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

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
3) They think that he is trying to do the best he can with the orders he has from his commanding officer, the President. So they continue their efforts to try to get the President to adopt a different strategy.

How is that different from number 1. Are they the same thing:

1) When he comes before the committee and says that he wants these troops that he is lying, and that they have read his mind and know that he really does not want the troops.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
How is that different from number 1. Are they the same thing:

1) When he comes before the committee and says that he wants these troops that he is lying, and that they have read his mind and know that he really does not want the troops.

Of course he wants the troops. In his job, why wouldn't he want more troops?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So that whole business with the Iraq Study Group and the Pentagon's own review and the firing of Rumsfeld and the President's explanation that he's the Decider was all completely irrelevant to the decision to send more troops? All that stuff is happening, but completely coincidentally, at that time the President removes the head of the Central Command and promotes Petraeus as the new head, and completely coincidentally Petreaus then tells him, hey, I have this new strategy that needs some more troops. And it just so happens that what Petreaus has come up with mirrors what the White House was itself coming up with in the wake of the ISG report?

That's what you believe?

Huh.

That is not how I understand how it happened. In any case, if you think that is how it happened, you still seem to be implying you think Patreus is lying. In any case I believe Petreus is telling the truth. Did you watch his testimony? He said under no uncertain terms that he came up with this plan and presented it to the President. He detailed the whole strategy of the new security points etc. How half the troops in Bagdad are used for "force protection" and all the new troops could be used to secure neighborhoods so the surge is greater than it seems on paper etc. He convinced me. If he is the right man for the job why not trust what he is saying and give him what he asks?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of course he wants the troops. In his job, why wouldn't he want more troops?

Then why not give them to him?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
turn this war over to the Generals.

Do you think Patreus is the right man for the job? If you do, what do you think he would do if he didn't have Bush directing him?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you think Patreus is lying when he tells the Senate committee he wants the troops? Do you think he is lying when he says that the plan to secure Iraq with these fifty new security points is his idea? Is he lying when he says he needs these extra troops to secure those nexuses?

I don't think he is lying. But I also am not naive enough to think that he decided on this particular plan on his own.

I have no idea what he would say if he was given full discretion. But that is irrelevant anyway as we don't live in dream-land (i.e. political, as well as fiscal and resource, concerns always influence war planning).

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
What do you think he wants in a perfect world? Do you think in a perfect world he would want less troops? You have to admit that accepting the leader but not accpeting the plan he says he wants is just a pathetic management and policy strategy. If Congress does not like his plan (for whatever reason - because they believe it is not really his, because it is not what he really wants etc) then they should object to him. But to praise him, accept him and say he is the right man for the job, and then question what he requests is borderline insane.

I am surprised that you feel that Congress should be the body choosing which general to send.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
He claims this is his plan. So either he is lying or it really is his plan. Why support his appointment if you think he is lying. Why support his appointment but then question his chosen strategy?

What parameters did Bush and the politicians give at the outset of his planning?

Sheesh. Bush himself says he is the Decider.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
I don't think he is lying. But I also am not naive enough to think that he decided on this particular plan on his own.

I have no idea what he would say if he was given full discretion. But that is irrelevant anyway as we don't live in dream-land (i.e. political, as well as fiscal and resource, concerns always influence war planning).

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?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
I am surprised that you feel that Congress should be the body choosing which general to send.

When did I say that? I just know that all these Senators praised Gates and Patreus, said they are the perfect men for the job, and then when these guys came before these same Senators and laid out a strategy before these Senators, these same Senators second guessed their requests. I see that as crazy.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is not how I understand how it happened. In any case, if you think that is how it happened, you still seem to be implying you think Patreus is lying. In any case I believe Petreus is telling the truth. Did you watch his testimony? He said under no uncertain terms that he came up with this plan and presented it to the President. He detailed the whole strategy of the new security points etc. How half the troops in Bagdad are used for "force protection" and all the new troops could be used to secure neighborhoods so the surge is greater than it seems on paper etc. He convinced me. If he is the right man for the job why not trust what he is saying and give him what he asks?

Spanky, have you ever had to argue (in court or in a negotiation) a point that you personally disagree with, but your boss (e.g. partner) has decided is the right path pursue?

Do you tell the judge, jury, or other side that you don't really agree with your client's strategy but you were told you had to pursue it?

[Adder]

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 don't have any idea if he is the perfect man for the job. I don't know who else is out there. And, moreover, I don't think that I, or frankly Congress should be deciding who is the perfect man for the job. (Incidently, anyone know why his appointment needed Senate confirmation?)

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.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
When did I say that? .

Here:

If Congress does not like his plan (for whatever reason - because they believe it is not really his, because it is not what he really wants etc) then they should object to him.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Spanky, have you ever had to argue (in court or in a negotiation) a point that you personally disagree with, but your boss (e.g. partner) has decided is the right path pursue?

Do you tell the judge, jury, or other side that you don't really agree with your client's strategy but you were told you had to pursue it?

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Here:

This quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Congress does not like his plan (for whatever reason - because they believe it is not really his, because it is not what he really wants etc) then they should object to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does not mean that I think Congress should be able to choose the generals. However, it does say that it make some sense for Congress to object to a man being put into a position, than to say he is the right man for the job but then object to his strategy.