1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Commanders on the Ground - What says you?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by vwiggin, Dec 1, 2005.

Tags:
?

Should we have a bipartisan committee review commander recommendations immeidately?

  1. Yes, that's what Bush wants and we need an unbiased accounting of opinions

    17 vote(s)
    81.0%
  2. No, we should trust Bush to tell us what the commanders are saying

    2 vote(s)
    9.5%
  3. Not necessary, this will be handled by existing congressional committees

    1 vote(s)
    4.8%
  4. No, doing this will only encourage the terrorists.

    1 vote(s)
    4.8%
  1. vwiggin

    vwiggin Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,951
    Likes Received:
    2
    I was wondering how the American people will find out what the commanders on the ground are telilng Bush.

    Should Congress form a bipartisan committee to review detailed reports and recommendations from the commanders in Iraq? Maybe they alraedy do this. But if this is already happening in Congress, Bush would've pointed it out. He probably should've said something like "Democrats in Congress review the same on-the-ground military reports that I do...." You know, the same thing he says about prewar intelligence.

    So if this isn't being done right now, who would support the immediate formation of a bipartisan committee to examine this information and make a recommendation to the public.

    After all, that is what Bush wants right?
     
  2. Mulder

    Mulder Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 1999
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    80
    You really think anyone in the military will openly disagree with the President? Of course not, if the Congress holds a bipartisan inquiry and parks military officers in front of them anyone that hopes to continue in their military career will say what ever the President says they should. Don't get me wrong, that's not necessarily just because it is Bush, that's because it is the President.
     
  3. vwiggin

    vwiggin Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,951
    Likes Received:
    2
    Mulder, you have a fair point.

    But if commanders are reporting to Congress, there will be a record of who participated and what their suggestions are.

    If Bush starts firing or demoting all the officers who disagreed with him, the pattern will become obvious to Congress, who will then report it to the media.
     
  4. NJRocket

    NJRocket Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Messages:
    7,242
    Likes Received:
    27
    Since none of you actually have first hand knowledge of what the commanders did or did not say, its irrelevant. My guess is that our gov't is not keeping soldiers there if the commanders are begging out.
     
  5. losttexan

    losttexan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 1999
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    0
    President = Commander and Chief

    The Military is an instrument of Executive policy. Even though Bush tries to make people believe all military supports him by making political speeches at military bases, which is completely tasteless and something past presidents have avoided, the Military is A political and merely follows orders.
     
  6. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,094
    Likes Received:
    18,924
    that's what i was thinking. for better or for worse, this is left to the executive branch.
     
  7. Mulder

    Mulder Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 1999
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    80
    It is highly relevant as it is important that what they actually think would win this war be followed. In addition as someone that has talked to officers that have been over there MY guess is they think that the Bush administration is full of a bunch of rubes that don't have buckets full of sense or a flippin clue how to win this war. But that's just what they have said to me and no way means that is the sentiment of all the brass.
     
  8. vwiggin

    vwiggin Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,951
    Likes Received:
    2
    You are absolutely right. I don't have first hand knowledge of what the commanders are saying. But why does that make a Congressional inquiry irrelevant?

    If anything, our public's lack of knowledge should make such inquiries more relevant than ever.

    It is very possible that most commanders do believe staying the course in Iraq is the right way to go. Heck, some of them might even say we need more troops and equipment in Iraq.

    Either way, I cannot see how getting more information is a bad thing, especially when such information is our President's main criteria for deciding what we will do in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
     
  9. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    We do know that when one commander said they would need 300,000 troops in Iraq, Bush didn't listen to him, he replaced him. We also know that the pentagon has come out against torture, yet Bush threatens to veto any anti-torture legislation. In addition we know that the Pentagon has also said that the troops should start being reduced because our large presence makes things worse.

    But the armed forces are still part of the excutive branch. Bush does technically have final say on what the armed services should do here. It is just that Bush claims he will listen to and do what the commanders say needs to be done.
     
  10. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,732
    Likes Received:
    36,182
    since you have no knowledge whatsover other than wishful thinking, i'll trust others secondhand analysis over yours.
     
  11. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    29,829
    Likes Received:
    16,682
    The evil doers love our hatred of the truth.
     
  12. vwiggin

    vwiggin Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,951
    Likes Received:
    2
    Would the one person who voted "this would only encourage the terrorists" like to explain their vote?

    The Commanders might give plenty of good news about Iraq, which could theoretically discourage the terrorists right?
     
  13. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    29,829
    Likes Received:
    16,682
    Don't you know everything we do encourages the terrorists?
     
  14. NJRocket

    NJRocket Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Messages:
    7,242
    Likes Received:
    27
    u making sense again?
     
  15. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,412
    Likes Received:
    6,204
    In case any of you have forgotten, the constitution designates the president as "Commander in Chief". Congress has no business meddling with commanders on the ground.
     
  16. vwiggin

    vwiggin Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,951
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hmmm... that might be a valid objection. I should've included "constitutional objection" as one of the choices.
     
  17. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,412
    Likes Received:
    6,204
    Do you have any proof for this assertion? i assume you're speaking of shalishkvili (sp?). could you provide a link to evidence that he was replaced for disagreeing with Bush? I'll wait...
     
  18. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75

    Why not be proactive and retrieve this evidence yourself?
     
  19. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,412
    Likes Received:
    6,204
    parce-que, ca n'existe pas.
     
  20. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    I understand waiting. I'm still waiting on your answer if think that it is an accurate assessment of where we are in Iraq to say we are in the jaws of victory. I'm still waiting on you to explain why Bush was told about the unreliability of the evidence about Saddam training Al Qaeda in chem weapons but used it anyway. So I understand waiting.

    But unlike you I won't keep anyone waiting.
    There is more talking about how even his last time on the job before he "resigned" was undercut by Rumsfeld etc.

    It is an interesting read.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now