Come on Red, what do you think General Petraeus is going to say? Can you tell me what Petraeus was saying or thinking during all the months that Obama sat around with his thumb up his ass trying to figure out how to say 'Yeh, we're gonna keep doing the "W". What happens when Generals don't say what Petraeus says? Hint Google MacArthur and Truman. And I think it's good and necessary for the military to publicly kiss the civilian governments ass on occasion just to keep things aligned correctly. But I'm not naive enough to believe that the General wrote his own speech. Like you are.
Dood, you got nuthin'. You are making shit up as you go. read the friggin' link. It was an interview and Petraeous was making his own comments. What do you offer to support your notion?
Ron Paul is a hypocrite. He is one of those anti social security anti medicare guys, but draws a social security check every month. This election is going to come down to how many votes can the GOP supress in Pennsylvania and Ohio. That's the only way Mitt Romney is going to beat Obama.
· ME - the president shouldn’t be picking explicit targets · YOU - he isn’t picking explicit targets– just giving high level authorization · ME –here’s the quote from the NYTimes (not an Obama hating source) article that says I’m right · YOU - Uh Ok, but I still don’t think it’s a bad thing – and you’re a non militant republican wimp. (I only object to the republican part) · ME – Here’s another part of the article that details why it’s a bad idea for any president to pick explicit targets. · YOU – I’m still good with it. Obama was clearly letting the generals have their way. Here’s a quote from Petraus interview. IMPORTANT NOTE – The Petraeus quote was about Obama agreeing to nation building policy which is different from the discussion topic of military operations · ME – I scoffed at the idea that a supportive quote about any president from any serving general meant anything · YOU – you’re making stuff up. Why do you say that a serving general would not speak his mind. · ME – Common sense · YOU - Sabanfan!! (with a smiley face) So after this review, I think I get to play the Sabanfan card on you. We need a Sabanfan smiley face, but i'll settle for .
Geez, now you want to script the debate and you still end up with "common sense" as a response? That's funny! Yes, I shall start calling you "SF", but you must become far wittier. OK, here is why you are wrong. You did not actually link to the NY Times article, you linked to a blogsite that referenced the New York Times article. The actual article does not say that the President personally selects targets, it says that he approves them after recommendations by his national intelligence and counterinsurgency experts. This is nothing new. Presidents always have to approve covert operations. Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for adronestrike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”This is a story about an executive taking charge and taking responsibility for the covert actions targeting our main enemy--Al Qaeda. Your objections might make some sense if he were blundering, but in fact, Obama's decisions to hit Al Qaeda hard and frequently has decimated their leadership. The entire article, in context, makes it clear that Obama receives recommendations from the military, the intelligence, foreign policy experts and even from Pakistan. He approves the ones that are in the best interests of the nation and he's done pretty damned good. There is no merit in GOP suggestions that Obama's responsibilties involving covert operations is improper and it is falling on deaf ears since those operations have been spectacularly successful. In fact, it just reminds voters just how good a job Obama has done regarding foreign policy and military action.
