PDA

View Full Version : Piss poor leadership



Peter1469
12-23-2014, 09:16 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s526x395/10847938_794520407250209_7689780880793646949_n.jpg ?oh=53c5d78cfec07dc307d2926d17a5ba76&oe=54FBBA8D&__gda__=1426468715_e53b1c2e3b028675a613eac603ba2ec 7

PolWatch
12-23-2014, 09:23 PM
I find that picture to be in extremely poor taste. It's using men killed in the service of their country for political points. Shame on whoever created that! They are no better than those they are using the picture to attack.

Paperback Writer
12-23-2014, 09:25 PM
It is however true. If you humanise the military you won't send them to war. Better that they be just numbers than names.

Redrose
12-23-2014, 09:28 PM
I find that picture to be in extremely poor taste. It's using men killed in the service of their country for political points. Shame on whoever created that! They are no better than those they are using the picture to attack.


Sorry, Pol. As offensive as you may see it, it is a terrible reality.
We had a young soldier from our church killed in June 2012. Not one word from the WH, nothing.

Green Arrow
12-23-2014, 09:31 PM
I find that picture to be in extremely poor taste. It's using men killed in the service of their country for political points. Shame on whoever created that! They are no better than those they are using the picture to attack.

I'm uncomfortable with the picture and agree it's in very poor taste...but the point is correct. I would have preferred they made it better.

Howey
12-23-2014, 09:44 PM
I'm uncomfortable with the picture and agree it's in very poor taste...but the point is correct. I would have preferred they made it better.

Sorry. I don't recall any president ever addressing the death of each individual soldier killed in combat.

Not to sound callous or anything but soldiers join the military with their eyes open and are aware of the consequences.

Brown, et al, didn't volunteer to be gunned down or chocked to death by overzealous and/or poorly trained police officers.

Howey
12-23-2014, 09:47 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s526x395/10847938_794520407250209_7689780880793646949_n.jpg ?oh=53c5d78cfec07dc307d2926d17a5ba76&oe=54FBBA8D&__gda__=1426468715_e53b1c2e3b028675a613eac603ba2ec 7

Did Bush know the name of every soldier killed in Iraq?

Why wasn't his name on that picture too?

Face it. That's a horrible politicalization and ridiculous comparison.

del
12-23-2014, 09:48 PM
Sorry, Pol. As offensive as you may see it, it is a terrible reality.
We had a young soldier from our church killed in June 2012. Not one word from the WH, nothing.

and there never has been, ever

Green Arrow
12-23-2014, 09:52 PM
Sorry. I don't recall any president ever addressing the death of each individual soldier killed in combat.

Not to sound callous or anything but soldiers join the military with their eyes open and are aware of the consequences.

Brown, et al, didn't volunteer to be gunned down or chocked to death by overzealous and/or poorly trained police officers.

Right, I agree. How many people get killed by bad police practices every year?

Paperback Writer
12-23-2014, 09:55 PM
Sorry. I don't recall any president ever addressing the death of each individual soldier killed in combat.

Not to sound callous or anything but soldiers join the military with their eyes open and are aware of the consequences.

Brown, et al, didn't volunteer to be gunned down or chocked to death by overzealous and/or poorly trained police officers.

Brown volunteered to beat a small asian store owner, however. His death, while regrettable and a poor example of policing, was still partially his own fault for engaging in nefarious criminal activity and engaging in a physical altercation with a police officer.

He was not a man who volunteered his life for the sake of others as many in the military do. While the president or prime minister needn't know or recognise all, they also shouldn't be used carelessly in service and some ought to be shown far more respect than waiting 6 years for a veterans system Obama promised back in 2008.

That's shameful. Cut it any way you like.

Peter1469
12-23-2014, 09:56 PM
It spot on in leadership 101. We don't have it currently.

Common
12-23-2014, 09:56 PM
It is however true. If you humanise the military you won't send them to war. Better that they be just numbers than names.

I wish that were true PB but I believe our Powerful wouldnt care one bit more if the military was humanized in the pursuit of their desires. I think they are an unconscionable bunch of low lifes.

