No Congressional approval= no troop movement. (emphasis .)
On Sep 30, 6:37 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > But the president can shift troops from the US to the war zone which is > why the commanders in the field ask the president for more troops. How > he gets them is up to him. > > > > LimboIndo wrote: > > You are correct dick. The point is, without congressional approval > > there is no troop increase. And it is the President who request any > > increase, at the behest of his council of advisors. He does not need > > to talk to CentCom's commander personally in this (not saying it isn't > > a good thing to do). To insinuate that Obama makes these decisions > > arbitrarily is misleading. > > > On Sep 30, 6:05 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Sorry but Congress funds them, the president through the DOD allocates > >> them. > > >> LimboIndo wrote: > > >>> Oh my... > > >>> Nice red herring..You take "getting out as soon as possible" and turn > >>> it into "right or wrong." I did not address the "rightness" or > >>> "wrongness" of either front. Are you suggesting Obama wants troops to > >>> remain in Afghanistan indefinately? He advocated immediate withdrawal > >>> from Iraq to send more troops to bolster the Afghan government against > >>> insurgents. You can't kill "ideals", when would you say "the war is > >>> won"? > > >>>http://hubpages.com/hub/obamaandafghanistanwithdrawal > >>> ---Obama now wants to withdraw from Afghanistan?--- > > >>> "Do you know what that means? When commanders in the war zone request > >>> more troops, guess who they request them from," > > >>> Uh yeah, congress. > > >>> I know that Bush's massive abuse of Executive authority leaves the > >>> uneducated with the notion that the President exercises supreme > >>> authority on all things military, but he doesn't. > > >>>http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/09/16/congress-lot-angst-over-afghanistan/ > > >>> ----The powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl > >>> Levin, surprised some of his colleagues last week with his firmness in > >>> arguing for implementing a stepped-up training program for the Afghan > >>> army before entertaining another troop increase. > > >>> Some of the pushback might be a little bit of posturing, as members > >>> and staffers concede that Democrats are unlikely to block an > >>> additional troop deployment if it is authorized by the Obama > >>> administration and military commanders on the ground.---- > > >>> "bright boy." > > >>> Zebnick, why insult me? I'm a nice guy, and I didn't insult you > >>> personally. I shall refrain from my usual behavior and turn the other > >>> cheek... > > >>> For now. > > >>> On Sep 29, 11:06 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> To refresh your memory one of the keystones of Obama's campaign >was > >>>>> getting us out of Iraq/Afghanistan as soon as possible. > > >>>> Refresh your own memory. Obama opined that Iraq was the wrong war and > >>>> that Afghanistan is the war we should be fighting. He said it many > >>>> times. I guess you missed it. > > >>>>> Obama is not a General, are you suggesting he should be telling >the > >>>>> Generals what to do? > > >>>> Obama is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Do you know what that means? When > >>>> commanders in the war zone request more troops, guess who they request > >>>> them from, bright boy. Do you even listen to the news? > > >>>> On Sep 29, 6:07 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> What exactly is "the issue" that is at hand? The fact that Obama > >>>>> doesn't talk to his Generals on the ground? To refresh your memory one > >>>>> of the keystones of Obama's campaign was getting us out of Iraq/ > >>>>> Afghanistan as soon as possible. He doesn't want to "win" the war, he > >>>>> wants the troops out. It doesn't take a daily briefing to say "don't > >>>>> get more troops killed, hunker down until we get you home." > > >>>>> What civil policies could Obama advocate that would impact the > >>>>> Generals "on the ground?" What could our President do stateside that > >>>>> would require 'detailed information" about the war? Obama is not a > >>>>> General, are you suggesting he should be telling the Generals what to > >>>>> do? > > >>>>> Note* This reply was not directed at you Hollywood, you just happened > >>>>> to be last post. > > >>>>> On Sep 29, 4:47 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> How long do you think you can avoid the issue at hand by questioning > >>>>>> the definition of every other word? > > >>>>>> On Sep 29, 4:18 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>> Zeb, > > >>>>>>> Guess that all depends on how you might wish to define "intimately, > >>>>>>> now wouldn't it? > > >>>>>>> On Sep 29, 10:28 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Its probably better for the President to be intimately involved with > >>>>>>>> the war in Afghanistan than it is for him to dally with the Olympics > >>>>>>>> or appearances on Leno and Letterman. > > >>>>>>>> On Sep 28, 8:02 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> jgg, > > >>>>>>>>> Good. A President is NOT micro-managing the on-site CO and letting > >>>>>>>>> him > >>>>>>>>> do his job. This is how it should be. President Obama does not have > >>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> military background, remember? > > >>>>>>>>> On Sep 28, 5:06 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> in 70 days... So much for giving the commander a direct > >>>>>>>>>> uncensored > >>>>>>>>>> access to the President... Seems to me, a leader would want to > >>>>>>>>>> direct communication with such a key commander in Afghanistan... > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/sep/28/us-comm... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> VTC [video teleconference]," Gen. Stanley McChrystal told CBS > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sunday. > > >>>>>>>>>> "You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?" Mr. Martin followed up. > > >>>>>>>>>> "That is correct," the general replied.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
