If you Dems think that all soldiers are 'yes men' to the president, will you still be in these forums after 08' demonizing military leaders if a Democrat president wins next year?
Think about your logic before you answer...
2007-09-28 07:21:59 · 25 answers · asked by vinny_says_relax 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Anyone notice that not one single Democrat has answered my second question?
2007-09-28 07:32:15 · update #1
There have been no personal, demonizing, attacks on Patraeus. What was being questioned was his cherry picking, obviously at the White House request, of the information he presented to Congress. His own commanding officer, the Admiral, also questioned the validity of the information he presented. After the firing of several other generals by Bush that would obviously not play the game that Bush wanted, is Patraeus just a lap dog of the White House? It seem so. Would I want a Democratic president to be surrounding themselves with nothing but spineless 'yes men'? No. Constructive dialogue and differences of opinion are vital to good management and leadership.
2007-09-28 07:39:35 · answer #1 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's simple, if the truth supports the President, it's a lie. If a lie attacks the President then it's the truth.
The general was unanimously approved by Congress because he was seen as an honest man. Because he did not report a disaster, then the Dems attack him just like they did to with their guy who came back and reported that the surge seemed to be getting things done. Just like they did to Lieberman.
If a soldier tells lies about "atrocities" in Iraq even if he's nowhere near a combat zone, the libs hail his "bravery." Yet the thousands of personnel who do their duty (many of whom reenlist because they believe they're doing the right thing) without complaint and give honest assessments of what's happening get called puppets or worse.
I've served on active duty under Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, & Clinton. I can say the vast majority of the military never felt belittled unless it was by Democrats (remember Pat Schroeder?) like Kerry, Murtha, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Biden.
I understand criticism and criticism is important to finding out how to fix things but the Dems are openly hostile to any action other than surrender. After all, didn't Harry Reid say he wouldn't believe anything the general said BEFORE the testimony?
2007-09-28 09:20:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're actually asking for honesty from a leftist democrat? Hope springs eternal.
The only military types who will be attacked during a democrat presidency are those who refuse to kiss up and tell the public how smart and pro-military the new traitor-in-chief is. Naturally a dem president would make use of that 4 year term blaming Bush for the quagmire and "unexpected, myriad problems and dreadful surprises which make withdrawal from Iraq absolutely impossible over the near term", or "for the foreseeable future", whichever canned, phony patter the pro-terrorist president would choose to employ. Remember slick Willys promise of a middle class tax cut? After being elected, he made that famous, ludicrous speech, claiming he'd "worked harder on this than on anything in his life, but he just couldn't do it". And of course it was due to worse than suspected figures he inherited from the Bush administration. It'll be "deja vue all over again" with the blatant lies regardless who the dem in the White House might be.
You can bet that the behind the scenes hatred and contempt for all things military will continue through a democrat term in office. But it will drive them crazy knowing they can't deliberately underfund the armed services as Willy did since a war is going on. So we'll just have to wait for the inevitable social engineering. Maybe they will refuse new male recruits until women make up 50% of the forces. Or pehaps turn don't ask, don't tell into "try not to pry too too forcefully!
2007-09-28 07:59:54 · answer #3 · answered by bucksbowlbound 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Democrat Congressmen and ladies did no longer unanimously approve the conflict. The Authorization for use of protection stress stress against Iraq decision of 2002 exceeded the domicile 296-133 and the Senate seventy seven-23. The decision gave conflict powers to the President Bush to take out Saddam Hussein. It replaced into according to Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and courses to boost such weapons and alleged ties to 911 between different issues. those products grew to become out to be according to defective or fixed intelligence.
2016-10-09 23:41:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he is a puppet for George Bush. President Bush is the commander and chief of the armed forces. He holds General Petraeus' career is his hands. Therefore we got a less than honest report from General Petraeus. The GSA and Jones reports which were conducted independently, contradict many of the things that are reported by General Petraeus.
2007-09-28 07:27:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
President Bush hasn't given them a date to pull the troops out of Iraq...
And after the recent democrat debate nor did any of their supreme leader wanna-be's.
They're all worked up over that and in a tiz that their own party is selling them short on not providing EXACT (mythical) answers.
2007-09-28 07:44:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
When he was approved it was with the implied condition that he would be entrusted to bring ALL of the information and statistics and assessments of the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Not just cherry-picked info that supports the White House agenda of what they want and how they want things to be perceived about Iraq and our accomplishments and the Iraqi accomplishments in Iraq.
The Congress was not provided with ALL of the facts!
Gen. Petraeus should be the presentation of truth, not political spin by the White House!
2007-09-28 07:36:45 · answer #7 · answered by Kelly B 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Which of the Democrats who voted to confirm General Petraeus have demonized him? Do you have quotes?
2007-09-28 07:32:17 · answer #8 · answered by Terry M 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why, thank you all for answering for the democrats, you have completely explained the question. You folks really have your finger on the pulse of the evildoers...
BTW: this is sarcasm. To those of you who answered this without a slam the democrats slant, this is not directed at you.
2007-09-28 07:28:41 · answer #9 · answered by slykitty62 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It is now and always has been about politics. Nothing gets in the way of their march to the White house.Their attitude toward Iraq was much different in the pre-Bush era.
2007-09-28 07:34:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