NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry, I meant more on the War Czar. This about sums it up.

Earlier this week, there was a vague, unsubstantiated report that the White House has been exploring the notion of creating a senior position to oversee the conduct of the conflicts in Southwest Asia. Ostensibly, this slot would be filled by a retired military officer, and, not surprisingly, the media dubbed him the “War Czar.”

This astounding report has since been confirmed, and the sheer stupidity of it is staggering.

Reportedly, three retired generals -- Joe Ralston (Air Force), Jack Keane, (Army) and Jack Sheehan (Marines) -- were all approached about the job, and each turned it down. Sheehan has confirmed the story, with the reaction, “they (the White House) don’t know where they’re going.”

I concur.

For one thing, unless he’s decided he can’t do the job, we already have a War Czar, and his name is Robert Gates, who is the Secretary of Defense.

Until the period just after the Second World War, we had a Secretary of War, and in 1947, the Congress passed, and President Truman signed, the Defense Reorganization Act. Among other things, this created today’s Defense Department. The law euphemistically changed “War” to “Defense,” but the wartime functions of the Secretary didn’t change much.

Furthermore, to assist the Secretary, the law created a panel of senior military leaders to advise both him and the president. These people also serve as the uniformed heads of their services, and this panel is called the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As a group they are responsible for planning and executing combat operations. They report to the War Czar, Robert Gates.

The idea that we need someone on the White House staff to direct combat operations has to be the brainchild of a civil servant who has no understanding of the law and no grasp of the use of the military instrument of power.

Among other things, it violates one of the cardinal principles of war, that of unity of command. In combat, it is impossible to serve two bosses without putting both the mission and the troops in great peril. Think a bit about how the proposed White House War Czar is supposed to perform his duties. The implication is that he will have a command line to the field, bypassing Gates. Is Admiral Fallon, the commander of all troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, supposed to take orders from Gates or from the White House? Well, it sounds like he’ll have to obey both. Won’t work, folks.

Either the White House appointee is in charge or Gates is in charge. They can’t both be the boss.

Perhaps the most astonishing thing about all this is that, evidently, Secretary Gates thinks it’s a good idea, and he said as much in response to a question at a press conference a few days ago.

Now, Robert Gates is not an idiot, as far as we know. He’s an educated man, he ran the CIA and he speaks in complete sentences. But if he believes that it’s productive to have yet another layer of bureaucracy, another layer of decision-making, another detached boss issuing instructions to the people who are trying to fight our enemies, then he has no confidence in his own ability to be the Secretary of Defense of the United States. If he thinks ill-conceived schemes like this are good ideas, then he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If the White House ultimately concludes that it can’t live another minute without a War Czar, and if it can actually convince the Congress that it’s a good idea, it will still have to find some sucker whose ego is bigger than his intellect to take the job. Well, any General Officer who’s any good won’t take the job, and any General Officer who’ll take the job won’t be any good.

The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41444) is scary sometimes. I can't wait for the time when we can have a government that doesn't live down to them.
WASHINGTON, DC—In response to increasing criticism of his handling of the war in Iraq and the disaster in the Gulf Coast, as well as other issues, such as Social Security reform, the national deficit, and rising gas prices, President Bush is expected to appoint someone to run the U.S. as soon as Friday.

"During these tumultuous times, America is in need of a bold, resolute person who can get the job done," said Bush during a press conference Monday. "My fellow Americans, I assure you that I will appoint just such a person with all due haste."

The Cabinet-level position, to be known as Secretary of the Nation, was established by an executive order Sept. 2, but has remained unfilled in the intervening weeks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18076025/

Opps, forgot link.

hahahahah @ The Onion.

I have an eerie feeling this isn't something Robert Gates was privy to. In fact, it would make more sense that this was a way of working around him, as he's made it clear he isn't Rummy.

I have an eerie feeling this isn't something Robert Gates was privy to. In fact, it would make more sense that this was a way of working around him, as he's made it clear he isn't Rummy.

But...

Perhaps the most astonishing thing about all this is that, evidently, Secretary Gates thinks it’s a good idea, and he said as much in response to a question at a press conference a few days ago.

Now, Robert Gates is not an idiot, as far as we know. He’s an educated man, he ran the CIA and he speaks in complete sentences. But if he believes that it’s productive to have yet another layer of bureaucracy, another layer of decision-making, another detached boss issuing instructions to the people who are trying to fight our enemies, then he has no confidence in his own ability to be the Secretary of Defense of the United States. If he thinks ill-conceived schemes like this are good ideas, then he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Maybe now that he's in the thick he's thinking, "Holy shit! I don't want this mess at my feet!"

But...



Maybe now that he's in the thick he's thinking, "Holy shit! I don't want this mess at my feet!"

That could be it. Wanting a fall guy.

Maybe Gates wants a future that doesn't lie with being fired when W leaves in 2008; I could see him doing this to shift the mess in Iraq on someone else while he works to actually get things done in the Defense Department. A competent person like him could probably do a lot of good if he weren't forced to constantly clean up after W's mistakes.

The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going.
So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No thanks.'
...retired, former top NATO commander at that.

...retired, former top NATO commander at that.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but: You don't become top brass in any branch of the US military by being a dumbass.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but: You don't become top brass in any branch of the US military by being a dumbass.

Lends all that more to his statement. *nods*

Being Commander-in-Chief is a very tough job. I can see why George would want to get out of it. After all, it's not the first time Bush went AWOL in a time of war.

It's interesting they call it a war Czar, when so many Czars seemed to come to a violent, bloody end.

I suppose it's all part of the symbolism, that this guy will be an official Fall Guy. A Redshirt. Disposable.

All the same, I really hope people in the government start listening to the military when it comes to things like... the military. I don't support any of the wars we're in, but if we're going to fight them regardless, we might as well fight them in a way that doesn't end in bloody disaster at the hands of incompetence and bureacratic circle jerking.

Being Commander-in-Chief is a very tough job. I can see why George would want to get out of it. After all, it's not the first time Bush went AWOL in a time of war.

True - he should consider his strengths vs. weaknesses before taking another vacation.

Constitutional upholding (as sworn in upon becoming "president") - negative

Successful pretzel eating - negative

Mastery/nominal helm of english - negative

Ability to pass flight physicals - negative

Ability to determine/interpret/manage foreign policy - negative

Ability to manage domestic policy - negative

Ability to manage debt/deficit vs. programs initiated - negative

... hmmm ...

