Props for Ottomaton: Should Petreus and McChrystal be Fired by Obama?

How are they forcing Obama or subverting the Constitution?

They are making recommendations which is part of their job description. Saying they think more troops are needed for Afghanistan isn't underming civillian control or even a even remotely comparable to a military coup.

 

There was a good article about this drawing comparisons to the Vietnam war era and LBJ's administration

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48621

 

Glynch, I don't perceive an issue here. If Obama feels his generals have their own agendas or they are not giving him sufficient military options, he has every right to summarily fire them. He has the right to replace them for bringing him cold coffee. Whether Obama understands that he alone is the commander-in-chief may be the real issue. I genuinely hope that is not the case. I know that he has not yet shown any tactical or strategic leadership in Congress or foreign affairs.

 

Statements like this are the reason you have lost credibility with this board.

 

If I have lost credibility because I am critical of your hero, then so be it. I call them as I see them, as you do.

 

You've lost credibility because you never back up any of your assertions with fact, data, or ideologial rationale. You just ramble on, and play the victim when called out.


You've become the O'Reilly of the board.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan_48

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 42 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is confronting a split among his closest advisers on Afghanistan, reflecting divisions in his own party over whether to send in thousands more U.S. troops and complicating his efforts to adopt a war policy he can sell to a public grown weary of the 8-year-old conflict.

How's that? Rhadamanthus, I don't usually do others research for them. I have seen the reception that such postings receive when it challenges the herd's preconceptions. The same happens with the Tea Party herd. It's human nature.

 

I'm not going to say you have lost all credibility but if you think Obama hasn't shown any tactical, strategic or foreign affairs leadership you haven't been paying attention.

There are several national security and foreign affairs issues that Obama has taken the lead on. Now you might not agree with what he did on them, moving to close GITMO, cancelling ABM system in central Europe, weapons reduction agreement with Russia and etc.. but that doesn't mean he hasn't showed leadership on them.

 

Concessions without tangible quid pro quos is not foreign leadership, but let's not quibble. Obama has an unassailable majority in both houses of Congress but has not been able to move his programs through. You blame the Republicans but they are hardly more than bystanders. It's the moderate Democrats that are holding him in check and he has done little to assuage their concerns. Instead, he has turned the Congressional reins over to the most inept Congressional leaders in modern history, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

However, this is off topic. We should be addressing the issue of whether Obama has the right/duty/option/whatever of removing his top generals.

 

indeed.

 

Considering Obama is getting cooperation from Russia on arms control and Iran I would hardly call that concessions without quid pro quos.

As I said though you might not agree with Obama's foreign policy and national security decisions but that isn't a basis to say he hasn't showed leadership.

 

I'm not really sure how that statement you bolded is indicative of Obama not showing "any tactical or strategic leadership in Congress or foreign affairs."

At best, that particular instance may be a point where Obama does need to "take charge", but even then that's not the same as him not showing "any leadership".

At worst, it's just a common part of any complicted decision process. You have differing viewpoints and/or solutions. You work through them to a consensus, or make an executive decision.

So....no - your assertion is still baseless, and the O'Reilly comparison has only become more valid. You proposed an inflammatory generalization, and then provided an extremely weak singular instance as some sort of pseudo-justification. Colbert could use you as a writer.

 

It is somewhat off topic but it does affect one's opinion of how Obama is conducting national security and foriegn affairs. In regard to if Obama has the right to remove his top generals of course he does. He is the Commander and Chief. Whether he should is a another matter.

 

See Post #10.

 

Not knowing something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Everything on his agenda is either still in process or has gone through. You seem to be confusing "going through the Congressional process" with "not moving things through".

I didn't realize the President dictated who the Speaker and Majority Leader were?

Of course he does - I don't think that's in question.

 

Good morning, Major.
1) I'll recant when and if a tangible quid pro quo was attained.
2) The "Congressional process" has been unrewarding for him so far.
3) Of course, the President doesn't choose the speaker and majority leader, but he charged them with producing the legislation on which he campaigned. To date he has not done anything himself save give more campaign speeches. Someone needs to tell him he won the election.
4) See Post #4.

 

We already saw immediate concessions from Russia on Iran. You think that was coincidence?

How so? He got his stimulus package through pretty quickly and mostly intact. Health care is progressing along, and is back to appearing that it will have all the elements - including a public option - that he originally wanted. How is that unrewarding?

They are producing that legislation - this is how governing works. If you expected health care reform overnight, that's on you - he said from the start that his goal was to have a bill by the end of the year. They are annoying and obnoxious, and I wish they weren't the Congressional leadership, but ultimately, they haven't really failed at anything thus far.

Thorny issues never just get rammed through. Bush went through the same thing - with the much more disciplined and united GOP. The stimulus package was like Bush's tax cuts - it wasn't paid for and that made it fairly easy to pass. Health care reform is more like Bush's Social Security reform - lots of stakeholders, thorny cost issues, long term consequences, etc. Bush failed because he couldn't corral his party. Clinton similarly failed on health care reform when he had his opportunity. Right now, Obama is far more on track with his version. The process itself looks ugly - but that's how it works. By letting them take the lead and playing more of a behind-the-scenes role and a role in the House-Senate conference committee, he's far more effective by forcing any failure on the hands of Congress - meaning they are much more likely to unite and pass something. That's the very definition of strategic and tactical leadership.

 

It looks like we will go round and round with this. The public option looks pretty dead, despite constant attempts to revive it. Despite my agreement that the Congressional process often is as protracted and rancorous, Obama should not be having the problems he is having. I cannot trace that to anything but poor leadership. Even glynch will tell you he is no Lyndon Johnson. Now, let's get back on topic track.

 

Exactly. It's so amusing to me that Obama is being blamed for health care not being a done deal, when it's the blue-dogs and the repubs who are holding things up. The republican idea of bi-paritisanship is "Everyone should agree...to do things OUR way". Anything less that that will receive an automatic "NO!" from the right. There's no give and take with them: it's all take, no give.

That's not Obama's fault, and there's very little he can (morally or legally) do to change it. Other than applying pressure from the White House in the form of sternly-worded calls for action from Congress, his hands are largely tied. And with good reason: it's a bad idea to put ALL the power into the hands of one person, even if that person is well-intentioned. That's why we have three branches of govt. (well, four if you count Dick Cheney).