Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, I do. Because the principle of civilian control of the military is important,
|
You reading comprehension is diminishing again. Civilian control of the military has nothing to do with Congress
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop and if the military gets sucked into fighting George Bush's fights because he is too weak to fight them himself, we'll all lose.
|
Depends on the fight. If they are fighting the good fight (a fight for a policy that is the best interest of US security), and Bush can't carry the water anymore but the military picks it up then that is good for all of us.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop the ridiculousness of your position is illustrated by the fact that the Senator in question is John Warner, a Republican who is about the most respected Senator on military issues. People generally assume that he speaks for the services.
|
The ridiculousness of your position is that people may assume Warner speaks for the military, but in this case they are clearly wrong because the military disagreed with him. So in this case he clearly is not speaking for the military.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And we all know that Bush selects which generals speak for him.
|
If memory serves, Patreus was voted in unanimously and congress asked for a report from him in September. So Congress chose this general, now that are just upset because he is not telling them what they want to hear.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop When the joint chiefs disagreed with his plans for Iraq, he went and found Petraeus.
|
Cite (and please make it a primary source; otherwise it is not really a cite.
Quote:
|
[The generals who advocate for his policies are those who agree with him. The others don't give press conferences.
|
Again, the Senate unanimously endorsed Patreus and asked for a report in September. They chose the man in this case.