Ability to manage brush (other than a cut or two) on ranch - positive

Ability to vacation - positive

Ability to hire friends/Pioneers/Rangers to positions they have no business/experience in being - positive

Ability to hide behind loyal supporters for everything that happens - positive

Ability to seem like an affable guy instead of a silver-spoon brat bereft of any responsibility for anything leading up to now - positive (public face/spin)

Ability to fit in parachute outift without looking TOO intimidating in the crotch area - positive

Ability to play off of peoples' fears and insecurities for political gain - positive.

Maybe Gates wants a future that doesn't lie with being fired when W leaves in 2008; I could see him doing this to shift the mess in Iraq on someone else while he works to actually get things done in the Defense Department. A competent person like him could probably do a lot of good if he weren't forced to constantly clean up after W's mistakes.

Nah. No matter how well he does his job, he's toast after Dubya leaves. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, is going to want any whiff of Dubya in their administration on January 21, 2009.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but: You don't become top brass in any branch of the US military by being a dumbass.

(The retired Lieutenant Colonel stares oddly at Deus Malum for a moment, shakes his head, takes a deep breath, and counts to three.)

Yes you do. History is replete with examples of top Generals who were:

1. Useless.

2. Worse than useless.

3. Tits on a boar hog.

General officer's selection criteria is not just fitness for command, but political reliability. I had a nice career with no blemishes or black marks or bad OER's and the chance to go 30 and retire as a full bird or maybe pin one-star. I did not take these options.

In my career I saw the men and women who I knew were bright enough to climb the ladder mostly all fall by the wayside because of the political element of being on the General Staff or Admiralty.

It is my opinion that good people make General or Admiral DESPITE the selection process, not because of it.

It is fully conceivable that a boot licking asshole can become General, all he or she has to do is punch the correct career tickets along the way and I submit this is so because I have seen the system from the inside. You get 1 good, solid competent General out of every 20 or so. That is not a flattering number for the senior command staff.

So your comment is not accurate. You have good officers and bad officers at all levels. Otherwise we simply cannot explain the vast screw-ups committed by General officers.

(The retired Lieutenant Colonel stares oddly at Deus Malum for a moment, shakes his head, takes a deep breath, and counts to three.)

Yes you do. History is replete with examples of top Generals who were:

1. Useless.

2. Worse than useless.

3. Tits on a boar hog.

General officer's selection criteria is not just fitness for command, but political reliability. I had a nice career with no blemishes or black marks or bad OER's and the chance to go 30 and retire as a full bird or maybe pin one-star. I did not take these options.

In my career I saw the men and women who I knew were bright enough to climb the ladder mostly all fall by the wayside because of the political element of being on the General Staff or Admiralty.

It is my opinion that good people make General or Admiral DESPITE the selection process, not because of it.

It is fully conceivable that a boot licking asshole can become General, all he or she has to do is punch the correct career tickets along the way and I submit this is so because I have seen the system from the inside. You get 1 good, solid competent General out of every 20 or so. That is not a flattering number for the senior command staff.

So your comment is not accurate. You have good officers and bad officers at all levels. Otherwise we simply cannot explain the vast screw-ups committed by General officers.


while that may be true (and i see no reason for it not to be) that does not negate deus' point that generals arent stupid when it counts--politics. every one of the generals asked knows full well that it would be a "red-shirt position" (to crib from greater trostia's post). you dont get to be a general by not knowing which way the wind is blowing.

while that may be true (and i see no reason for it not to be) that does not negate deus' point that generals arent stupid when it counts--politics. every one of the generals asked knows full well that it would be a "red-shirt position" (to crib from greater trostia's post). you dont get to be a general by not knowing which way the wind is blowing.

Granted.

But I have also known some spectacularly idiotic Generals. They are the exception rather than the rule, though. Dick Myers...<shakes head sadly> a disgrace to the USAF, a solid suckup and sellout.

If you are a Marine, kindly recall the story of "Chesty" Puller, who SHOULD have been the Commandant of the Marine Corps, but he had zero patience for the politics and bootlicking required to be Commandant and basically shot his mouth off so much that his appointment was withdrawn. Darn shame, Chesty was the prime example of a (positive) living legend.

Granted.

But I have also known some spectacularly idiotic Generals. They are the exception rather than the rule, though. Dick Myers...<shakes head sadly> a disgrace to the USAF, a solid suckup and sellout.

If you are a Marine, kindly recall the story of "Chesty" Puller, who SHOULD have been the Commandant of the Marine Corps, but he had zero patience for the politics and bootlicking required to be Commandant and basically shot his mouth off so much that his appointment was withdrawn. Darn shame, Chesty was the prime example of a (positive) living legend.

But that's the point. The people in these positions know how to play the game. They're not going to go shooting their mouths off at the president, and they're most certainly going to understand that the War Czar position is the fall guy.

Also: You're a retired Lt. Colonel? Awesome!

But that's the point. The people in these positions know how to play the game. They're not going to go shooting their mouths off at the president, and they're most certainly going to understand that the War Czar position is the fall guy.


And that makes them competent managers of a war effort?

That could be it. Wanting a fall guy.

I liked the colbert report the other night discussing this topic. "If only the constitution provided for some sort of chiefly commander or commander in chief. Oh well, all we have is a war president (but to bush calling himself a war president). Will this sack of shit evade every responsibility of his life? Yes, GWB is a sack of shit looking for a fall guy.

Edit: My apologies to sacks of shit worldwide.

And that makes them competent managers of a war effort?

Where in my post did I say anything about the war effort? If they perceive the position as a scapegoat position, they will probably have the brains to say "Nah, the buck doesn't stop here, I don't like falling on my sword so you can sleep at night."

Where in my post did I say anything about the war effort? If they perceive the position as a scapegoat position, they will probably have the brains to say "Nah, the buck doesn't stop here, I don't like falling on my sword so you can sleep at night."

You made a comment to the affect that them being good at politics means that they would be in this position. This position is about running a war. Therefore you said that being a shrew politician makes you a competent war leader. I do not think that this position is a good idea at all. It is just one more layer of bureaucracy to navigate.

