Could Obama have been "played"?

GS78 · Post by **GS78** » Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:48:23

There is a rumor, or rumors that President Obama has been forced into making a decision on troop levels by some unnamed pentagon players. The rumor says that these people leaked tidbits of premature information to the media claiming that Obama was close to deciding to send the troops that General McChrystal had asked for back earlier this year. The consensus is that it may have been Gen.Petreaus..

I hope so.

Post by **zephyp** » Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:44:17

Those generals aint stupid by any stretch. Could be what you heard is true. 30k is a far stretch from what was leaked several days ago. Even though less than what McChrystal wanted 30k will no doubt explode some liberal heads.

frac · Post by **frac** » Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:55:39

And W got grief for finishing up his story time to the kids on 9-11 because of the delay. how long has O had?

Post by **zephyp** » Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:20:25

frac wrote:And W got grief for finishing up his story time to the kids on 9-11 because of the delay. how long has O had?

The only thing W would have accomplished by rushing out of there with hair on fire would have been to cause a panic. He did the right thing. Its why we have a chain of command with people authorized to make certain decisions. obama is obviously playing politics and counting votes for 2012. Which side will do less damage if he alienates them.

SgtBill · Post by **SgtBill** » Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:38:26

The man should not be allowed to make decisions for a Boy Scout Troup and he think's he can do so for our Military Leaders. You don't get to be a General Officer by being stupid.
Bill

GS78 · Post by **GS78** » Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:04:49

You know I often wonder why General Washington didn't insist on making it manditory for the President to have served in the military. I know the principle of the policy, having "civilian control" etc... but when you look at someone like Obama, it makes ya wonder...

... ....

Post by **zephyp** » Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:52:06

Well, after reading the news today about Gates upset about all the leaks looks like there might be merit to this story. Then again, since he's an old spook maybe his outburst was a red herring.

gatlingun6 · Post by **gatlingun6** » Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:19:23

Re: Could Obama have been "played"?

Postby SgtBill » Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:38:26
The man should not be allowed to make decisions for a Boy Scout Troup and he think's he can do so for our Military Leaders. You don't get to be a General Officer by being stupid.
Bill

Sgt Bill: Since there were Generals for and against the initial invasion of Iraq; and Generals for and against the surge in Iraq; and Generals for and against General Petreaus' counterinsurgency strategy, and Generals for and against sending additional forces to Afghanistan; and while we are it there were Generals for and Against going to the Yalu river in Korea, and Generals for and against sending American Forces to capture Berlin ahead of the Russians; and Generals for and against dropping the Atom bomb on Japan; and Generals for and against a first strike on the Soviet Union; and Generals for and against invading Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis. By now you should get the idea.

So Sgt Bill how about you tell us which Generals' advice any Commander in Chief should follow without question. Btw are you hinting that the founding fathers were stupid to allow, good heavens, a civilian to be the Commander in Chief? Maybe you should read a little more military history since it abounds with "stupid" acts and advice from Generals. After all, they are mortal men and women just like you and me. None are infallible. Further, this is War where there are no guarantees, no matter what you do. I for one am thankful that President Obama didn't just rubber stamp a request, and took his time to make a decision. Btw his choices were "Bad, Worse, and Terrible". There are no good options in Afghanistan. The best options were available right after the Soviets were driven out.

In the end if the strategy fails, it's President Obama's ass, or would you accept: Hey it's McChrystal's fault, I gave him what he wanted. Btw it took President Bush 3 years to listen to the Generals who kept saying, actually, from the very beginning, your strategy in Iraq is wrong.

SgtBill · Post by **SgtBill** » Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:02:42

gatlingun6 wrote:Re: Could Obama have been "played"?

Postby SgtBill » Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:38:26
The man should not be allowed to make decisions for a Boy Scout Troup and he think's he can do so for our Military Leaders. You don't get to be a General Officer by being stupid.
Bill

Sgt Bill: Since there were Generals for and against the initial invasion of Iraq; and Generals for and against the surge in Iraq; and Generals for and against General Petreaus' counterinsurgency strategy, and Generals for and against sending additional forces to Afghanistan; and while we are it there were Generals for and Against going to the Yalu river in Korea, and Generals for and against sending American Forces to capture Berlin ahead of the Russians; and Generals for and against dropping the Atom bomb on Japan; and Generals for and against a first strike on the Soviet Union; and Generals for and against invading Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis. By now you should get the idea.

