NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh it seems that not only john kerry can make a insult to the troops. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, House Majority Leader John Boehner said that the failures in Iraq should not be blamed on Rumsfeld.

When Blitzer replied that Rumsfeld was the one in charge of the military, Boehner replied ""The fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge"

So much for not insulting our troops huh? I guess it's ok when you can insult top brass to take heat off your administration....

From CNN:

Both Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Boehner was blaming U.S. generals for failings in Iraq. Both immediately demanded a mea culpa from the powerful Republican.

"After the Bush administration's numerous failures in Iraq, to blame our brave troops is just wrong," Dean said in a statement. "Once again, Republican leadership is pointing fingers rather than taking responsibility for their failures."

Reid said Boehner "ought to be ashamed."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/01/shifting.blame/index.html

This is piffle compared to Kerry's colossal fuck-up, and it'll probably get very little play. I can't help wondering who asked that Massachusetts moron to speak for the Democrats anymore anyway. His bluster and bombast in defense of his "botched joke" is two years too damned late. Where was that energy when the Swift Boat assholes were troweling their tripe on the airwaves in 2004? Kerry's recent foray into ignominy solidifies what I thought in the 2004 election cycle -- THIS was the best we had?

Oy veh.

Waffle does it again!

Oh wait.

He probably just meant those traitorous ex-generals who dare to critize Bush.

And anyway, the Troops hate the Brass, too, and probably enjoy seeing them blamed, regardless of who's doing the blaming.

Oh it seems that not only john kerry can make a insult to the troops. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, House Majority Leader John Boehner said that the failures in Iraq should not be blamed on Rumsfeld.

When Blitzer replied that Rumsfeld was the one in charge of the military, Boehner replied ""The fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge"

So much for not insulting our troops huh? I guess it's ok when you can insult top brass to take heat off your administration....

From CNN:



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/01/shifting.blame/index.html

From what i can gather, nobody in the military really is very fond of generals so this really doesn't matter. If anything, the politicians are agreeing with the troops even though the troops as a whole don't really like politicians either.

From what i can gather, nobody in the military really is very fond of generals so this really doesn't matter. If anything, the politicians are agreeing with the troops even though the troops as a whole don't really like politicians either.

what I find amusing is through all the rhetoric of "the proud brave soldiers of our volunteer army" apparently stops at some point when you've made that volunteer army your entire life and risen through the ranks.

So, praise to the farm boy from nebraska that enlists for 3 years...not so much from the guy that's been in it since korea and made it his life...

I think we can safely blame the current administration's officials that were involved in "planning" and "handling" the Iraq War and some of the military leaders as well. Plenty of blame to go around, as far as I'm concerned.

what I find amusing is through all the rhetoric of "the proud brave soldiers of our volunteer army" apparently stops at some point when you've made that volunteer army your entire life and risen through the ranks.

So, praise to the farm boy from nebraska that enlists for 3 years...not so much from the guy that's been in it since korea and made it his life...

Very true. It's sort of like working for the same firm all your life, climbing the corporate ladder, and as soon as you put on the suit and tie, you're Management, you're the Enemy to the guys you worked with all your life. The US is quite funny that way, we idolize the Self-Made Man (Person, if you prefer) who struggles to create his or her own successful company and yet we all want to be just one of the people, a working slob like everyone else. Maybe we need our meds adjusted or something.

This is piffle compared to Kerry's colossal fuck-up,

A fuck-up only existent in the minds of idiots who live their lives floating around sound clips.

The thing is, unlike Kerry's botch, this quote sounds good out of context: "The fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge." There's no insult to intelligence there, no sweeping generalizations. In fact, I think most Americans would agree that it should be the generals on the ground that are in charge. This is a far cry from saying that troops are uneducated slackers.

Though he only meant to say our commander-in-chief is an uneducated slacker.

what a pathetic attempt to scratch something together.

I cant wait til Howard Dean blurts out something really smart.

He'll get so passionate and excited and scream "I pooped a hammer!!"

A fuck-up only existent in the minds of idiots who live their lives floating around sound clips.

Are you planning to actually debate his point, or stick with the veiled character attacks?

what I find amusing is through all the rhetoric of "the proud brave soldiers of our volunteer army" apparently stops at some point when you've made that volunteer army your entire life and risen through the ranks.

So, praise to the farm boy from nebraska that enlists for 3 years...not so much from the guy that's been in it since korea and made it his life...

The only way to attain the rank of General is by careerism. That is focusing on your career and doing things that don't necesarily help anything else and very well hurt the military but help forward your career.

Are you planning to actually debate his point, or stick with the veiled character attacks?

considering his "point" was off topic for this post and would better be suited in the 3 other threads on the issue, I think a character attack and then move on is appropriate.

The only way to attain the rank of General is by careerism. That is focusing on your career and doing things that don't necesarily help anything else and very well hurt the military but help forward your career.

so you're saying....the best way to move forward in the military is to do things that hurt the military?

And pray tell how would you expect to be promoted from that? I don't know how things work at your place of business but at my firm doing things that hurt the company doesn't get your promoted, it gets you fired.

considering his "point" was off topic for this post and would better be suited in the 3 other threads on the issue, I think a character attack and then move on is appropriate.

"But wait, the other side is worse than that" seems pretty well on-topic to me. An inane argument, I'll grant you, but on-topic.

And really. Character attacks appropriate in a debate? I must have missed that memo.

so you're saying....the best way to move forward in the military is to do things that hurt the military?

And pray tell how would you expect to be promoted from that? I don't know how things work at your place of business but at my firm doing things that hurt the company doesn't get your promoted, it gets you fired.

It's called office politics. You have to get on the side of the military industrial complex which in turn gets you on the good side of the people who are already in the cahoots w/ the MIC and the cycle continues. Also, to make their record look good they look to get superficial but good looking acheivements. One example may to take very few casualties but to not complete your objectives to the extent of your capability b/c you didn't want to risk your career. Or say if you see something that is being done very wrong but your superiors don't want you to report your mistakes you can let the military be hurt while keeping your career alive.

A fuck-up only existent in the minds of idiots who live their lives floating around sound clips.

In other words the voting public?

So basically, Our Party supports Our Troops, and is Good and Pure.

The Other Party hates Our Troops, and is Evil and Corrupt.

Yawn.