You made a comment to the affect that them being good at politics means that they would be in this position. This position is about running a war. Therefore you said that being a shrew politician makes you a competent war leader. I do not think that this position is a good idea at all. It is just one more layer of bureaucracy to navigate.

No. In fact I said the opposite. I said them being good at politics is why they reject this position.

I liked the colbert report the other night discussing this topic. "If only the constitution provided for some sort of chiefly commander or commander in chief. Oh well, all we have is a war president (but to bush calling himself a war president). Will this sack of shit evade every responsibility of his life? Yes, GWB is a sack of shit looking for a fall guy.

I hope that you're retired to be shootin' your mouth off like that.

I hope that you're retired to be shootin' your mouth off like that.

No, but anonymity is nice here. I've done as much shootin' as I really care to as I really am willing to do for this man. He's the Cinc and ultimately responsible for the decisions made in this war. Can you tell me this is not just an attempt to evade responsibility? To make someone else the guy who they blame when there is more unrest and more bombings? We have people responsible for wars, they're call generals. He didn't want to listen to them then and he doesn't now. I'm glad the generals have been smart enough to know he's just looking for a scapegoat like Katrina. I personally love the general who said "they don't know where the hell they're going with this." The bottom line is that they politicized the intelligence through the office of special plans through Douglass Feith. Getting angry with me is not going to change the fact that they Fubar-ed this entire experience and now they must sleep in the bed of fleas they have laid in. I will not apologize for calling it like I see it as I'm still an American with free speech. My retirement will come soon enough and hopefully before another tour. My loyalty and duty are to this country, not any one man or his administration. Respect to America first, the president when he deserves it.

No. In fact I said the opposite. I said them being good at politics is why they reject this position.

IDK, I'm not exactly a politician and i would most certainly not take this position if I was in their situation. Just think about it. They are retired, have no financial incentive, and have already served their country. There is no reason to take the position. Let someone looking for a promotion take it.

No, but anonymity is nice here. I've done as much shootin' as I really care to as I really am willing to do for this man. He's the Cinc and ultimately responsible for the decisions made in this war. Can you tell me this is not just an attempt to evade responsibility?
It might be and it might not. Either way it is not your place to decide. I'm not going to explain to you why you shouldn't mindlessly ridicule your superior, b/c you should already know why.
We have people responsible for wars, they're call generals. He didn't want to listen to them then and he doesn't now. I'm glad the generals have been smart enough to know he's just looking for a scapegoat like Katrina.
By all accounts all he does is listen to generals. He gets a sitrep by generals, the generals tell him what they are doing and they all go on their merry way.
I personally love the general who said "they don't know where the hell they're going with this."
So maybe a retired general is exactly what they need to straighten them out.
The bottom line is that they politicized the intelligence through the office of special plans through Douglass Feith.
Let them do the politics and you do the fighting.
Getting angry with me is not going to change the fact that they Fubar-ed this entire experience and now they must sleep in the bed of fleas they have laid in.
You don't sound like any Marine that i have ever heard. You would rather have vengeance than do what is necessary to complete the mission.
I will not apologize for calling it like I see it as I'm still an American with free speech.
You checked those rights at the door when you joined.
My retirement will come soon enough and hopefully before another tour. My loyalty and duty are to this country, not any one man or his administration. Respect to America first, the president when he deserves it.
You don't have to be mindlessly loyal, just not disrespectful. You are undermining the war effort in more ways than I can count.

It might be and it might not. Either way it is not your place to decide. I'm not going to explain to you why you shouldn't mindlessly ridicule your superior, b/c you should already know why.

By all accounts all he does is listen to generals. He gets a sitrep by generals, the generals tell him what they are doing and they all go on their merry way.

So maybe a retired general is exactly what they need to straighten them out.

Let them do the politics and you do the fighting.

You don't sound like any Marine that i have ever heard. You would rather have vengeance than do what is necessary to complete the mission.

You checked those rights at the door when you joined.

You don't have to be mindlessly loyal, just not disrespectful. You are undermining the war effort in more ways than I can count.

First, I did not lose my rights as an American citizen by joining up. That is a fallacy that people propagate to get everyone to "fall in line." Next, Am I running to the paper and saying these things? Am I writing letters to the White House? No, I'm venting my anger and distrust for someone who doesn't deserve to share the honor that we both have on a message board. Third, undermining the war effort? Am I giving intelligence to hostile forces? Have I provided them with weapons, sanctuary, any of these things? No, I'm just proclaiming my individual belief that we've all been lied to as was pretty much proven in the IG's report on the office of special plans. I'm saying that we should not honor those who allow us to die for their fools errand. I'm saying that we are not mindless drones who are allowed to be duped by our leaders, but valuable human being who do not deserve the dishonor brought to us. To be technical, this is not a war, it's a military action as congress is the only entity that has the power to declare war. Finally, when their politics are based on deceit I will call them the snakes that they are. They have neither of our best interests in mind and yet you still say "give them the benefit of the doubt." Why, because they've been so competent and honest from the start? Why, because they haven't been shoveling the same "The Iraqis are making tremendous progress" shit down our throats for over four years? How many time scan you make "tremendous progress" before you succeed. AS marines we are men of honor and you know that. You'll allow a man to take that from your because of a Supreme Court decision in 2000? I'm out soon and then perhaps you'll see me really speak my mind. I'm tired of swallowing my tongue whenever I hear the words we all know are untrue. Just because you'll allow it without any sense of rage doesn't mean I must do the same. I respect you sir, but not those you cede your power to.