Paperback Writer
12-23-2014, 09:57 PM
I wish that were true PB but I believe our Powerful wouldnt care one bit more if the military was humanized in the pursuit of their desires. I think they are an unconscionable bunch of low lifes.

I agree. I've got little good to say about 99% of the politicians I've come across.

Howey
12-23-2014, 10:00 PM
Brown volunteered to beat a small asian store owner, however. His death, while regrettable and a poor example of policing, was still partially his own fault for engaging in nefarious criminal activity and engaging in a physical altercation with a police officer.

He was not a man who volunteered his life for the sake of others as many in the military do. While the president or prime minister needn't know or recognise all, they also shouldn't be used carelessly in service and some ought to be shown far more respect than waiting 6 years for a veterans system Obama promised back in 2008.

That's shameful. Cut it any way you like.

What veterans system did Obama promise in 08?

Peter1469
12-23-2014, 10:01 PM
I don't think any veteran would believe any promise uttered by Obama. He is not a leader. He is a community agitator.

Paperback Writer
12-23-2014, 10:05 PM
What veterans system did Obama promise in 08?

Here, it's Jon Stewart. He's unabashedly liberal. Allow him to be your conscience in this.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/j8if9i/america-s-heroes-return---operation-enduring-wait

Bob
12-23-2014, 10:06 PM
Sorry, Pol. As offensive as you may see it, it is a terrible reality.
We had a young soldier from our church killed in June 2012. Not one word from the WH, nothing.

George Bush saw each family who lost a fallen warrior. He made sure to see every one of them. And he hugged them and offered condolences.

You won't catch Obama doing that.

del
12-23-2014, 10:07 PM
What veterans system did Obama promise in 08?

he said he'd fix the va as soon as he got in office, iirc


strangely, he seems not to have followed through

so out of character.....

PolWatch
12-23-2014, 10:13 PM
I still feel the picture is in poor taste but I also wanted to find out if the president does or does not send out letters of condolence. Everything I could locate seems to say he does...the same as other presidents. If someone has not recieved a letter I have no explanation why not. The only change is Obama has changed is the policy of not sending letters to suicides (copy of policy change attached).
Wednesday, December 02, 2009 President Obama's Letters of Condolence to Families of the Fallen (http://gsmso.blogspot.com/2009/12/president-obamas-letters-of-condolence.html)
Shortly after President Obama took office earlier this year, we found out that he had taken a different tact in writing condolence letters to families of the fallen from Iraq & Afghanistan. President Barack Obama has asked staffers to gather details about troops killed in overseas operations so he can personalize condolence letters to their families, according to a report in the Washington Times this week. (http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=60828) If Bush personally signed the letters (my own condolence letter from Bush appears to have been signed by an auto-pen), Bush's letters included nothing personal to make families feel as if their loss had been personally acknowledged by their loved one's Commander in Chief.
from a gold star mother's blog
http://gsmso.blogspot.com/2009/12/president-obamas-letters-of-condolence.htmlObama's approach to writing letters of condolence was a nice change.


For Immediate Release

July 06, 2011

Statement by the President on Change of Condolence Letter Policy As Commander in Chief, I am deeply grateful for the service of all our men and women in uniform, and grieve for the loss of those who suffer from the wounds of war - seen and unseen. Since taking office, I’ve been committed to removing the stigma associated with the unseen wounds of war, which is why I’ve worked to expand our mental health budgets, and ensure that all our men and women in uniform receive the care they need.

As a next step and in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the military chain of command, I have also decided to reverse a long-standing policy of not sending condolence letters to the families of service members who commit suicide while deployed to a combat zone. This decision was made after a difficult and exhaustive review of the former policy, and I did not make it lightly. This issue is emotional, painful, and complicated, but these Americans served our nation bravely. They didn’t die because they were weak. And the fact that they didn’t get the help they needed must change. Our men and women in uniform have borne the incredible burden of our wars, and we need to do everything in our power to honor their service, and to help them stay strong for themselves, for their families and for our nation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/06/statement-president-change-condolence-letter-policy

Redrose
12-23-2014, 10:14 PM
Did Bush know the name of every soldier killed in Iraq?

Why wasn't his name on that picture too?

