Zeb,

Well, it just MIGHT have given you some vauge notion of how the chain
of command works and it's importance in the military culture. Now
wouldn't it dumbass?



On Oct 3, 11:03 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote:
> Holly,
>  You're just plain butt assed stupid. Whether or not I served in the
> military has nothing what so fucking ever to do with the President
> getting input from his commanders in the field to make decisions. But
> keep talking. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper into your
> moron's abyss.
>
> On Oct 3, 5:11 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Zeb,
>
> > Jeez, but you're an idiot. Have you ever actually served in the U.S.
> > military? You have any idea what you're talking about?
>
> > On Oct 3, 3:47 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, yer right bright boy! Why would the commander in chief want to
> > > speak to the commander who is directly in charge of theater of
> > > operation that he has to make a crucial decision about? LOL! Second
> > > hand information is much better, huh? You really don't know when to
> > > quit.
>
> > > On Oct 3, 4:31 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Zeb,
>
> > > > Yeah sure, go ask anyone that has actually served in the military what
> > > > "flimsy minutia" the chain of command it. Dumbass.
>
> > > > The POTUS can ALSO NOT speak to anyone under his command if he chooses
> > > > and instead speak to the person through the chain of command.
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 1:53 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > >there is a system (called Chain of Command)
>
> > > > > Why do you libs try to run smokescreens behind this flimsy minutia. It
> > > > > is so transparent. The "chain of command" is not something that
> > > > > prevents communication between command levels. It is a protocol.
> > > > > Nothing more. The President can AND DOES speak to anyone and at any
> > > > > level in the military he chooses to.
>
> > > > > On Oct 2, 11:15 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > No one is saying it wouldn't be better if he talked to McCrystal 
> > > > > > more.
> > > > > > My point is, there is a system (called Chain of Command) in which
> > > > > > McCrystal does not report directly to Obama. He is not "not doing 
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > he is supposed to" by not talking to him directly. And to imply he 
> > > > > > is,
> > > > > > would be false.
>
> > > > > > On Oct 2, 3:46 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Is 45 minutes with the President's time the right amount in 6 
> > > > > > > months
> > > > > > > for the top general???  Less time than what he spent on trying to 
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > the Olympics...
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 2, 2:44 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Zeb,
>
> > > > > > > > He made his point in the very first sentance of his post. What 
> > > > > > > > was it
> > > > > > > > you don't understand?
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 8:48 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > SO? WHats your point?
>
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 11:08 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > These are isolated incedents. Not permanent expansion to 
> > > > > > > > > > executive
> > > > > > > > > > power. You are comparing apples and oranges.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "Cheney's office has taken the lead in challenging many of 
> > > > > > > > > > these laws,
> > > > > > > > > > officials said, because they run counter to an expansive 
> > > > > > > > > > view of
> > > > > > > > > > executive power that Cheney has cultivated for the past 30 
> > > > > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > > > > Under the theory, Congress cannot pass laws that place 
> > > > > > > > > > restrictions or
> > > > > > > > > > requirements on how the president runs the military and spy 
> > > > > > > > > > agencies.
> > > > > > > > > > Nor can it pass laws giving government officials the power 
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > responsibility to act independently of the president.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "Mainstream legal scholars across the political spectrum 
> > > > > > > > > > reject
> > > > > > > > > > Cheney's expansive view of presidential authority, saying 
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Constitution gives Congress the power to make all rules and
> > > > > > > > > > regulations for the military and the executive branch and 
> > > > > > > > > > the Supreme
> > > > > > > > > > Court has consistently upheld laws giving bureaucrats and 
> > > > > > > > > > certain
> > > > > > > > > > prosecutors the power to act independently of the 
> > > > > > > > > > president."
>
> > > > > > > > > > After an unprecedented number of signing statements, the 
> > > > > > > > > > White House
> > > > > > > > > > laid low for a while.
>
> > > > > > > > > > But Cheney finally couldn't contain himself any longer, 
> > > > > > > > > > apparently.
> > > > > > > > > > And here's the first Bush signing statement in three months 
> > > > > > > > > > , quietly
> > > > > > > > > > filed away two weeks ago in response to the deeply 
> > > > > > > > > > threatening Coastal
> > > > > > > > > > Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 .
>
> > > > > > > > > > The law, sponsored by five Republicans from both houses, 
> > > > > > > > > > and passed by
> > > > > > > > > > unanimous consent in the Senate and by voice vote in the 
> > > > > > > > > > House,
> > > > > > > > > > directs the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress 
> > > > > > > > > > on the
> > > > > > > > > > creation of digital maps of the John H. Chafee Coastal 
> > > > > > > > > > Barrier
> > > > > > > > > > Resources System units and other protected areas under a 
> > > > > > > > > > digital
> > > > > > > > > > mapping pilot project.
>
> > > > > > > > > > But here's what Bush's signing statement says: "Section 
> > > > > > > > > > 3(c)(2) and
> > > > > > > > > > section 4(c)(3)(C) and (D) purport to require executive 
> > > > > > > > > > branch
> > > > > > > > > > officials to submit legislative recommendations to the 
> > > > > > > > > > Congress. The
> > > > > > > > > > executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner 
> > > > > > > > > > consistent
> > > > > > > > > > with the Constitution's commitment to the President of the 
> > > > > > > > > > authority
> > > > > > > > > > to submit for the consideration of the Congress such 
> > > > > > > > > > measures as the
> > > > > > > > > > President judges necessary and expedient and to supervise 
> > > > > > > > > > the unitary
> > > > > > > > > > executive branch."
