A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you think he is just a yes man for the president, and is an idiot, then I could understand not wanting to give him what he asks for. But if you, like the Senators, think he is the perfect man for the job, then why not give him what he asks for? What possible good could it do to not give him what he asks for?

I'm not sure what you're hoping someone will say.

He doesn't have to be a "yes man" or an "idiot" to be publicly asking for something which is less than he would privately desire. First, he's a soldier. That would be insubordination. Second, if even raising the issue of whether the plan is good/sufficient/workable provides succor to the enemy, how would it look if the man in cahrge of the military operation started things off by saying "I may be able to make this work, but without 50,000 more men, we may be fucked". How would that help?

The fundamental problem is with the ultimate boss and his sidekick. Lots of people don't trust what George and Dick say or do--and since they are the guys in charge, their soldiers--Gates and Petreaus--are not going to contradict them publicly. If they did so, I'd expect that they'd be fired.

You're basically asking why the senate would get into a political/policy fight with the president via proxy. What the hell else are they supposed to do? Just sit down and shut up, because the Decider says so? Isn't that how democracy breaks down?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
And you know that they are really doing nothing to not give him what he asks for. The Decider, as usual, will simply ignore the criticism, and Congress will not cut the purse strings.

Yes. But Ty said that the resolution was there to encourage the President to adopt a better strategy. In other words, a better strategy would be to not give Patreus what he asked for. How could that possibly be a better strategy if you think Patreus is the right man for the job.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
I'm not sure what you're hoping someone will say.

He doesn't have to be a "yes man" or an "idiot" to be publicly asking for something which is less than he would privately desire. First, he's a soldier. That would be insubordination.

He does not have to lie. If it was the Presidents plan, he could say that it was the President's plan and that he supports it. But he did not say that. He said it was his plan in no uncertain terms. He said he has a strategy that he thinks will work and has asked for more men to carry out that strategy.

Originally posted by Cletus Miller Second, if even raising the issue of whether the plan is good/sufficient/workable provides succor to the enemy, how would it look if the man in cahrge of the military operation started things off by saying "I may be able to make this work, but without 50,000 more men, we may be fucked".

Working under the assumption that everyone wants us to succeed (which Ty claims is the case) then if Patreus think that a 20,000 man surge increases our chances of success, and you think he is the right man for the job, then what possible reason could there be not to give him what he wants?

Originally posted by Cletus Miller The fundamental problem is with the ultimate boss and his sidekick. Lots of people don't trust what George and Dick say or do--and since they are the guys in charge, their soldiers--Gates and Petreaus--are not going to contradict them publicly. If they did so, I'd expect that they'd be fired.

There is a huge difference between contradicting them and claiming a plan is yours and you think it is the best chance of success. He took full responsiblity for the plan. He did not have to do that. For him to do that, and then the same men that praised him, to undercut him is incredibly irresponsible.

Originally posted by Cletus Miller You're basically asking why the senate would get into a political/policy fight with the president via proxy. What the hell else are they supposed to do? Just sit down and shut up, because the Decider says so? Isn't that how democracy breaks down?

If they question the policy, then they should question the man that says he is responsible for it. If Patreus says it is his plan, then they should have the cajones to say that he is the wrong man for the job because his plan sucks. But to praise him, say he is the right man for the job, and then undercut his plan with a resolution is beyond irresponsible.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't sit there and Lie and say that my clients strategy was my strategy. If I didn't tell my client to take a certain course of action, I don't stand up to the Jury and say that I did. There is a big difference between saying that this is the President's plan and I support it, with this is my plan that I gave to the President and he approved it. Huge difference.

The only difference is that no one would ask you whether it was your idea or your clients. He doesn't get that luxury. So he has two choices (1) undermind his commander in chief, or (2) take ownership of the plan.

This is the perversion of politics. It is the same perversion that lead the Senators to praise him and reject the plan.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
How could that possibly be a better strategy if you think Patreus is the right man for the job.

Is he the Pope?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
The only difference is that no one would ask you whether it was your idea or your clients. He doesn't get that luxury. So he has two choices (1) undermind his commander in chief, or (2) take ownership of the plan.

He could have said that this was the plan given to him by the joint chiefs or the Secretary of Defense or some committee. But he said that he created it and not the president. He could have even said he worked on it with the president. But he took full ownership of it. If this is not his plan, then he is flat out lying. There is no getting around that.

Originally posted by Adder This is the perversion of politics. It is the same perversion that lead the Senators to praise him and reject the plan.

If it is actually his plan as he claimed that it is his plan, then there is no perversion. The only perversion is on the part of the Senators that praised him, supported his appointment, and then pass a resolution undercutting his plan. That is putting personal politics above the national interest. If they really believed what they were saying they would have called for Patreus's replacement in their resolution.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Is he the Pope?

How could he possibly have the right man for the job, if after all the time he has spent in Iraq he comes up with a plan that is so obvioulsy flawed, that people that have not been stationed there can all easily see its flaws.