Face it. That's a horrible politicalization and ridiculous comparison.

No Howey, he probably didn't. But....he did not interject himself in local issues, basically taking sides. That is where the problem lies.

I lost 8 close friends in Viet Nam in the sixties. Their parents received a letter from the President, every one of them got that letter.

Paperback Writer
12-23-2014, 10:18 PM
This isn't about "letters". All fallen get letters. They don't get national attention because it would turn people against the wars. I'm sure that Michael Brown's family could have gotten a letter but they wanted to spotlight race relations to the detriment of police armament.

Did no one notice that this issue became less about police militarisation and all about race?

There is a reason for it.

PolWatch
12-23-2014, 10:26 PM
being a cynic, I suspect the motives of making the police issue into a racial issue...

zelmo1234
12-23-2014, 10:37 PM
I find that picture to be in extremely poor taste. It's using men killed in the service of their country for political points. Shame on whoever created that! They are no better than those they are using the picture to attack.

Truth hurts sometimes, and with a commander in chief with a 15% approval rating among the military, I doubt they would mind exposing his hypocrisy!

PolWatch
12-23-2014, 10:39 PM
I'm not objecting to the remarks about the president...I object to using a flag draped casket to make political points.

zelmo1234
12-23-2014, 10:39 PM
Sorry. I don't recall any president ever addressing the death of each individual soldier killed in combat.

Not to sound callous or anything but soldiers join the military with their eyes open and are aware of the consequences.

Brown, et al, didn't volunteer to be gunned down or chocked to death by overzealous and/or poorly trained police officers.

They did however break the law in browns case tried to get the officer gun!

Just thought I would toss that in, so people did not think they were just walking down the street!

del
12-23-2014, 10:51 PM
This isn't about "letters". All fallen get letters. They don't get national attention because it would turn people against the wars. I'm sure that Michael Brown's family could have gotten a letter but they wanted to spotlight race relations to the detriment of police armament.

Did no one notice that this issue became less about police militarisation and all about race?

There is a reason for it.

bingo

domer76
12-23-2014, 11:29 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s526x395/10847938_794520407250209_7689780880793646949_n.jpg ?oh=53c5d78cfec07dc307d2926d17a5ba76&oe=54FBBA8D&__gda__=1426468715_e53b1c2e3b028675a613eac603ba2ec 7

Moe "if/would" concocted bullshit.

Peter1469
12-23-2014, 11:29 PM
Moe "if/would" concocted bullshit. I think you just did.

domer76
12-23-2014, 11:32 PM
Did Bush know the name of every soldier killed in Iraq?

Why wasn't his name on that picture too?

Face it. That's a horrible politicalization and ridiculous comparison.

Bush banned photos of returning coffins.

Matty
12-23-2014, 11:33 PM
Moe "if/would" concocted bull$#@!.


Not it at all. Remember when Bush was President? We saw every coffin, heard every name. As soon as he left office the nightly news no longer showed every coffin or read every name! Now, that's a fact!

domer76
12-23-2014, 11:34 PM
George Bush saw each family who lost a fallen warrior. He made sure to see every one of them. And he hugged them and offered condolences.

You won't catch Obama doing that.

All 4000+ of them? Sure, he did.

domer76
12-23-2014, 11:37 PM
I think you just did.

Just more inflammatory crap that you guys love to hang your hat on to stay riled up.

PolWatch
12-23-2014, 11:38 PM
'The ban on news media photos was put in place by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 during the Gulf War and upheld by President George W. Bush. It became a political issue in 2004 when unauthorized photos of the caskets appeared on the Web.

Democrats tried to lift the ban that year but were rebuffed by the Republican-controlled Congress. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said at the time that the ban was an attempt to "conceal from the American people the true costs of this war."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-26-pentagon-coffins_N.htm

Peter1469
12-23-2014, 11:40 PM
Just more inflammatory crap that you guys love to hang your hat on to stay riled up.

I don't get riled up on anything.

domer76
12-23-2014, 11:42 PM
Not it at all. Remember when Bush was President? We saw every coffin, heard every name. As soon as he left office the nightly news no longer showed every coffin or read every name! Now, that's a fact!