First, I did not lose my rights as an American citizen by joining up.
Yes you did lose a significant portion of your 1st amendment rights. When you leave that will change.
That is a fallacy that people propagate to get everyone to "fall in line."
No, it is law.
Next, Am I running to the paper and saying these things? Am I writing letters to the White House?
No but you are saying these things to people who take your word for truth and this changes their opinions.
No, I'm venting my anger and distrust for someone who doesn't deserve to share the honor that we both have on a message board.
Vent it somewhere less public.
Third, undermining the war effort? Am I giving intelligence to hostile forces? Have I provided them with weapons, sanctuary, any of these things? No, I'm just proclaiming my individual belief that we've all been lied to as was pretty much proven in the IG's report on the office of special plans.
Yes, what is your rank? I'm sure that you have subordinates. You are their mentor and they look up to you. You losing your head is only a negative thing.
I'm saying that we should not honor those who allow us to die for their fools errand.
You do not get to choose the errand and it is not your place to decide it. You do your job and they will do theirs. If they don't then they won't get reelected.
I'm saying that we are not mindless drones who are allowed to be duped by our leaders, but valuable human being who do not deserve the dishonor brought to us.
No dishonor has been brought to us. You can only bring it to yourself.
To be technical, this is not a war, it's a military action as congress is the only entity that has the power to declare war.
To be technical, I don't give a fuck.
Finally, when their politics are based on deceit I will call them the snakes that they are.
No, you will keep your mouth shut until you are out of the Marines.
They have neither of our best interests in mind and yet you still say "give them the benefit of the doubt."
You do not know that. Don't spread heresy.
Why, because they've been so competent and honest from the start?
It is not your place to say whether they are competent or not. They most certainly will not say that you are incompetent. If you don't like it then don't vote for it. It is all that you can do.
Why, because they haven't been shoveling the same "The Iraqis are making tremendous progress" shit down our throats for over four years? How many time scan you make "tremendous progress" before you succeed.
You shouldn't have to be told it, you should see it.
AS marines we are men of honor and you know that.
A Marine would know that "Marines" should always be capitalized.
You'll allow a man to take that from your because of a Supreme Court decision in 2000? I'm out soon and then perhaps you'll see me really speak my mind. I'm tired of swallowing my tongue whenever I hear the words we all know are untrue.
Cause you're really trying hard at that right now.
Just because you'll allow it without any sense of rage doesn't mean I must do the same.
No, the law means you must.

Yes you did lose a significant portion of your 1st amendment rights. When you leave that will change.

No, it is law.

No but you are saying these things to people who take your word for truth and this changes their opinions.

Vent it somewhere less public.

Yes, what is your rank? I'm sure that you have subordinates. You are their mentor and they look up to you. You losing your head is only a negative thing.

You do not get to choose the errand and it is not your place to decide it. You do your job and they will do theirs. If they don't then they won't get reelected.

No dishonor has been brought to us. You can only bring it to yourself.

To be technical, I don't give a fuck.

No, you will keep your mouth shut until you are out of the Marines.

You do not know that. Don't spread heresy.

It is not your place to say whether they are competent or not. They most certainly will not say that you are incompetent. If you don't like it then don't vote for it. It is all that you can do.

You shouldn't have to be told it, you should see it.

A Marine would know that "Marines" should always be capitalized.

Cause you're really trying hard at that right now.

No, the law means you must.

Sir, actions speak louder than words. If you do not see that this administrations actions do not support the troops like their rhetoric does then fine. Less public you say? Posting a message on an anonymous website is hardly public. I will vent my aggravation where I see fit and face the consequences if need be. I am a 1st Lt. and Princeton Grad. I didn't go there for lack of reasoning skills and OCS didn't train me to simply be a rubber stamp. What is all this wonderful progress you want me to see? From what I can see there are still people trying to kill each and every one of us and ethnic strife between the clans. When John McCain doesn't need a flack jacket, 4 choppers, and 100 soldiers to protect him in the green zone I'll take it as things have calmed down. As for now, guard your 6 when on patrol.

The truth is that things have not gone well and they still do not go well. I don't need a media outlet to tell me what my own eyes have seen. You keep dodging the real issues with everything I say. It's about the lies my friend, the lies. The IG making it plain as day that intelligence was manipulated intentionally to support their rationale for war. A war based on lies will never be just. The President wants his war czar to deflect responsibility from himself, and that's the long and short of it. He's failed miserably all his life and he continues to fail the men and women who wear the uniform daily. We went to war all for a lie and that stench doesn't get stuck in your nostrils? We do not choose our battles but can we at least expect a little honesty? Or is that too much to ask from such an honorable man as our current CinC. Damn right I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to sit quietly. You mark my words, we're still there in 5 years and it still won't be the peachy place the powers that be wants us to believe it is. Sell your happy stories to the people who get blown up there everyday and ask their families how pleased they are. Public opinion both US and Iraqi says this is a failed mission, but you want to stay another 5-10 years hoping to make gold from shit?

Yes you did lose a significant portion of your 1st amendment rights. When you leave that will change.

No, it is law.

No but you are saying these things to people who take your word for truth and this changes their opinions.

Vent it somewhere less public.

Yes, what is your rank? I'm sure that you have subordinates. You are their mentor and they look up to you. You losing your head is only a negative thing.

You do not get to choose the errand and it is not your place to decide it. You do your job and they will do theirs. If they don't then they won't get reelected.

No dishonor has been brought to us. You can only bring it to yourself.

To be technical, I don't give a fuck.

No, you will keep your mouth shut until you are out of the Marines.

You do not know that. Don't spread heresy.

It is not your place to say whether they are competent or not. They most certainly will not say that you are incompetent. If you don't like it then don't vote for it. It is all that you can do.

You shouldn't have to be told it, you should see it.

A Marine would know that "Marines" should always be capitalized.

Cause you're really trying hard at that right now.

No, the law means you must.

One more thing... I do my damn job like a good Marine and my men do too. And even when they vent their disagreement with our leaders I tell them to be still and remember their training. I've always scored perfect on my evals and will continue to do so until my honorable. History will expose the rats for who they are as soon as a sensible man overturns an exec order that hides papers which were meant to be public. Then we'll see who was on the side of truth and honor, place your bets.

One more thing... I do my damn job like a good Marine and my men do too. And even when they vent their disagreement with our leaders I tell them to be still and remember their training. I've always scored perfect on my evals and will continue to do so until my honorable. History will expose the rats for who they are as soon as a sensible man overturns an exec order that hides papers which were meant to be public. Then we'll see who was on the side of truth and honor, place your bets.
Glad to hear it.

