English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Are they trying to mislead people into thinking they are active colonel's who have specific knowledge of Intel?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070319094650AA35PIx&r=w#NbUvWzS8UDUDlxhJv65V
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich

2007-03-19 06:02:43 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

20 answers

Simple, as long as these colonels are saying EXACTLY how it is that they feel about our valiant efforts in Iraq, then they are experts. Do you think that if one of these colonels actually support the War on Terror, that liberals would believe them or simply call them talking heads for Bush? And to think .... Republicans have the nerve to call liberals "flip-flopper's". Peace, my fellow PROUD American!

2007-03-19 07:08:33 · answer #1 · answered by MaHaa 4 · 0 2

I'm not a liberal, but I used to work with a Colonel who retired in 1994 and still has direct ties to the Pentagon. Very Republican; he had a picture of him and Colin Powell in his office. He graduated from West Point with many famous names. I still keep in contact with him for obvious reasons. Believe me, my Colonel friend still knows what is going on at the Pentagon. Why should I believe that this Colonel in question has no such connections?

I never had to use that connection while my husband was in (except for advice while he was in the retirement process) but it was comforting knowing I had it. My husband always thought it was funny that I had better connections than his CO or Battalion brass did. And neither one of us ever said a word about it to anyone.

2007-03-19 13:11:22 · answer #2 · answered by retired military wife 5 · 4 0

Strange question coming from a Bush supporter. He was so desperate he asked his dad's old retired military advisors for help, did you forget about that? They didn't tell him what he wanted to hear any more than the current generals on the ground in Iraq. So he ignored them and got rid of those on the ground who disagreed with him too. I guess he thought at one time that experience meant something. I still think it does, but it didn't work out so well for him. He expected "yes" men and he got truth and reality-based critical thinking, something he doesn't cotton to a whole lot.

2007-03-19 13:41:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

maybe a person who has made there lifelong career the military might have more insight into waging a war than somebody who ducked combat because his daddy had enough political pull. Maybe men that know the chain of command requires subordinates to follow orders know more than a man that was disciplined for failing to follow one. Maybe being 15 years out of the loop still makes them a better source of knowledge than the man in the oval office. Or maybe it's not that they are more qualified but rather GWB is so very unqualified.

2007-03-19 13:14:45 · answer #4 · answered by Alan S 7 · 7 0

NEXT YOU'LL BE CLAIMING THAT KISSINGER IS A LIBERAL TOO!


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c2daddb2-7822-11db-be09-0000779e2340.html
Kissinger says U.S. victory in Iraq is impossible Sun Nov 19, 3:29 PM ET



LONDON (Reuters) - Former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger said on Sunday it was impossible for the United States to achieve military victory in Iraq. "If you mean by clear military victory an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control ... I don't believe that is possible," he said.

"An international conference should be called that involves neighbors (of Iraq), perhaps the permanent members of the Security Council and countries that have a major interest in the outcome, like India and Pakistan," he told BBC television.

Kissinger was President Richard Nixon's national security adviser and then secretary of state during the Vietnam War. U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are said to often consult him as an adviser.

Bush has called for "fresh perspectives" on U.S policy in Iraq amid unrelenting violence there.

2007-03-19 13:12:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

Well,why do so many conservatives think a man who last Secretary of State 30 years ago has any relevancy in today's world?

Is he trying to mislead people into thinking he's anything other than a relic of the Cold War?

2007-03-19 13:08:43 · answer #6 · answered by Zapatta McFrench 5 · 5 1

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that he has a tad bit more knowledge on the subject than you do, sport. Call it a hunch... :-) By the way, let's hear your dismissal of Republican Senator Chuck Hagel and the late Gerald Ford while we're at it. More examples of people who didn't have the benefit of your guiding light, I suppose?

2007-03-19 13:11:33 · answer #7 · answered by David 7 · 6 0

Why do you think this failed administration is an authority on Iraq?

Sounds like you're the one doing the "misleading". IF Murtha was a Republican you'd savor every word.If Pelosi were a Republican you'd do some silly dance that "Republicans are pro-woman", etc.

2007-03-19 13:18:30 · answer #8 · answered by Da Man 3 · 5 1

Let me guess, you think Hannity's opinion should garner more respect that a retired Colonel's right?

2007-03-19 13:30:57 · answer #9 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 3 0

Yah although I obviousely respect the opinion of any current or retired colonel's and generals, only the ones on the floor right now have the proper intel to make any real comments on the situation. I think they should just shut the f*ck up and enjoy their military pension and let Petrayas or however you spell his name do his job.

2007-03-19 13:19:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 5

fedest.com, questions and answers