Bush I banned photos of the coffins starting in 1991 and his kid continued that practice. It was lifted in 2009.

http://entertainment.time.com/2009/02/27/the-pentagon-and-pictures-of-soldiers-coffins/

Peter1469
12-23-2014, 11:42 PM
'The ban on news media photos was put in place by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 during the Gulf War and upheld by President George W. Bush. It became a political issue in 2004 when unauthorized photos of the caskets appeared on the Web.

Democrats tried to lift the ban that year but were rebuffed by the Republican-controlled Congress. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said at the time that the ban was an attempt to "conceal from the American people the true costs of this war."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-26-pentagon-coffins_N.htm

We didn't have any imbedded reporters with us because they thought we would be bad. But we had a Pentagon combat camera crew and they got some classic footage of me.

PolWatch
12-23-2014, 11:44 PM
We didn't have any imbedded reporters with us because they thought we would be bad. But we had a Pentagon combat camera crew and they got some classic footage of me.

where can we find it? Silver & I are planning a forum pin-up calendar...only males need apply!

Peter1469
12-23-2014, 11:51 PM
where can we find it? Silver & I are planning a forum pin-up calendar...only males need apply!

Pentagon archives. I was a mess. Covered with blood after a assault on a bunker complex. Eating something from an MRE.

Chloe
12-23-2014, 11:52 PM
Pentagon archives. I was a mess. Covered with blood after a assault on a bunker complex. Eating something from an MRE.

Why were you covered in blood? Did you get shot?

PolWatch
12-23-2014, 11:56 PM
hmm...we were thinking of pictures a little more....interesting?

Peter1469
12-24-2014, 12:00 AM
Why were you covered in blood? Did you get shot?

It wasn't my blood. We took an enemy position.

PolWatch
12-24-2014, 12:01 AM
We need more interesting pics than that Pete!

Chloe
12-24-2014, 12:06 AM
It wasn't my blood. We took an enemy position.

I know i'm probably sounding dumb or something to you but I still don't know what that means or implies. I know what it means that you took an enemy position, you won a battle basically, but were you a medic or something?

Peter1469
12-24-2014, 12:06 AM
I suppose that I could get the pictures with a FIOA request. I don't really want them.

silvereyes
12-24-2014, 12:18 AM
I've seen pictures of Peter..... he's VERY handsome. If I was 15 years younger and he was single....

PolWatch
12-24-2014, 12:22 AM
I don't think he wants to be in the calendar...

silvereyes
12-24-2014, 12:42 AM
Hes gonna be our cover manly man.

Common
12-24-2014, 02:38 AM
I understand the point being made but I dont think the context is right. Its two different things.

Everyone is guilty of not giving enough thought to our miltary and what they go through. We all get up in the morning and think about our lives. Most of us dont think about the troops until someone mentions it or we see something in the paper or on tv. Its always been that way, its not to find fault.

Personally I dont think the Brown incident can be compared in any way to the military or should be.

Mac-7
12-24-2014, 04:09 AM
Bush I banned photos of the coffins starting in 1991 and his kid continued that practice. It was lifted in 2009.

http://entertainment.time.com/2009/02/27/the-pentagon-and-pictures-of-soldiers-coffins/

Obama does not have to fear political exploitation of the photos in the liberal pro Obama news media.

Bush knew the lib media is not objective or non partisan and would exploit the pictures.

donttread
12-24-2014, 07:00 AM
It is however true. If you humanise the military you won't send them to war. Better that they be just numbers than names.

You especially would not send them to unnecessary imperialistic war

domer76
12-24-2014, 10:47 AM
Obama does not have to fear political exploitation of the photos in the liberal pro Obama news media.

Bush knew the lib media is not objective or non partisan and would exploit the pictures.

Well, I guess we've done the 360 back to the piss poor leadership thing then, aren't we? I suppose if Bush feared the political fallout, could have refrained from sending thousands of our own to their deaths.

"Oh, I'm so afraid of those mean lefties showing pictures of the guys I sent to die needlessly! I'll show them! I'll keep it a secret!"