Sir, actions speak louder than words. If you do not see that this administrations actions do not support the troops like their rhetoric does then fine. Less public you say? Posting a message on an anonymous website is hardly public. I will vent my aggravation where I see fit and face the consequences if need be.
This is a very public place. There are 200+ people viewing at any time. You will, of course not face any consequences b/c your identity is still very much secret but that doesn't mean that the morality of what you are doing is right.
I am a 1st Lt. and Princeton Grad. I didn't go there for lack of reasoning skills and OCS didn't train me to simply be a rubber stamp. What is all this wonderful progress you want me to see? From what I can see there are still people trying to kill each and every one of us and ethnic strife between the clans. When John McCain doesn't need a flack jacket, 4 choppers, and 100 soldiers to protect him in the green zone I'll take it as things have calmed down. As for now, guard your 6 when on patrol.
I am assuming that you went through nrotc at Princeton. How did you manage to not make it past 0-2 in 8 years? I'm pretty sure that that is not quite possible. And the president requires dozens of Secret Service agents with him at all times while within CONUS. Does that mean that the U.S. isn't calm?
The truth is that things have not gone well and they still do not go well. I don't need a media outlet to tell me what my own eyes have seen. You keep dodging the real issues with everything I say. It's about the lies my friend, the lies. The IG making it plain as day that intelligence was manipulated intentionally to support their rationale for war. A war based on lies will never be just.
I'll have to read the IG. Link me.

By all accounts all he does is listen to generals.


You mean the ones he fired cause they said his idea was a bad one?

And undermining the war effort? What are you? Gestapo? "Criticism is undermining the war effort! Sieg Heil!"

But...

Maybe now that he's in the thick he's thinking, "Holy shit! I don't want this mess at my feet!"

Well, I don't think there was ever a time that Bush could not have been described as "in the thick."

I tried to find the Daily Show clip, but Simon Oliver had an explanation of what the War Czar duties would be. Long joke short. It's going to be his job to take the blame.

You mean the ones he fired cause they said his idea was a bad one?

And undermining the war effort? What are you? Gestapo? "Criticism is undermining the war effort! Sieg Heil!"
No, it's okay for a civilian. But it is his job to mentor and lead his Marines. It is a different situation completely.

This is a very public place. There are 200+ people viewing at any time. You will, of course not face any consequences b/c your identity is still very much secret but that doesn't mean that the morality of what you are doing is right.

I am assuming that you went through nrotc at Princeton. How did you manage to not make it past 0-2 in 8 years? I'm pretty sure that that is not quite possible. And the president requires dozens of Secret Service agents with him at all times while within CONUS. Does that mean that the U.S. isn't calm?

I'll have to read the IG. Link me.

link to coverage (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=5020327)

It might be and it might not. Either way it is not your place to decide. I'm not going to explain to you why you shouldn't mindlessly ridicule your superior, b/c you should already know why.

No matter how you feel about Liuzzo's stand or what he's saying, you can't legitimately say that he's mindlessly ridiculing his superior. There's nothing at all mindless about his ridicule (and the question of Bush's superiority is certainly up for debate as well).

link to coverage (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=5020327)

They said that they got illegitimate intel. Not that they fabricated it. When are you getting out?

No matter how you feel about Liuzzo's stand or what he's saying, you can't legitimately say that he's mindlessly ridiculing his superior. There's nothing at all mindless about his ridicule (and the question of Bush's superiority is certainly up for debate as well).

"Will this sack of shit evade every responsibility of his life? Yes, GWB is a sack of shit looking for a fall guy."
-Liuzzo

I have yet to hear someone calling another person a sack of shit being very thoughtful.

"Will this sack of shit evade every responsibility of his life? Yes, GWB is a sack of shit looking for a fall guy."
-Liuzzo

I have yet to hear someone calling another person a sack of shit being very thoughtful.

Then listen harder.

Then listen harder.

If you have to resort to name-calling then you have lost your head. If you are calm and collected and thinking logically then you will always be able to have an intelligent discussion w/o having to lower yourself. When you lower yourself to that level you end your thought process and begin running on solely emotions.

If you have to resort to name-calling then you have lost your head. If you are calm and collected and thinking logically then you will always be able to have an intelligent discussion w/o having to lower yourself. When you lower yourself to that level you end your thought process and begin running on solely emotions.

But who said he had to resort to that? That suggests that Liuzzo was unable to do anything else. Quite often one is able to continue to argue without name-calling and simply chooses not to, because the situation calls for it. Sometimes you have to call a sack of shit a sack of shit, because nothing else will quite express the amount of loathing one has for a person. Sometimes there are no synonyms--call it a failure of language, if you will.

Try this--what is a good synonym for asshole, when it is applied to a person? No other word, in my experience, quite gets to the heart of the kind of conduct that the word asshole describes, at least not without descending further into profanity. Shitbag might do it, but no politer word will do.

I can quite dispassionately refer to George W Bush as an asshole, because I feel it describes him accurately. I have to use somewhat stronger language to get my point across about Dick Cheney. But I haven't left my cognitive abilities behind when doing it. Simply referring to a person with a pejorative description is not necessarily a sign of mindlessness. In fact, if the pejorative is well chosen--like calling someone a sack of shit and then apologizing to sacks of shit everywhere for the unfair comparison--it can be a sign of thoughtfulness in the use of language.

But who said he had to resort to that? That suggests that Liuzzo was unable to do anything else. Quite often one is able to continue to argue without name-calling and simply chooses not to, because the situation calls for it. Sometimes you have to call a sack of shit a sack of shit, because nothing else will quite express the amount of loathing one has for a person. Sometimes there are no synonyms--call it a failure of language, if you will.

Try this--what is a good synonym for asshole, when it is applied to a person? No other word, in my experience, quite gets to the heart of the kind of conduct that the word asshole describes, at least not without descending further into profanity. Shitbag might do it, but no politer word will do.

I can quite dispassionately refer to George W Bush as an asshole, because I feel it describes him accurately. I have to use somewhat stronger language to get my point across about Dick Cheney. But I haven't left my cognitive abilities behind when doing it. Simply referring to a person with a pejorative description is not necessarily a sign of mindlessness. In fact, if the pejorative is well chosen--like calling someone a sack of shit and then apologizing to sacks of shit everywhere for the unfair comparison--it can be a sign of thoughtfulness in the use of language.

Asshole or shit bag have emotional baggage attached to them. When one uses either of these words they infer that that is how they feel about something. Now feelings are most often, free from logic. You do not need to call somebody anything when arguing their actions and IMO it takes away from your argument b/c emotions are obviously the overriding factor to you. You can simply state what you think they are doing wrong and what needs to be done to rectify the situation. There is no need to attack the person.

Cause you're really trying hard at that right now.

A Marine would know that "Marines" should always be capitalized.