This is not one of many strategies he has proposed. He has flat out said that this strategy is the best chance for success. How can he be the right man for the job but completely wrong about his strategy?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did you watch his testimony?

No. So I have no view about whether he is lying or not.

If he is the right man for the job why not trust what he is saying and give him what he asks?

Is that not what is happening?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
He could have said that this was the plan given to him by the joint chiefs or the Secretary of Defense or some committee. But he said that he created it and not the president. He could have even said he worked on it with the president. But he took full ownership of it. If this is not his plan, then he is flat out lying. There is no getting around that.

Are you always this literal? Politics is not a literal sport.

And, again, what parameters was he given? Do you honestly think he sat down and said, "Gee, if I could have anything in the world to win this, I wouldn't 50K or 100K or 300K more troops, what really would like, though, is 21k?"

No. He, and no doubt others (i.e. George and Dick), looked around at what was feasable, and he worked with what he had.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
How could he possibly have the right man for the job, if after all the time he has spent in Iraq he comes up with a plan that is so obvioulsy flawed, that people that have not been stationed there can all easily see its flaws.

Okay, I see. He isn't infallible. He is just all powerful.

How can he be the right man for the job but completely wrong about his strategy?

Because we live in the real world. Where things other than the identity of the general enter into decision making.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Are you always this literal? Politics is not a literal sport.

And, again, what parameters was he given? Do you honestly think he sat down and said, "Gee, if I could have anything in the world to win this, I wouldn't 50K or 100K or 300K more troops, what really would like, though, is 21k?"

No. He, and no doubt others (i.e. George and Dick), looked around at what was feasable, and he worked with what he had.

This is not just politics; it is national security policy with incredibly high stakes. Do you really think this guy is so shallow, self serving and a wimp that he would ask to put 20,000 more solders in harms way if he did not think it was in the national interest of this country.

He is saying that twenty thousand more troops will increase our chance of success in Iraq. I believe him and I think it is crazy to question whether he believes what he is saying. Especially if you think he is the right man for the job. If he is the right man for the job, why would he claim ownership of a plan that he does not support? If that is the case, then he is not the right man for the job.

You can not have confidence in this mans abilities and at the same time think he is so blatantly lying to the Senate. There was no grey area in his testimony. His testimony was literal and unmistakable. He laid out a strategy for the restoration of security in Bagdad and an integral part of the strategy was twenty more thousand troops stationed in Bagdad.

You can't have it both ways. Either you think he is the right man for the job and you support his strategy, or you don't think he is the right man for the job. Any other position is political grandstanding that is sacrificing the security of this nation for personal political gain. It is that simple.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Okay, I see. He isn't infallible. He is just all powerful.

How can you possibly argue that he is the right man for the job but the main strategy he is proposing is instrinsically flawed. I am not sayig he is all powerful or infallible, I am just saying that is ridiculous to say he is the right man for the job but then question either his strategy or his ethics.

Originally posted by Adder

Because we live in the real world. Where things other than the identity of the general enter into decision making.

What does that mean. What you are saying is that these Senators know better what military strategy is good for Iraq than the military man that they believe is best suited for the job. That is the height of ignorant hubris.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is not just politics; it is national security policy with incredibly high stakes. Do you really think this guy is so shallow, self serving and a wimp that he would ask to put 20,000 more solders in harms way if he did not think it was in the national interest of this country.

It is not his job to decide what our strategy in Iraq should be. That's a political question (not in the partisan sense of the word).

Oddly, President Bush seems to understand this better than you do.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But I'm sure it's hard for you to imagine that Democrats would put the national interest ahead of their own partisan ends, since the Republicans never tried in the last several years.

That's not fair. The president's Iraq policy was not designed or entered into for partisan ends.

In fact, it was a huge political risk (much bigger than they realized) which has now come home to roost in large part because they fouled it up almost beyond their wildest fears.

That is not to say that the Adminsitration and the GOP haven't tried hard to and succeeded in using the war and national security issues for their own political gain -- to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. However, the President's Iraq policy -- including particularly the handling and execution post-invasion was anything but poll-driven.

(See Woodward's book depicting the President resolutely staying the course for two years as bad news mounted and his numbers dropped.)

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is not just politics; it is national security policy with incredibly high stakes. Do you really think this guy is so shallow, self serving and a wimp that he would ask to put 20,000 more solders in harms way if he did not think it was in the national interest of this country.

Who said he didn't think it was in the national interests? Of course he will take what he can get.

And of course it is politics.

You can't have it both ways. Either you think he is the right man for the job and you support his strategy, or you don't think he is the right man for the job.

Is everything in your world a false dichotomy?

Any other position is political grandstanding

Right. That is what I have been saying. And, as Ty said, it is also an attempt to try to influence the Decider to think up a new policy.

that is sacrificing the security of this nation

What? How is questioning the Decider's policy decisions sacrificing the security of this nation? Are we back to Slave's mythical succor?

The troops are going Spanky. Some people think that won't help. They telling the Decider that. He will ignore it.

It is that simple.

For future reference. If you ever think it is necessary to type the words "it is that simple," it probably isn't that simple