Bo-4
12-24-2014, 01:55 PM
Not true actually -- could he name every soldier who's died under his watch since 1-20-09 off the top of his head?

No, but the president signs a personal letter to the families of each killed in action, so yes .. he's heard all the names.

Peter1469
12-24-2014, 01:57 PM
Not true actually -- could he name every soldier who's died under his watch since 1-20-09 off the top of his head?

No, but the president signs a personal letter to the families of each killed in action, so yes .. he's heard all the names.

Nah, he is more qualified as a community agitator than as a commander in chief. He says the wrong thing at the wrong time on a regular basis.

Paperback Writer
12-24-2014, 01:57 PM
Is Bush still president then yes?

I'll try to use that the next time I go sod up at work. I'm sorry my edits on the film were shit, but the producer before me kept a messy desk.

Bo-4
12-24-2014, 02:03 PM
Nah, he is more qualified as a community agitator than as a commander in chief. He says the wrong thing at the wrong time on a regular basis.

We know you don't like him, but his approval rating soars while consumer sentiment is higher than it's been in 8 years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/23/us-usa-economy-sentiment-idUSKBN0K116R20141223

Peter1469
12-24-2014, 02:06 PM
We know you don't like him, but his approval rating soars while consumer sentiment is higher than it's been in 8 years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/23/us-usa-economy-sentiment-idUSKBN0K116R20141223


I expect the economy uptick is due to the crash in the price of oil.

Bo-4
12-24-2014, 02:21 PM
I expect the economy uptick is due to the crash in the price of oil.

Of course, but the second it ticks down you'll blame Obama. ;)

Peter1469
12-24-2014, 02:53 PM
Of course, but the second it ticks down you'll blame Obama. ;)


It depends on what he does. If he stays in Hawaii on vacation the market might continue to improve. :smiley:

Cigar
12-24-2014, 03:06 PM
I find that picture to be in extremely poor taste. It's using men killed in the service of their country for political points. Shame on whoever created that! They are no better than those they are using the picture to attack.

Yet another false equivalency but it helps them sleep at night, but you have to have some mercy on them, it's only been 6 years and we all know it's going to take generations for them to get over Barack Obama. And to top it all off, they got to swallow another two years of President Obama ramming it down their throat and there's nothing they can do about it but cry on internet forums.

So sit back, relax, enjoy the show. :grin:

zelmo1234
12-24-2014, 03:13 PM
We know you don't like him, but his approval rating soars while consumer sentiment is higher than it's been in 8 years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/23/us-usa-economy-sentiment-idUSKBN0K116R20141223

Consumer confidence is not the Presidential approval.

The people are starting to have faith in the economy because the private sector working against president Obama has finally lowered energy prices

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
Yep he is going to go down as the worst President In history!

Mac-7
12-24-2014, 04:31 PM
Well, I guess we've done the 360 back to the piss poor leadership thing then, aren't we? I suppose if Bush feared the political fallout, could have refrained from sending thousands of our own to their deaths.

"Oh, I'm so afraid of those mean lefties showing pictures of the guys I sent to die needlessly! I'll show them! I'll keep it a secret!"

The invasion of Iraq is arguable.

But not by partisan hacks in the lib news media masquerading as objective reporters.

Bush made his decision and then dealt with the rodent population in the MSM afterwards.

Cigar
12-24-2014, 05:24 PM
Consumer confidence is not the Presidential approval.

The people are starting to have faith in the economy because the private sector working against president Obama has finally lowered energy prices

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
Yep he is going to go down as the worst President In history!

http://www.beautyismyduty.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/tumblr_m8hwwidcSs1r3f9ymo2_250.gif

Bo-4
12-24-2014, 05:53 PM
Consumer confidence is not the Presidential approval.

The people are starting to have faith in the economy because the private sector working against president Obama has finally lowered energy prices

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
Yep he is going to go down as the worst President In history!

Zelly (is this Zell Miller?)

Iffin' so, wanna duel? ;-)

And NO, he'll go down in the top 25% -- (Bushie still holds down the bottom 10% with 86% of historians.)

But do enjoy your hatred in the meantime! :cool:

domer76
12-24-2014, 07:49 PM
Zelly (is this Zell Miller?)