You do not know that. Don't spread heresy.

No dishonor has been brought to us. You can only bring it to yourself.

To be technical, I don't give a fuck.

Glad to hear it.

They said that they got illegitimate intel. Not that they fabricated it. When are you getting out?

For someone who believes that name-calling is below them, you seem to resort to it a lot. In the space of 3 or 4 posts, you've managed to call Liuzzo:

An idiot
A heretic
Dishonourable
Insane

And what's with the condecending? Is Liuzzo below you? And for someone "better" than Liuzzo you've even managed to have to resort to swearing.

When you lower yourself to that level you end your thought process and begin running on solely emotions.

I'd say what you've said was pretty emotional. It certainly made me feel emotional, that people like Liuzzo are fighting and dieing, and yet you can't say thank you for it. To quote the man:

Sir, actions speak louder than words.

Stop bitching and get off your arse if you care so much.

/rant

For someone who believes that name-calling is below them, you seem to resort to it a lot. In the space of 3 or 4 posts, you've managed to call Liuzzo:

An idiot
A heretic
Dishonourable
Insane

What are you talking about? When did I call him any of that?
And what's with the condecending? Is Liuzzo below you? And for someone "better" than Liuzzo you've even managed to have to resort to swearing.
Yes, he is below me. He's 0-2 and i'm 0-3. Do some research before you mouth off.


I'd say what you've said was pretty emotional. It certainly made me feel emotional, that people like Liuzzo are fighting and dieing, and yet you can't say thank you for it. To quote the man:
WTF are you talking about? Maybe you became emotional b/c you have no idea of what you are talking about?


Stop bitching and get off your arse if you care so much.
?

No, it's okay for a civilian. But it is his job to mentor and lead his Marines. It is a different situation completely.

You've still yet to counter the fact that Bush removed the generals who said his idea was a bad one.

As for emotional attachments when using profanity, sometimes they are also used as a means for shortening lengthy descriptors.

For example, one can call Bush a "knowledge deficient, counsel resistant, factually allergic, morally untethered, logically impaired human"

Or one can call him an asshole and save one's breath.

You've still yet to counter the fact that Bush removed the generals who said his idea was a bad one.
He removed a general. That general said his idea was bad. There is not necessarily a connection.
As for emotional attachments when using profanity, sometimes they are also used as a means for shortening lengthy descriptors.

For example, one can call Bush a "knowledge deficient, counsel resistant, factually allergic, morally untethered, logically impaired human"

Or one can call him an asshole and save one's breath.

Or you could call him POTUS

What are you talking about? When did I call him any of that?

Ummm. He did quote you, you know. You might want to go back and read your own words.

He removed a general. That general said his idea was bad. There is not necessarily a connection.

If he had only done it once (removed a person who disagreed with him), you might have an argument. He's done it multiple times. There's a connection.

Ummm. He did quote you, you know. You might want to go back and read your own words.

An idiot- Never said anything close to it
A heretic- I said that what he said was heresy. That was a typo, i meant to type hearsay. Either way I did not call him anything
Dishonourable- I said that Bush can not dishonor us. I don't know where he made that connection.
Insane- Acting childish =/= insane. Not that i called him either.

WTF are you talking about? Maybe you became emotional b/c you have no idea of what you are talking about?

See, you've done it again. It's called "reading between the lines"

By typing "don't spread heresy" you're implying that he's a heretic.

See where I'm going?

If he had only done it once (removed a person who disagreed with him), you might have an argument. He's done it multiple times. There's a connection.

If they were removed for a simple discrepancy in opinion then there is a problem. If they were removed for openly acting as Liuzzo is on these boards then it was the correct step. Either way Bush did nothing illegal, he was just morally lacking.

He removed more than one general. Their connection? They all said his idea was bad.

I have a bridge to sell you. It's over the river called Denial.

Look at what i said to Nazz

Piece Of Terribly Unintelligent Shit?
That is the exact childish name calling that I am talking about. It accomplishes nothing and only detracts from whatever you are saying.

He removed a general. That general said his idea was bad. There is not necessarily a connection.


He removed more than one general. Their connection? They all said his idea was bad.

I have a bridge to sell you. It's over the river called Denial.


Or you could call him POTUS

Piece Of Terribly Unintelligent Shit?

Titles don't accord respect. Unless you prefer living in a monarchy where disrespect against the crown is called Lèse majesté.

Titles don't accord respect. Unless you prefer living in a monarchy where disrespect against the crown is called Lèse majesté.
In a monarchy you do not earn your title. In a democracy you do. The people vote you into office and you are thereby afforded respect. It's just like in anything where you have to earn your position.

If they were removed for a simple discrepancy in opinion then there is a problem. If they were removed for openly acting as Liuzzo is on these boards then it was the correct step. Either way Bush did nothing illegal, he was just morally lacking.

Never said it was illegal--just said that there was a connection. And they were removed because they didn't toe the company line. Shinseki, for instance, was removed because he dared to say in the months before the Iraq War started that we would need 400-500K soldiers to stabilize Iraq. The administration didn't agree and removed him. And there are other cases.

See, you've done it again. It's called "reading between the lines"

By typing "don't spread heresy" you're implying that he's a heretic.

See where I'm going?

If you would read the post just above yours you would see that i meant to say hearsay which is the only thing that could have made sense there. If you had read between the lines you could see that.

Never said it was illegal--just said that there was a connection. And they were removed because they didn't toe the company line. Shinseki, for instance, was removed because he dared to say in the months before the Iraq War started that we would need 400-500K soldiers to stabilize Iraq. The administration didn't agree and removed him. And there are other cases.
It is very possible that Shinseki was released for political reasons but it is also possible that he was released for breaking UCMJ. If so, it is more evidence that spouting off emotional name calling does nothing to further your argument.

In a monarchy you do not earn your title. In a democracy you do. The people vote you into office and you are thereby afforded respect. It's just like in anything where you have to earn your position.

Put it this way. In America, you get put into political office by being able to fool the most people. That says absolutely nothing about your ability to rule a country. All it says is that you make the best used car salesman or conman.

What you do when you're in office. That is what makes you give respect or not.

In fact, if you believe what you spout, you'd better give Liuzzo plenty of respect here and now. He's an officer after all.

Go on. Grovel to him. Prove to me that you believe what you say and that you aren't a lying coward.