So Sgt Bill how about you tell us which Generals' advice any Commander in Chief should follow without question. Btw are you hinting that the founding fathers were stupid to allow, good heavens, a civilian to be the Commander in Chief? Maybe you should read a little more military history since it abounds with "stupid" acts and advice from Generals. After all, they are mortal men and women just like you and me. None are infallible. Further, this is War where there are no guarantees, no matter what you do. I for one am thankful that President Obama didn't just rubber stamp a request, and took his time to make a decision. Btw his choices were "Bad, Worse, and Terrible". There are no good options in Afghanistan. The best options were available right after the Soviets were driven out.

In the end if the strategy fails, it's President Obama's ass, or would you accept: Hey it's McChrystal's fault, I gave him what he wanted. Btw it took President Bush 3 years to listen to the Generals who kept saying, actually, from the very beginning, your strategy in Iraq is wrong.

So Gatlingun6 how about you tell me where I spoke against any of the Military Generals. What I said was Obama should not make decisions for our military. As far as I know he was not even a Boy Scout but beyond that he has yet to prove that he is even an American Citizen and has the right to be the Commander in Chief. Why is he such a COWARD about releasing his Birth Certificate Etc. I had 9 1/2 years in the Military and was in fact part of the History that you wrote about. Did you play a part in it or just read about it in book's.
Bill

gatlingun6 · Post by **gatlingun6** » Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:03:48

Re: Could Obama have been "played"?

Postby gatlingun6 » Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:19:23
Re: Could Obama have been "played"?

Postby SgtBill » Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:38:26
The man should not be allowed to make decisions for a Boy Scout Troup and he think's he can do so for our Military Leaders. You don't get to be a General Officer by being stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sgt Bill are are you taking back what you said in the line above? You seem to think that Generals should make war decisions. Aside from your obvious rejection of a key principle promulgated by our Constitution, i.e. civilian control of the military, I simply asked which Generals should make War decisions. Were you saying any General other than the President? Or did you have a specific General in mind.

I went on to give you numerous generalities wherein Generals disagreed. Now let me be more specific. General Odierno in Iraq said over and over that we needed more troops. His boss General Casey said repeatedly no we didn't need more troops, that higher numbers would be the wrong course of action. Casey's boss, General Pace also said we didn't need more troops. Admiral Fallon agreed with General Pace, no more troops needed. Further at the time, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld concurred with General Pace and General Casey, no additional troops needed. My point is, you seemed to imply some unanimity among senior officers, read Generals, when historically that has never been the case.

General Curtis LeMay wanted President Truman to first strike the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons in the 50s, and he wanted JFK to conduct a full scale air, land assault on Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis? Other Generals were horrified by Le May's counsel.

My final point was while you don't get to be a General by being stupid, that does not stop one from being incompetent, or making dumb decisions. For example most everyone agrees that General Gonzalez was in no way up to the task of being the military commander in Iraq.

Finally I see no sense in trying to compare military service, if any, that proves exactly nothing. Neither strategy, nor tactics is the exclusive purview of the military, or veterans.

Thank you for your service SgtBill

gatlingun6 · Post by **gatlingun6** » Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:14:46

GS78 read what President Washington had to say about the military, you will know why he didn't recommend that the President be former military. Did you forget that General Washington had to talk his men out of revolting and confronting the civilian leadership of the United States?

President Eisenhower of course was in the military, yet he was the one who warned us, quite accurately, about allowing the influence of the military, industrial complex to rise unchecked.

Historically there is no evidence that President's who served in the military did any better, or worse job than President's who didn't.

Jim

GS78 · Post by **GS78** » Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:46:03

gatlingun6 wrote:GS78 read what President Washington had to say about the military, you will know why he didn't recommend that the President be former military. Did you forget that General Washington had to talk his men out of revolting and confronting the civilian leadership of the United States?

President Eisenhower of course was in the military, yet he was the one who warned us, quite accurately, about allowing the influence of the military, industrial complex to rise unchecked.

Historically there is no evidence that President's who served in the military did any better, or worse job than President's who didn't.