Iffin' so, wanna duel? ;-)

And NO, he'll go down in the top 25% -- (Bushie still holds down the bottom 10% with 86% of historians.)

But do enjoy your hatred in the meantime! :cool:

You are correct. If you look at the averages in the table (link), Bush is the worst in 100 years and ranks down there with Warren Harding and Andrew Johnson. (Appropriately, back on the piss poor thing again.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_St ates

Mac-7
12-25-2014, 09:25 AM
You are correct. If you look at the averages in the table (link), Bush is the worst in 100 years and ranks down there with Warren Harding and Andrew Johnson. (Appropriately, back on the piss poor thing again.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_St ates

Clinton, bush and Obama are all bad president in their own way.

There is no worst.

They all stink.

domer76
12-25-2014, 01:27 PM
Clinton, bush and Obama are all bad president in their own way.

There is no worst.

They all stink.

Yeah, they all have their own flaws. No President is without them. Bush just fucked up more than any President in my lifetime.

Peter1469
12-25-2014, 01:51 PM
Yeah, they all have their own flaws. No President is without them. Bush just fucked up more than any President in my lifetime.

Bush and Obama are pretty much the same. In fact 80% of the money spent in Afghanistan has been under Obama as well as the majority of the casualties.

domer76
12-25-2014, 02:59 PM
Bush and Obama are pretty much the same. In fact 80% of the money spent in Afghanistan has been under Obama as well as the majority of the casualties.

No disagreement there. However, the later Afghanistan casualties (under Obama) are a reflection of Bush and Rumsfeld totally effing up the initial effort. I disagree totally with Obama increasing troop level there. I supported Bush in the invasion of Afghanistan in the context of apprehending bin Laden. But he flocked that up completely.

Iraq? Completely Bush's baby there. The optional war. The war we will be paying dearly for one hundred years from now.

However, the list goes on. Katrina. Economic policies.

Peter1469
12-25-2014, 03:08 PM
No disagreement there. However, the later Afghanistan casualties (under Obama) are a reflection of Bush and Rumsfeld totally effing up the initial effort. I disagree totally with Obama increasing troop level there. I supported Bush in the invasion of Afghanistan in the context of apprehending bin Laden. But he flocked that up completely.

Iraq? Completely Bush's baby there. The optional war. The war we will be paying dearly for one hundred years from now.

However, the list goes on. Katrina. Economic policies.


The problem with both Afghanistan and Iraq was the decision to nation build.

Katrina was a local issue- incompetent mayor and governor.

Bush's economic problems were overspending. His tax cuts created record revenues.

Bob
12-25-2014, 04:56 PM
No disagreement there. However, the later Afghanistan casualties (under Obama) are a reflection of Bush and Rumsfeld totally effing up the initial effort. I disagree totally with Obama increasing troop level there. I supported Bush in the invasion of Afghanistan in the context of apprehending bin Laden. But he flocked that up completely.

Iraq? Completely Bush's baby there. The optional war. The war we will be paying dearly for one hundred years from now.

However, the list goes on. Katrina. Economic policies.

It was General Tommy Franks plan, not Bush nor Rumsfeld.

There was no Bush invasion of Afghanistan. This is a popular myth. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were driven off by men on the ground. Those were Afghani forces. The air force dropped massive explosives. Who recalls the bunker busters dropped in areas believed to hide Bin Laden? We had maybe 1000 men on the ground comprised of CIA operators and special forces. The mission was to direct the air campaign. When the ground troops of Afghanistan fought, they had American Jets and helicopters helping them. Read General Franks book. I am not making this up, it is in his book.

