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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
since you have no knowledge whatsover other than wishful thinking, i'll trust others secondhand analysis over yours.
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?
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.
Hmmm... that might be a valid objection. I should've included "constitutional objection" as one of the choices.
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...
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.