Gonzales resignation? You mean to tell me that the media does not have a left leaning bias huh? I work in the media. I see first hand daily how the machine works. While President Bush "is out stumping for..." Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, "is championing...". Until you have sat in a news room and have seen two stories come in, one positive and one negative about the administration, and the only one ever aired is the negative, you havent seen the bias. I see how facts become incorporated into an agenda. By the way, the biases I see have all been in the direction of left, as are what I see at home. I am not saying go home and watch fox news channel because they are truly fair and balanced, but rather STOP BEING SPOON FED INFORMATION BY THE MEDIA, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. BTW "research" does not include blogs.
NO, the report was written by Patraeus. The public version was EDITED by the Pentagon (thus WH). Again, I highly recommend that you actually watch the report before drawing a conclusion on it.
There is an intelligent answer. You can believe they lied about everything. Florida recounts, 9/11, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, AG's, Rumsfield, yep every one a lie. My friend, you call me naive and yet believe that the men serving our nation have only, ONLY their own interest at heart and will lie to protect themselves, something put out by the Liberal Political Strategists.
Of Kings and pawns...
senojekips
Active member
I feel there is a great danger that truth may suffer when the President asks for a General to give him a report on such a controversial subject, especially when everyone is well and truly aware of what the President wants to hear.
I dunno, but it would be a brave General who crossed his Commander in Chief, even more so if perhaps he had political desires after his retirement. A la Colin Powell.
I am not for a minute saying that this is the case, but it is a distinct possibility.
I dunno, but it would be a brave General who crossed his Commander in Chief, even more so if perhaps he had political desires after his retirement. A la Colin Powell.
I am not for a minute saying that this is the case, but it is a distinct possibility.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Or maybe the partisan split in the government is currently so great that the only hope in hell of him ever getting the resources to do his job is to cooperate with the Republicans entirely. This is possible since one side seems so determined to lose in Iraq.
The Other Guy
Spam King
Last edited by a moderator:
phoenix80
Banned
McCain: MoveOn Should Be 'Thrown Out'
Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 6:47:31 pm PDT
John McCain saying: MoveOn.org should be “thrown out of this country.”
Never happen, of course. It’s a George Soros enterprise.
CBS News captured the exchange by McCain: (51 seconds)
Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 6:47:31 pm PDT
John McCain saying: MoveOn.org should be “thrown out of this country.”
Never happen, of course. It’s a George Soros enterprise.
CBS News captured the exchange by McCain: (51 seconds)
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Screw it. I'm going to Alaska to set up my own country.
senojekips
Active member
Everything can be given a political angle by some. :-D
Quick,...Panic! panic! Run around in circles, there's Reds under the Bed and Islamofascists in every cupboard. We're all gonna die...!!!!
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Now, now, that's not nice.
senojekips
Active member
But it's true I tell ya!!! Really.... and truly. Now would I tell a lie?
<< Just look at that innocent face, more trustworthy than old what's 'is name,... Rumsfeld.
Last edited:
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
You guys brought this one up for discussion (political or not).
Moveon.org has absolutely no control over the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party doesn't own or control moveon.org.
It is the height of the ridiculousnous/sublime - Republicans are blaming Democrats for an advertisement placed by moveon.org (an active political organisation that has a very definite point of view/slant). What makes this so hypocritical, is the proven fact *Swift Boat Vets* did the very same thing with a Democratic candidate as moveon.org has done with a Republican supporter/hand picked commander - where were the Republicans when this happened. The ONLY Democrat who seems to have questioned Gen Petraeus' honesty was Hillary Clinton and even then, she didn't call him a liar nor did she say he betrayed the US ... what she questioned was the completeness of the report (as others have done) - some very important data and information was glossed over or not included.
Was it wrong of moveon.org to have worded the advertisement as they did?
I will leave that to you to answer ... as far as I am concerned, it was enlightening to say the least, to look at was glossed over or not included - I don't know IF it was intentional or just an accidental omission ... after all, Petraeus is a General and supposedly an honorable man.
Moveon.org has absolutely no control over the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party doesn't own or control moveon.org.
It is the height of the ridiculousnous/sublime - Republicans are blaming Democrats for an advertisement placed by moveon.org (an active political organisation that has a very definite point of view/slant). What makes this so hypocritical, is the proven fact *Swift Boat Vets* did the very same thing with a Democratic candidate as moveon.org has done with a Republican supporter/hand picked commander - where were the Republicans when this happened. The ONLY Democrat who seems to have questioned Gen Petraeus' honesty was Hillary Clinton and even then, she didn't call him a liar nor did she say he betrayed the US ... what she questioned was the completeness of the report (as others have done) - some very important data and information was glossed over or not included.
Was it wrong of moveon.org to have worded the advertisement as they did?
I will leave that to you to answer ... as far as I am concerned, it was enlightening to say the least, to look at was glossed over or not included - I don't know IF it was intentional or just an accidental omission ... after all, Petraeus is a General and supposedly an honorable man.
Too d@mn cold. Montana would be more comfortable for you and your family than Alaska. heh
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Have you seen how I behave in cold weather? I'm practically an Eskimo that was accidentally born in South Korea.
The Other Guy
Spam King
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So? What gives? If they're such numbskulls, why not just ignore them the way most people ignore Ann Coulter?
So? What gives? If they're such numbskulls, why not just ignore them the way most people ignore Ann Coulter?
03USMC
Active member
To put a point on the discourse you mention was in relation to your personal attack on a General Officer's integrity and character not the surge.
phoenix80
Banned
You'll get cash rewards if u move to Alaska
One wonders why the left feels entitled to "assasinate" the character of a brave and honest gentleman like Gen. David Petraeus when most of them would never risk their lives for their own country!?