First to kill Bin Laden, if it is done on purpose, one has to find and fix him. He was never found so they had no way to fix him. Bunker busters in Tora Bora were used hoping to hit him. Clearly he escaped. Anybody that could not escape in those mountains just was not trying hard enough. @domer76 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1355)

http://www.amazon.com/American-Soldier-Tommy-R-Franks/dp/B000ECXDOY

Some are bigots about Frank so try this book out

http://www.amazon.com/General-Speaks-Out-Truth-Afghanistan/dp/0760330484/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419544561&sr=1-1&keywords=a+general+speaks+out

Filled me with new respect (http://www.amazon.com/review/R57Z9GOW6C17F/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0760330484&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books)
By Amazon Customer (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A356TJCTCLDN89/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp) on June 29, 2007
Format: PaperbackEvery now and then I'll read a book and wish that I could meet the author for dinner. A General Speaks Out was one of those books. General DeLong is a fascinating person. He comes across as a no nonsense type of guy but clearly has a sense of humor as well and this book is about his time in one of the hardest jobs on earth. Between dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld, General Franks-- a guy you would NOT want to get on the bad side of, and running a war it's a wonder he made it retirement without collapsing.

The most interesting part of the book was the wild contrast between the stuff the media was printing and they way things actually were. If the media scandals of recent years didn't make you question everything you read in the newspaper then this book should.

Finally, I was really moved by the dedication and calmness of our military. Thank you General DeLong for your service.

domer76
12-25-2014, 05:18 PM
The problem with both Afghanistan and Iraq was the decision to nation build.

Katrina was a local issue- incompetent mayor and governor.

Bush's economic problems were overspending. His tax cuts created record revenues.

Agreed on the nation building What a fiasco there.

Katrina was a local AND federal mess. Mishandled at all levels.

The revenues? Perhaps. Sure not used to offset the costs of war.

Bob
12-25-2014, 05:22 PM
Agreed on the nation building What a fiasco there.

Katrina was a local AND federal mess. Mishandled at all levels.

The revenues? Perhaps. Sure not used to offset the costs of war.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the plan never was to nation build. That happened due to what they found once in both countries. But the original plan called for was ...defeat both countries, set up enough government to handle things and leave. General Franks already had issued orders to start leaving Iraq when he turned command over to general Sanchez. Sanchez is seldom mentioned but he was in command when hell broke loose.

domer76
12-25-2014, 05:26 PM
It was General Tommy Franks plan, not Bush nor Rumsfeld.

There was no Bush invasion of Afghanistan. This is a popular myth. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were driven off by men on the ground. Those were Afghani forces. The air force dropped massive explosives. Who recalls the bunker busters dropped in areas believed to hide Bin Laden? We had maybe 1000 men on the ground comprised of CIA operators and special forces. The mission was to direct the air campaign. When the ground troops of Afghanistan fought, they had American Jets and helicopters helping them. Read General Franks book. I am not making this up, it is in his book.

First to kill Bin Laden, if it is done on purpose, one has to find and fix him. He was never found so they had no way to fix him. Bunker busters in Tora Bora were used hoping to hit him. Clearly he escaped. Anybody that could not escape in those mountains just was not trying hard enough. @domer76 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1355)

http://www.amazon.com/American-Soldier-Tommy-R-Franks/dp/B000ECXDOY

Some are bigots about Frank so try this book out

http://www.amazon.com/General-Speaks-Out-Truth-Afghanistan/dp/0760330484/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419544561&sr=1-1&keywords=a+general+speaks+out

Filled me with new respect (http://www.amazon.com/review/R57Z9GOW6C17F/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0760330484&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books)
By Amazon Customer (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A356TJCTCLDN89/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp) on June 29, 2007
Format: PaperbackEvery now and then I'll read a book and wish that I could meet the author for dinner. A General Speaks Out was one of those books. General DeLong is a fascinating person. He comes across as a no nonsense type of guy but clearly has a sense of humor as well and this book is about his time in one of the hardest jobs on earth. Between dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld, General Franks-- a guy you would NOT want to get on the bad side of, and running a war it's a wonder he made it retirement without collapsing.

The most interesting part of the book was the wild contrast between the stuff the media was printing and they way things actually were. If the media scandals of recent years didn't make you question everything you read in the newspaper then this book should.

Finally, I was really moved by the dedication and calmness of our military. Thank you General DeLong for your service.


Donald "We Fight With the Shitty Gear We Provide" Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense, regardless of who the general in charge was. I recall the bombing. If you wish to not refer to that as an invasion, that's your prerogative.

