Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
The pertinent parts are:
The Financial Times should understand that civilian control of the military, means the president and the secretary of defense, civilians, control the military. Do you really want to quote an article that says a General should not disagree with a Senator. A Senator who is pandering to get votes and a General who really knows what is going on? If the General had said we were losing the war, no liberals would have a problem with it. He just had the temerity to question that we are not making progress so the liberals are running amuck.
Is this a bad thing? You liberals were saying that the General can’t be trusted because he is being spoon fed by the administration. But now this statement admits that the General can tell the truth. Isn’t that what we want. Isn’t this what you liberals want all along. A General who is not afraid to state it like it is. Oh wait, that is only if the General has something negative to say. If he has something positive to say – it is a threat to our constitution. Are you really worried that General Petraeus is going to become the next dictator of the United States? Congress voted this guy in unanimously, and now they don’t like what he has to say. And to say that he is only feeding them Bush’s propaganda is calling him a liar. When a general of the army swears that he is telling the truth I tend to believe him over any Democrat in Congress trying to score political points. Iraq could be completely pacified and the Democrats would still find a way to say that Petraeus was lying and things were still a mess. They don’t want us to succeed because that would be bad for their political futures. It is that simple.
|
i basically said the same thing to him, just shorter and snide. Ty and his toadies all told me it is becasue I can't read well. Prepare for that.
