I would like to see a citation for that remark. ---------------- http://tinyurl.com/35g3o2n
You know, what frustrated me is that from my perspective it looked like that we were taking casualties without fighting back because our commanders are loath to talk about, you know, our battlefield victories. Listen here: http://cdn.washingtonpost.com/media/nation/warwithin/clip1.mp3 He'd ask about kills and captures to "find out whether or not we're fighting back. Because the perception is that our guys are dying and [the insurgents are] not. Because we don't put out our numbers. We don't have a tally. … [I]f I'm sitting here watching the casualties come in, I'd at least like to know whether or not our soldiers are fighting." On Jun 25, 2:22 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like to see a citation for that remark. > > In the case of Obama we already have seen his contempt for the men. > Witness his reaction to the Fort Hood massacre or the way he treated his > generals. He expected them to fight a war; meantime the wanted his > date nights and golf games and flying around the country fund raising > and eating his waffle. The military really stood high in his regard. > > In the case of Bush, he and rummy and Cheney made many visits to Walter > Reed to see the men without reporters around and had the men visit the > WH. He even made time to run with a guy who had an artificial limb. > The attitude of the presidents to the military were and are totally > different. Bush supported them and appreciated them. Obama may just > barely tolerate them. > > > > euwe wrote: > > Never saw any contempt for the men by bush > > ------- > > it could be as easily manufactured out of his disgraceful actions as > > yours towards Obama. He doubted whether our troops were actually > > "fighting back." > > > On Jun 25, 2:07 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Never saw any contempt for the men by bush nor did we see any contempt > >> for Bush by the men. But that is evading the question of the contempt > >> for the men by this president. He is doing nothing to get us out of > >> Bush's wars responsibly and safely. In fact, he has amped up the wars > >> by invading our ally without permission with his drones and all the > >> while he occupies an office that the men are supposed to respect. They > >> may respect the office but how can you expect the men to respect the man > >> who will not respect them. Makes no sense but then most of your ad > >> hominens make so sense nor have anything to do with the subject. BTW > >> how is the closing of Gitmo and the leaving Iraq going. That was > >> supposed to happen within a year and it has gone on for almost 2 so far > >> with no end in sight. Only thing he has talked about is moving the > >> Gitmo people to other facilities here where the people do not want them > >> and that was dropped also. The man is flailing around and has not a > >> clue and here you are trying to tell us that he is using his super duper > >> powers to get us out of the wars responsibly and safely. He has not > >> done anything responsibly in his whole career and you think he is doing > >> this responsibly? That is really funny! > > >> euwe wrote: > > >>> Contempt for Bush isn't ok, though, right? Even though he was an > >>> ignoramus who got men killed because of his ignorance, arrogance and > >>> incompetence. But Obama, because he's trying to get us out of Bush's > >>> wars responsibly and safely, gets no respect, even for the office he > >>> occupies, and what it represents. > > >>> On Jun 25, 1:49 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> And that pertains to the story the reporter wrote in what way? In the > >>>> first place McChrystal had not mocked Obama and the civilian > >>>> leadeership. That was all in the mind of the reporter. What this does > >>>> is leave it up to the reporters to have the final say on what they can > >>>> say and do to the senior military. Ethics and truth telling have > >>>> nothing to do with it. A reporter can just make shit up and bring down > >>>> the senior military. The other point is that McChrystal's contempt and > >>>> his remarks were not McChrystal's contempt and McChrystal's remarks so > >>>> the whole basis for what Gates said is false to begin with. > > >>>> The contempt for this particular CIC by the uniformed leadership would > >>>> be totally understandable since we already know his contempt for them. > >>>> This is like when Bubba was in office and so many top military retired > >>>> and we already know Bubba's contempt for the military. Hillary's > >>>> too. She tried to make the senior military assigned to the WH come to > >>>> work in civilian clothes because she did not want to see uniforms around > >>>> the joint. And she said this to the top AF general assigned to the > >>>> WH. Now we have a current administration where the commanding general > >>>> in a war has to wait 4 months to go over the policies and even then the > >>>> president grants him a 20 minute slot and then goes on to Paris to have > >>>> a "Date Night" with FLOTUS. That rather tells you how the president > >>>> regards the military and the men and women fighting for the country. I > >>>> would have contempt for him under the circumstances as well. > > >>>> euwe wrote: > > >>>>> Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, left for > >>>>> Afghanistan yesterday to ease the concerns of field commanders over > >>>>> Obama's sacking of McChrystal and Petraeus' succession. > > >>>>> Earlier, Mullen joined Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at the > >>>>> Pentagon in agreeing that McChrystal had to go after mocking Obama and > >>>>> the civilian leadership in a stunning Rolling Stone magazine article. > > >>>>> "Honestly, when I first read it, I was nearly sick," Mullen said of > >>>>> the magazine piece. "I couldn't believe it." > > >>>>> Gates said that McChrystal's remarks made his position "untenable." > >>>>> But he stressed that McChrystal's contempt for the chain of command > >>>>> was not typical of the top uniformed leadership. > > >>>>> "This is an anomaly, not a systemic problem," Gates said. > > >>>>> Read more: > >>>>>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/06/25/2010-06-25_uh_abo... > > >>>>> On Jun 25, 4:26 am, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> I guess the guy never heard of chain of command, and the phrase > >>>>>> "officer and a gentleman." > > >>>>>> On Jun 24, 12:15 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/24/2010-06-24_mcchry... > > >>>>>>> Just what did the reporter think would happen when a touchy egomaniac > >>>>>>> like Bambi read what the reporter wrote. Guess he didn't think at > >>>>>>> all. -- 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.