Bob
12-25-2014, 05:44 PM
Donald "We Fight With the Shitty Gear We Provide" Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense, regardless of who the general in charge was. I recall the bombing. If you wish to not refer to that as an invasion, that's your prerogative.

Obama then is invading various countries.

That mocking of Rumsfeld though you intend to impress, is not working. i know why he said it. And he told the truth. The hardest thing to hear by some Democrats is the plain old truth.

Had you studied General Franks book, you would know that for the two wars, Rumsfeld was all but cut out.

Franks took the job working directly for Bush. Bush of course told Franks to keep Rumsfeld in the loop and Rumsfeld would provide support. A time to show how it worked was during a meeting with the joint Chiefs. Franks got so annoyed with the Generals he told them off and walked out.

Rumsfeld and Franks worked well together but since Bush gave the orders, and Franks was given complete control of both wars, that is how it works.

Most see an invasion like the invasion of Iraq. While on technical terms we invaded Afghanistan, it was with technology for the most part.

Mini Me
12-25-2014, 05:46 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s526x395/10847938_794520407250209_7689780880793646949_n.jpg ?oh=53c5d78cfec07dc307d2926d17a5ba76&oe=54FBBA8D&__gda__=1426468715_e53b1c2e3b028675a613eac603ba2ec 7

Its more HATERADE swill for the CIC.

Actually, you could have said the same thing about Bush, if you don't mind poor taste!

Peter1469
12-25-2014, 06:11 PM
Agreed on the nation building What a fiasco there.

Katrina was a local AND federal mess. Mishandled at all levels.

The revenues? Perhaps. Sure not used to offset the costs of war.

You can raise as much tax revenue as would want- if you spend more, you are in a deficit. That is what we did.

Peter1469
12-25-2014, 06:12 PM
Bush was a lot of things, but he had leadership qualities. Obama has zero.


The military can't take this guy seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJGkPf9gZzM


Its more HATERADE swill for the CIC.

Actually, you could have said the same thing about Bush, if you don't mind poor taste!

domer76
12-26-2014, 10:37 AM
Obama then is invading various countries.

That mocking of Rumsfeld though you intend to impress, is not working. i know why he said it. And he told the truth. The hardest thing to hear by some Democrats is the plain old truth.

Had you studied General Franks book, you would know that for the two wars, Rumsfeld was all but cut out.

Franks took the job working directly for Bush. Bush of course told Franks to keep Rumsfeld in the loop and Rumsfeld would provide support. A time to show how it worked was during a meeting with the joint Chiefs. Franks got so annoyed with the Generals he told them off and walked out.

Rumsfeld and Franks worked well together but since Bush gave the orders, and Franks was given complete control of both wars, that is how it works.

Most see an invasion like the invasion of Iraq. While on technical terms we invaded Afghanistan, it was with technology for the most part.

Recall the families that cobbled together fund so they could send personal body armor to their kids? Recall the underprotected HumVees that lead to more deaths and maimings because they were never protected underneath? That's the Donald "We Fight With What We Don't Provide" Rumsfeld I'm referring to. That's the uncomfortable truth you would probably like to forget. Starting a war you were unprepared for that results in even greater unnecessary casualties.

I also recall Bush saying he would never be involved in nation building. Then he did the opposite.

There's a distinction between massive bomb strikes like Afghanistan and those individual drone strikes.

PolWatch
12-26-2014, 10:46 AM
I had forgotten about that. We had many fund raisers to have the vehicles armor plated when they called up a local National Guard unit.

Max Rockatansky
12-26-2014, 10:57 AM
I find that picture to be in extremely poor taste. It's using men killed in the service of their country for political points. Shame on whoever created that! They are no better than those they are using the picture to attack.
The President, the AG, Al Sharpton and many others are standing on the bodies of American citizens to make political points yet they are not supporting those who are serving their country and risking their lives in blue uniforms.

While I agree that the picture of an actual fallen soldier is in bad taste, the statement is 100% correct. FWIW, I cut actual vets a lot of slack when it comes to military issues. Chickenhawks and the military-hating left get a lot less latitude from me.

Is this better?

http://oi59.tinypic.com/2n0r96d.jpg
http://oi59.tinypic.com/2n0r96d.jpg