Oh, and for continuously avoiding the issue where there IS a connection between the dismissed generals and their evaluation of Bush's ideas, you get nominated for "Poor Debater of the week" award.

Put it this way. In America, you get put into political office by being able to fool the most people. That says absolutely nothing about your ability to rule a country. All it says is that you make the best used car salesman or conman.

What you do when you're in office. That is what makes you give respect or not.
It says that at a minimum. It also says that the majority of the people trust their country to you. That in itself demands respect.
In fact, if you believe what you spout, you'd better give Liuzzo plenty of respect here and now. He's an officer after all.

Go on. Grovel to him. Prove to me that you believe what you say and that you aren't a lying coward.
Yes, and I outrank him. There's that and I am fairly certain that if he comes back I will be able to prove that he is in fact not a Marine.

Oh, and for continuously avoiding the issue where there IS a connection between the dismissed generals and their evaluation of Bush's ideas, you get nominated for "Poor Debater of the week" award.
I am having the same debate with Nazz so if you would kindly direct your attention there that would be great. Oh, and acting like a child only makes what you are arguing look worse.

Except only one fifth of the population votes...
Okay, the majority of the people who care enough about the country to get off their ass for a half hour and vote.

It says that at a minimum. It also says that the majority of the people trust their country to you. That in itself demands respect.
Except only one fifth of the population votes...

It is very possible that Shinseki was released for political reasons but it is also possible that he was released for breaking UCMJ. If so, it is more evidence that spouting off emotional name calling does nothing to further your argument.

No--he was testifying before Congress, not just shooting his mouth off. And the same is the case for pretty much everyone Bush has removed. With Paul O'Neill, it was because he didn't agree with what the policy was in Cabinet meeting. With Larry Lindsay, it was what he said when testifying before Congress, also on the war. And time and time again, it's the same thing. With Bush, it's loyalty, first, last and always, and that's a stupid way to run a country. Hell, it's a stupid way to run a club.

No--he was testifying before Congress, not just shooting his mouth off. And the same is the case for pretty much everyone Bush has removed. With Paul O'Neill, it was because he didn't agree with what the policy was in Cabinet meeting. With Larry Lindsay, it was what he said when testifying before Congress, also on the war. And time and time again, it's the same thing. With Bush, it's loyalty, first, last and always, and that's a stupid way to run a country. Hell, it's a stupid way to run a club.
I don't have the transcript of his testimony so I really can't pass judgment.

I don't have the transcript of his testimony so I really can't pass judgment.It was congressional testimony. Not much chance for name-calling, especially since the Republicans controlled Congress at the time and were in charge of the questioning.

It was congressional testimony. Not much chance for name-calling, especially since the Republicans controlled Congress at the time and were in charge of the questioning.

To me, not much chance sounds like entirely possible. Congressional hearings can get quite heated.

If you have to resort to name-calling then you have lost your head. If you are calm and collected and thinking logically then you will always be able to have an intelligent discussion w/o having to lower yourself. When you lower yourself to that level you end your thought process and begin running on solely emotions.

Nonsense. Thought processes don't "end" just because one uses a certain vocabulary. But if that's the way you want it, then the fact that you typed "w/o" instead of "without" shows that your thought processes have ended and you have lost your head. Yay ad hom!

Nonsense. Thought processes don't "end" just because one uses a certain vocabulary. But if that's the way you want it, then the fact that you typed "w/o" instead of "without" shows that your thought processes have ended and you have lost your head. Yay ad hom!

Did I emotionally attack anybody with the words w/o? No. Emotions are the opposite of rational thought. IDK where you mixed abbreviations with emotions but whatever keeps ya goin.

To me, not much chance sounds like entirely possible. Congressional hearings can get quite heated.

For crying out loud. Read (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm) . Inform yourself. Keep bending over backwards to defend Bush and you'll snap in two.

It says that at a minimum. It also says that the majority of the people trust their country to you. That in itself demands respect.

So you respect con artists, Nigerian 401 scam runners, and other confidence tricksters? Some of these people are trusting their entire life savings after all.


Yes, and I outrank him. There's that and I am fairly certain that if he comes back I will be able to prove that he is in fact not a Marine.


So you say. And how exactly do you intend to prove it hmm? I do not think you would be able to get any personally identifiable information out of him.


I am having the same debate with Nazz so if you would kindly direct your attention there that would be great. Oh, and acting like a child only makes what you are arguing look worse.

Even before you began debating with Nazz, you were already ignoring my points.

And sometimes, acting like a child, at least an honest one, is better than being deliberately ignorant of facts.

No, but anonymity is nice here. I've done as much shootin' as I really care to as I really am willing to do for this man. He's the Cinc and ultimately responsible for the decisions made in this war. Can you tell me this is not just an attempt to evade responsibility? To make someone else the guy who they blame when there is more unrest and more bombings? We have people responsible for wars, they're call generals. He didn't want to listen to them then and he doesn't now. I'm glad the generals have been smart enough to know he's just looking for a scapegoat like Katrina. I personally love the general who said "they don't know where the hell they're going with this." The bottom line is that they politicized the intelligence through the office of special plans through Douglass Feith. Getting angry with me is not going to change the fact that they Fubar-ed this entire experience and now they must sleep in the bed of fleas they have laid in. I will not apologize for calling it like I see it as I'm still an American with free speech. My retirement will come soon enough and hopefully before another tour. My loyalty and duty are to this country, not any one man or his administration. Respect to America first, the president when he deserves it.

While I am sympathetic to your position, anonymity is not so anonymous. It is patently unwise while in active duty service to criticize POTUS. The regulations are quite clear in that regard.

This is not to say that I did not have some very strong opinions when I was on active duty service. I just kept to my own counsel. I would also advise you to do so as well...from retired officer to serving officer. Retirements have been lost over smaller things.

It is very clear to anyone who paid attention at War College and Command and Staff College that there was no real long term planning for the occupation period in Iraq. Assessments were overly optimistic and unrealistic, but this type of problem has existed for as long as civilian control is retained over the military (civilian control a policy that I approve of, despite the obvious problems).

Lt. Gen Petraeus is a pretty smart cookie, and shows signs of being his own man. I am willing to see how he deals with the long term problem of the insurgency while being forced to get results in the short term.