Jim

Yeah ok sport, you need not be so condescending in your posts. We are not trying to re-write history here, unlike some of your likely heros. We are engaging in discussions bewteen like minded Pro- American, mostly ex military men and women who have shed OUR OWN BLOOD for this country. If you have nothing to bring stinging criticism , one would be led to believe you , like your president, have never had any skin in the game.

SgtBill · Post by **SgtBill** » Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:20:12

You still have not answerd the question Gatlingun6, did you play any part in this country's history ? or do you just sit back and read and let other people bleed for you like Obama will do.
Bill

wylde007 · Post by **wylde007** » Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:39:02

Because, once again, the only way to be a patriot is military service to the empire?

Back off the smug self-righteousness just a bit.

I haven't "played a part in this country's history" any more or less than you have. I simply just don't believe that my patriotism (and faith) is well-served by enlisting in the armed forces of a government that enslaves its own people and a country whose rule of law barely resembles the one I (and everyone else) deserves and was promised.

You can thank Lincoln.

Post by **allingeneral** » Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:24:58

I would have to say that there are a great many definitions of the word "Patriot". One of the simplest to see is that of someone who has served in the Armed Forces - By the many sacrifices that are undertaken by servicemembers - not just losses of life, but separation from family, injuries and other difficulties that are incurred due to lengthy deployments and the general restrictions that are placed upon the free lives of those who serve our country in uniform.

It is very easy for servicemembers and former servicemembers to define patriotism in this way. Many who have never been in the service also see this definition, but they don't really understand it to the full extent that it is.

Now, that being said - I think that anyone who loves our country and is active in the shaping of our country around the documents that were first authored by our Forefathers can be considered a patriot, and I do not reserve the definition of patriot for those who have served in uniform, but for anyone who upholds the fundamental ideals written in our founding documents and helps to move our country forward into the future with God and Country in their hearts.

0007dad · Post by **0007dad** » Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:27:59

Could Obama have been "played"?

Yes but not as much as we are.

wylde007 · Post by **wylde007** » Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:46:04

Make no mistake, I have little compunction, qualms and no reservation about giving up my life to defend myself, my family and my rights. I have even less in taking another's to accomplish the same.

I just don't believe that imperial expeditions constitute the same thing as defending the Constitution.

Yes but not as much as we are.

Ain't that the truth.

gatlingun6 · Post by **gatlingun6** » Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:14:38

Sgt Bill and G78:
Every American has played a part in the nation's history!
So now we have to count Purple Hearts? Do you mean to say that would elevate my point of view? I assume everyone here is pro-American, that includes those who served in the armed forces, and those who didn't. In our all volunteer military the vast majority of eligible Americans elect not serve. Knowing only that fact, I can't conclude that they are any less pro-American than myself or anyone else.

Pro-American also includes those with whom I disagree. Agreeing to disagree is as American as can be. Where would the fun be in these posts if the reply was always, "yep, I agree". I have not always succeeded, but I try mightily to not question another American's patriotism because I disagree with their view on something. If I do please call me on it.

As far as I can tell who served and who didn't was not relevant to the initial topic. If you perceived condescension in my post, I apologize since that was not what I intended.

Since I didn't name anyone you have no idea who my heroes are, nor do I know yours. Any topic should stand or fall on it's own merit and internal logic. Finally let me close with a couple of questions: What's your gut feel, do you think I served in the Armed Forces? And if I did, how is that relevant to what I wrote?
Respectfully Jim

GS78 · Post by **GS78** » Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:03:36

wylde007 wrote:Because, once again, the only way to be a patriot is military service to the empire?

Back off the smug self-righteousness just a bit.

I haven't "played a part in this country's history" any more or less than you have. I simply just don't believe that my patriotism (and faith) is well-served by enlisting in the armed forces of a government that enslaves its own people and a country whose rule of law barely resembles the one I (and everyone else) deserves and was promised.

You can thank Lincoln.

I did not intend to define patriot at all. Military service does not, and never has defined a true patriot. A person who "loves and defends his country" is a patriot. We have a president who has gone WAY OUT OF HIS WAY to do just the opposite. Is that patriotic? nope. Your claim of "enslavement" is ridiculous, unless of course you are talking about the way the democrat party enslaves poor people. Please enlighten me as to exactly how the United States of America "enslaves its own people"....(this outta be a real hoot)...

gatlingun6 · Post by **gatlingun6** » Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:42:40

GS78 did you just write that the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief is not a patriot?
Jim