>Uh yeah, congress. The only part of that comment that is accurate it the "uh." Its the President's decision.
>I know that Bush's massive abuse of Executive authority You are clueless and have little or no knowledge of history. >Democrats are unlikely to block an additional troop deployment if it >is >authorized by the Obama "AUTHORIZED" by whom??? Your own post contradicts you. On Sep 30, 6:47 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> 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 - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
