*COUGH*

Post #293,326 by Simon_Jester 9/20/07 8:53:53 PM Reply	COUGH
Post #293,328 by bepatient 9/20/07 10:00:11 PM Reply	Maybe I should be more clear Any current member of the government should not endorse a personal insult to a high ranking military officer doing his job. moveon is free to say what they want. great country we live in. Doesn't mean it should be agreed with or endorsed. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,445 by jb4 9/22/07 10:43:54 PM 9/22/07 10:44:45 PM Reply	But its quite OK to endorse a personal insult to a Senator when running for president, isn't it BeeP? Even when the insult is shown to be a lie, isn't that correct, BeeP? Just wanna make sure of your moral consistency compass...wouldn't want to get lead astray into the land of fundamentalist hypocrisy, now would I? jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07) Edited by jb4 Sept. 22, 2007, 10:44:45 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #293,452 by bepatient 9/23/07 12:40:06 AM Reply	I don't believe I've ever said that. But you're welcome to pretend I did if it makes you feel better. Seems to happen alot around here. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,455 by Ashton 9/23/07 4:47:57 AM Reply	> Would that 11th Commandment include Colin Powell, then? < Any current member of the government should not endorse a personal insult to a high ranking military officer doing his job. Is he guilty of serving as shill for selective data-taking; guilty of {willingly?} allowing his previous credence to be attached to a hysterical piece of propaganda, meant to [successfully] rush towards an illegal Invasion? Because.. by now - it has become apparent that his credibility, perhaps his entire reputation for honesty -- is irretrievably tanked -- though I haven't seen any polling organization yet willing to put such a question to the Vox Populi - so starkly. I mean.. if you saw it in spreadsheet form - then it would be True-ish, right? There is thus - precedent for this Admin actively seeking flaks (whose rep is better that their own) - an extremely easy bar to beat , all things considered - over six years' experience. As to doing his job - What Petraeus has just done: precisely is what is Not a military officer's job; not (even) in the US, by all previous carefully cultivated attitudes thus: precedence. They Do Not interpose themselves between polarized Politicians, 'promise' 'results' -- whose probability is already seen to be parlously Low: and call it simply, "military intelligence". cf. Douglas Mac Arthur VS Harry Truman. He Fired the sucker for political meddling. Shrub INVITES it == if it fits his plan. {sniff} and Shrub fancies he's 'like HST' (too). Delusional as usual. Oh - and - (There is a recent link in one of these threads to which you replied, disdainfully dismissing a Character Assessment of Petraeus by his Superior Officer; dismissed as ~~ "Oh, nobody should pay any attention to military squabbles, etc." ie 'a mere bagatelle,' to which dismissal I here reply: Oh. Really? - and accuse you of selective data taking. Once again. A superior officer's assessment is of considerable relevance to someone who knows-not the person in question - only.. 'not to You, merely.') Failing some miraculous occurrence, whereby suddenly -- 98% of all persons in Iraq, overnight suffer near total-amnesia -- Gen Petraeus shall join Gen. : Powell in well-earned obloquy. This, quite independently of anything MoveOn has said or will say. It is only a matter of, whenever it becomes apparent -?- that all that PowerPunt-aided palaver Was pure "string it along til Shrub leaves" BS, just as so many Vox Populi clearly suspect. So then, now that :'s UN speech has been limned by countless dissections - and its data been seen to be fabricated / a pure propaganda operation - is it OK to diss : publically, yet? Or does a uniform convey permanent unaccountability, in that customized ethics manual? Related matter for ethical pundits - What are your thoughts on War Crimes trials, in the aftermath of bogus invasions and the rendering of a once-functioning country into a state of near-total infrastructure ruination and accelerating - - - > towards Failed State Status? Hmm? Do you Really go with: "if we broke it we must fix it?" (: said that IIRC) And if We ..simply.. CANNOT 'fix' it - what does your ethics manual decree for our Just Punishment? ('Course we'd have to do it Ourselves; we have all those nukes.) Prosecutors are standing by for your Instructions, deacon.
Post #293,460 by Another Scott 9/23/07 8:53:00 AM Reply	Many good points. Thanks. But Powell was a civilian at the time he was serving as Secretary of State (though one can argue that 4 star generals are never really civilians after they retire). His reputation was built on his military career though. Also, MacArthur was fired for trying to go over Truman's head. Petraeus is getting flack for being Bush's poodle. While both are political roles, they're on opposite sides. I think you're right that Petraeus did himself a disservice in his testimony, but I'm sure he remembers what happened to [link\|http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm\|Shinseki] after his testimony to the Senate. (Frontline has a good interview with [link\|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/interviews/fallows.html\|James Fallows] which covers the battles over troop levels, Wolfowitz and Shinseki, etc.) Your Powell quote is a variation of the "Pottery Barn rule" (which he denied coining), but he [link\|http://creatingspaces.blogspot.com/2007/05/harrison-owen-interview-and-more-colin.html\|has written something similar] (from his autobiography, p.35-36): I learned that being in charge means making decisions, no matter how unpleasant. If it's broke, fix it. When you do, you win the gratitude of the people who have been suffering under the bad situation. I learned in a college drill competition that you cannot let the mission suffer, or make the majority pay to spare the feelings of an individual. . . . Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #293,466 by bepatient 9/23/07 10:42:55 AM Reply	I don't understand you. really. learn english. then put it in a spreadsheet for me. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,475 by Simon_Jester 9/23/07 12:48:32 PM Reply	I almost brought up the Truman-McDouglas issue But does it really apply in this case. McDouglas was fired - not a personal attack. Everyone would agree that the President is the CIC and has the right to fire Generals. So, <shrug>, it doesn't apply.

Welcome to IWETHEY!