O.T. says:

June 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

fyi
One Really Good Reason to Vote for McCain

Mr. McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee, has staked his candidacy on the promise that American troops can bring stability to Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son, who spent seven months patrolling Anbar Province and learned of his father’s New Hampshire victory in January while he was digging a stuck military vehicle out of the mud.

Two of Jimmy’s three older brothers went into the military. Doug McCain, 48, was a Navy pilot. Jack McCain, 21, is to graduate from the Naval Academy next year, raising the chances that his father, if elected, could become the first president since Dwight D. Eisenhower with a son at war.

This should shut up the Chicken-hawk crowd. McCain’s own sons are fighting in Iraq. How’s that for “supporting the troops”?

Cash N. Carey says:

June 19th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

IED casualties are down over 89% since the surge. Franken shows that he doesn’t really want us to continue winning.

By the way O.T., during the past year, Gore’s mansion used 213,210 kWh of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month! I would hate to see how much electricity he would use if he wasn’t an environmentalist.

parthian says:

June 19th, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Well, this election will be about whether we remain in the Iraq Quagmire for another four years or we start withdrawing from our illegal oil occupation.

Iraq just announced that Exxon, Mobil and Shell are all about to be awarded contracts to help develop Iraq’s oil fields—fields they were thrown out of 35 years ago. Regaining access to Iraq’s oil fields was the reason we invaded, is the reason we are tenaciously staying and is the reason we poured so much money into building permanent bases there.

At this point, the evidence is irrefutable, and no historian will ever conclude otherwise. We invaded Iraq for its oil resources, and that’s why Bush and McBush want to stay another hundred years—oil.

What the generals think, want or advise has always been meaningless and is just a smoke screen by Bushco and Bush enablers like the hollow Norm. Bush selects his generals based on if they agree with what he wants to do—that’s how Petraeus enjoyed his meteoric rise to full general, he’s a “cover” for Bush n’ Cheney’s “surge”.

Generals who tell the pinhead Bush what he wants to hear get rewarded, those that don’t get fired. It’s that simple. And then Bush uses the sycophant, yes-man generals to claim “I’m just doin’ what the generals advise!” because virtually all of America lost confidence in anything Bush “decides” years ago. Bush hides behind the gen’rals.

But generals don’t “decide” whether the nation should continue or end a foreign military occupation. That’s a civilian control decision, and ultimately a decision for the voters and citizens in a democracy. And that hasn’t changed since Vietnam, despite what OT might imagine.

parthian says:

June 20th, 2008 at 7:47 am

Well, that’s good that you agree with Franken, OT, and not Norm—who thinks that “the gen’rals” should make the decision whether to withdraw the troops from Iraq, which is ridiculous.

I’m glad to see that you also agree with Franken that Norm is hiding behind our brave gen’rals.

As a national “leader”, Norm is less than worthless. He’s a placeholder and a timeserver. His time should be up, there’s no reason to keep such a doubletalking cipher in office. He doesn’t lead, he calculates.

O.T. says:

June 20th, 2008 at 8:08 am

I think your reading comprehension is failing as I also think it is up to the generals to inform the wh as to the neccessary levels, and to when the troops can start coming back.

O.T. says:

June 20th, 2008 at 8:54 am

deciding how long to “occupy” and determing troop levels needed are two entirely different things.

do not knock petraeus- the guy is a published expert in urban warfare and his strategy is decimating al-quada- they have high-tailed it to iran and pakistan now.

O.T. says:

June 20th, 2008 at 9:03 am

True- if that is the way it has been throughout history, then “bushco” hasn’t done anything wrong- I agree 100% with Parthian.

John E Iacono says:

June 20th, 2008 at 10:41 am

Let’s see if I have it right,

In our government, congress has the decision to declare war or not; the president and the administration carry out that decision. Of late, congress has been more than willing to go along with recommendations of the executive branch, particularly if its majority party also controls the administration, or if the political winds are favorable. Not actually declaring war, which would oblige the commander in chief, provides convenient cover for “after the fact” sniping for political gain.

As the commander in chief, the president commands the generals. And — at least since the time of Lincoln — if he doesn’t like the ones he has he can dismiss them to further the political aims of the war. (He has to be sensitive to political repercussions, though). However, he has always listened to the generals, and very seldom (e.g., Mcclellan,MacArthur) has been willing to override their expertise regarding the conduct of the war. He customarily says, in effect, “Win it for me” and let’s them go at it, because his political fortunes usually rest on their success.

So, it would seem to me, the current scene is typical of our nation’s past experience — authorization, selection of generals, congressional fudging, and paying the political price for relative lack of success. And as usual, people are dying and we are paying for the war by borrowing.

And politicians are all over the map, depending on their ambitions, declaring disaster or victory, good intentions or bad, costs or value of the effort.

The result? Ho hum — anything new lately?