>
> > > > > > > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/06/BL200606...
>
> > > > > > > > > >http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-05-power-play_x.htm
> > > > > > > > > > Congress, courts push back against Bush's assertions of 
> > > > > > > > > > presidential
> > > > > > > > > > power
>
> > > > > > > > > > etc etc
>
> > > > > > > > > > And in response to your second statement, yes they have 
> > > > > > > > > > tried it
> > > > > > > > > > before.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Bush: Congress can't stop troop 
> > > > > > > > > > increasehttp://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/14/bush.60.minutes/
> > > > > > > > > > WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress cannot reverse last week's 
> > > > > > > > > > decision to
> > > > > > > > > > send 21,000 more troops to Iraq, President Bush said in an 
> > > > > > > > > > interview
> > > > > > > > > > intended to rally popular support for his plan.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "Frankly, that's not their responsibility," Bush said in an 
> > > > > > > > > > interview
> > > > > > > > > > on the CBS News program "60 Minutes," which aired Sunday.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "It's my responsibility to put forward the plan that I 
> > > > > > > > > > think will
> > > > > > > > > > succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, 
> > > > > > > > > > they better
> > > > > > > > > > explain to the American people and the soldiers why their 
> > > > > > > > > > plan will
> > > > > > > > > > succeed," the president said.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Some Democrats, including Massachusetts Sen. Edward 
> > > > > > > > > > Kennedy, have
> > > > > > > > > > called on Congress to block Bush from committing more 
> > > > > > > > > > troops to Iraq,
> > > > > > > > > > either by limiting the number of troops that can be 
> > > > > > > > > > committed or by
> > > > > > > > > > cutting off funds for further deployments. (Watch 
> > > > > > > > > > congressional
> > > > > > > > > > reaction to plan )
>
> > > > > > > > > > Asked if he believes that he, as commander-in-chief of the 
> > > > > > > > > > armed
> > > > > > > > > > forces, has the authority to order troops to Iraq in the 
> > > > > > > > > > face of
> > > > > > > > > > congressional opposition, Bush said, "In this situation, I 
> > > > > > > > > > do, yeah."
>
> > > > > > > > > > "I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing 
> > > > > > > > > > it," he said.
> > > > > > > > > > "But I made my decision, and we're going forward."
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 9:51 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >Are you saying that the powers of the Executive Branch 
> > > > > > > > > > > >did not
> > > > > > > > > > > >increase under President Bush?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Compared to what? Other Presidents? LBJ escalated a war 
> > > > > > > > > > > that got
> > > > > > > > > > > 60,000 of our troops killed. FDR put American citizens of 
> > > > > > > > > > > Japanese
> > > > > > > > > > > descent in internment camps (if I were a liberal I'd call 
> > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > concentration camps). JFK had people like ML King 
> > > > > > > > > > > followed by the FBI.
> > > > > > > > > > > He invaded Cuba. Reagan had a missile fired into 
> > > > > > > > > > > Khadafy's house,
> > > > > > > > > > > killing his daughter. Exactly what "powers" are so much 
> > > > > > > > > > > greater than
> > > > > > > > > > > those I mentioned?
>
> > > > > > > > > > >  >and after all congress (which is also informed by 
> > > > > > > > > > > certain cabinets
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >and committees) must approve these depolyments for them 
> > > > > > > > > > > >to >happen
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Talk about splitting hairs. The only thing congress can 
> > > > > > > > > > > do to stop the
> > > > > > > > > > > President's troop deployments is defund them. That is 
> > > > > > > > > > > political poison
> > > > > > > > > > > as it is seen as being against our own troops. The Dems 
> > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't even
> > > > > > > > > > > do that to Bush, and they fuckin hated him. They'd NEVER 
> > > > > > > > > > > block Obama.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Based on available information and the reality of the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > situation I
> > > > > > > > > > > > think it a misrepresentation to insinuate that the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > President is
> > > > > > > > > > > > somehow not doing his job by not directly conversing 
> > > > > > > > > > > > with troop
> > > > > > > > > > > > commanders.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Well, you'd be wrong in that assessment.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 9:09 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Zebnick,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > My knowledge of history is actually quite 
> > > > > > > > > > > > extensive(although I
> > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't really qualify 2004 as such, perhaps "modern 
> > > > > > > > > > > > history").
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that the powers of the Executive Branch 
> > > > > > > > > > > > did not
> > > > > > > > > > > > increase under President Bush? (yes or no answer, not 
> > > > > > > > > > > > "you are stupid,
> > > > > > > > > > > > you suck, I had sex with your mom type answers)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > And yes the President authorizes troop deployments 
> > > > > > > > > > > > which must be
> > > > > > > > > > > > approved by congress. Now you are splitting hairs. The 
> > > > > > > > > > > > whole premise
> > > > > > > > > > > > of this post is that Obama makes this decisions soley 
> > > > > > > > > > > > so he should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > better informed by lower ranking members "on the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > ground."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > My argument is that Obama does not make these decisions 
> > > > > > > > > > > > arbitrarily.
> > > > > > > > > > > > He has several steps in the CoC before Gen.McCrystal, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > he has councils
> > > > > > > > > > > > of senior officials to advise on
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »- 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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to