by David Danzig, Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 11:05:23 AM EDT
by steve468, Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:50:09 PM EST
March 2, 2008
During a conference call with the Clinton campaign Sunday, moderated by Clinton's National Security Director Lee Feinstein (with Howard Wolfson), flag officer after flag officer offered their unqualified endorsements of Hillary Clinton for Commander-in-Chief. It was one testimony after another from these fine career military men and women who know first hand what it takes to be the boss.
The flag officers on the call yesterday, all endorsing Hillary Clinton for Commander-in-Chief, included:
General Wesley Clark
Admiral William Owens
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Rear Admiral Stuart Platt
Rear Admiral David Stone
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager
Former Secretary of the Army and Veterans Affairs Togo West
Former Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton
by Steve Love, Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:22:01 PM EDT
It required only one Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, to win WWII. Might Bush's revolving door of Chiefs of Staff have something to do with the progress of this war and its going on longer than WWII?
Bush selects the generals who echo what he wants to hear, which is the prerogative of a Commander in Chief, but contradicts the charge he levels at the Democrats. It is really Mr. Bush who has micromanaged this war from day one. Bush would like for us to think he is listening to the generals but they are just telling him what he wants them to say. Can we blame the Democrats for wanting to micromanage the war when the President only listen to the generals who tell him what he want to hear...especially when the war is going so badly?
by Steve Love, Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 08:36:41 AM EDT
Bush wants someone to run his wars? What's wrong with running them himself? After all he is "the decider." We have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to debate policy and do photo-ops and a Secretary of Defense to order the troops into combat. What are we looking for here -- another general to ignore or another general to blame for the consequences of ignoring the generals? Sounds to me like we have a president who wants to go down in history as a "decider" but doesn't want to be accountable to history for his decisions. Wanna be another Truman, Mr. Bush? Then the buck has to stop at your desk. Stop looking for a scapegoat and do your job!
by Homer, Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 05:14:55 AM EDT
IMUS - ENOUGH ALREADY
Don Imus is now challenging the Trent Lott record for number of apologies. He has apologized daily on his show and in conversations with Al Sharpton and many others.
With the media paying undue and hyped attention to this story, his opportunities to apologize will be endless.
Imus needed to acknowledge his guilt for his thoughtless, reprehensible remark, but other than that, his sincere apology should be to the Rutgers basketball players whom he gratuitously insulted. We don't know what he may have done with respect to them or to Rutgers, but scholarship or other funds might not be a bad idea.
To put the matter in perspective, remember that a large part of his shtick is the cutting remark, often a bit offensive. He trades insults with his guests and attacks
injustice with relentless criticism. Although close to the line, his comments are not really serious, such as when he called Governor Bill Richardson a "fat sissy" and the New York Knicks "chest-thumping pimps". Also, Imus constantly refers to Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld as "war criminals", although here he may be serious.
None of this excuses his Rutgers remark and, as Imus has said, he has been "humiliated". A two week suspension may be appropriate but cancellation of his program would not. His show is usually entertaining, it supports good charitable work, and it provides thoughtful, strong comment on events by Imus and his
intelligent, influential guests.
And when generals and other high officials get away with reprimands or less for such actions as permitting Abu Ghraib or lying about Pat Tillman or Iraq's connection to 9/11 or nuclear materials, cancellation of Imus in the Morning would be overkill.
from Homer www.altara.blogspot.com