To briefly comment on General Shinseki, I have nothing but the deepest and admiration for him. He said some awfully tough things when no one wanted a naysayer. That man is a warrior, and deserving of the accolade.

Fascinating debate but...

Where is Southwest Asia?

Myanmar? Bangladesh? Kerala?

EDIT: Ah, I googled, the Middle East essentially.

Originally Posted by Liuzzo
No, but anonymity is nice here.

Regarding anonymity, you've given enough information about yourself in this and other threads that, given the inclination for research, I suspect I'd be able to email you direct.

For crying out loud. Read (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm) . Inform yourself. Keep bending over backwards to defend Bush and you'll snap in two.

I don't call saying that there is the possibility that these things occurred defending but if I must. He probably said nothing wrong but there is still the possibility. Either way, he was right and deserves recognition.

So you respect con artists, Nigerian 401 scam runners, and other confidence tricksters? Some of these people are trusting their entire life savings after all.
No, not at all. To say that being the leader of the most powerful nation in the world doesn't command respect is insane.


So you say. And how exactly do you intend to prove it hmm? I do not think you would be able to get any personally identifiable information out of him.
B/c he said some things about his past that don't quite add up.




Even before you began debating with Nazz, you were already ignoring my points.

And sometimes, acting like a child, at least an honest one, is better than being deliberately ignorant of facts.
What point haven't I addressed?

No, not at all. To say that being the leader of the most powerful nation in the world doesn't command respect is insane.

No, saying being the leader of the most powerful nation in the world commands respect IS insane. It implies a junkyard dog mentality. "He's the most powerful, so of course I respect him."

That's just crap. It's even more crap cause the way US elections are run are nothing more than glorified American Idol contests. It's all about who can tell the biggest whopper and make it sound convincing.

If you expect anyone to respect a position of massive responsibility where the only job requirement is being able to fool the most people, you're out of your gourd.

It's like a super 401 Nigerian scam with presidency as the prize.

What you do with is what commands respect. Not how you got it.


B/c he said some things about his past that don't quite add up.


Like? You'll have to do more than one instance of non-capitalization.


What point haven't I addressed?

The one regarding the generals being dismissed. But forget it. I'll chalk this one up to to chronological discrepancies.

It says that at a minimum. It also says that the majority of the people trust their country to you. That in itself demands respect.

Yes, and I outrank him. There's that and I am fairly certain that if he comes back I will be able to prove that he is in fact not a Marine.


I am having the same debate with Nazz so if you would kindly direct your attention there that would be great. Oh, and acting like a child only makes what you are arguing look worse.

Sorry, I was a little busy at the moment. You outrank me and I address you as sir so what's the problem? I'm based out of NJ and do my training in Red Bank. There are some of us who, in fact, do not agree with you or the POTUS. I will not divulge any more personal information for fear of reprisal. Up to now I have kept my identity pretty private and wish it to remain that way. I'll be out in November shortly before making Captain which would be nice.

It says that at a minimum. It also says that the majority of the people trust their country to you. That in itself demands respect.

Yes, and I outrank him. There's that and I am fairly certain that if he comes back I will be able to prove that he is in fact not a Marine.


I am having the same debate with Nazz so if you would kindly direct your attention there that would be great. Oh, and acting like a child only makes what you are arguing look worse.

Further, address the issue at hand. Why do we need a war czar when we already have a CinC and and a SecDef? Attacking me will not make this issue go away. I restate, the war czar is merely a position meant to deflect responsibility from the POTUS and SecDef and to politicize the issue.

While I am sympathetic to your position, anonymity is not so anonymous. It is patently unwise while in active duty service to criticize POTUS. The regulations are quite clear in that regard.

This is not to say that I did not have some very strong opinions when I was on active duty service. I just kept to my own counsel. I would also advise you to do so as well...from retired officer to serving officer. Retirements have been lost over smaller things.

It is very clear to anyone who paid attention at War College and Command and Staff College that there was no real long term planning for the occupation period in Iraq. Assessments were overly optimistic and unrealistic, but this type of problem has existed for as long as civilian control is retained over the military (civilian control a policy that I approve of, despite the obvious problems).

Lt. Gen Petraeus is a pretty smart cookie, and shows signs of being his own man. I am willing to see how he deals with the long term problem of the insurgency while being forced to get results in the short term.

To briefly comment on General Shinseki, I have nothing but the deepest and admiration for him. He said some awfully tough things when no one wanted a naysayer. That man is a warrior, and deserving of the accolade.

Sir, you are correct and sometimes I allow my emotions to overrun my intellect. I do this in places where I place myself in the least amount of risk and always am sure to not let it get to anyone under me. I will cease and desist from any disrespectful comments regarding the POTUS. I will purvey my opinion without venting anger. Thank you for your sound advice.

Regarding anonymity, you've given enough information about yourself in this and other threads that, given the inclination for research, I suspect I'd be able to email you direct.

Then do so if you are that good, I will applaud your abilities.

In a monarchy you do not earn your title. In a democracy you do. The people vote you into office and you are thereby afforded respect. It's just like in anything where you have to earn your position.


More to the point, he was given the benefit of the doubt when being accorded respect. The doubt is over, and the respect has been lost (for a multitude of very valid reasons).

It is very clear to anyone who paid attention at War College and Command and Staff College that there was no real long term planning for the occupation period in Iraq. Assessments were overly optimistic and unrealistic,
.

Indeed.

From July 2002 - Downing street PMs briefing -
"There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

From Brit Foriegn Policy Advisors memo on his meeting with Condi Rice March 2002

"From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions:.......- how to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any);
- what happens on the morning after?"
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/manningtext.html

Asshole or shit bag have emotional baggage attached to them.

What about fuck-face, shit eating douchebag, cock sucker or dick head? :confused:

What about fuck-face, shit eating douchebag, cock sucker or dick head? :confused:

Or "Fuck, shit, cock, ass, dildo, boner, bitch, pussy, butthole, Barbara Streisand!" :D

Someone's probably said it already, but ... doesn't the "War Czar" job description fit "President of the United States"? I'm just saying ...

Someone's probably said it already, but ... doesn't the "War Czar" job description fit "President of the United States"? I'm just saying ...

Well it obviously can't be, or else the President would have to take responsibility for starting a war that went down poorly now wouldn't it?

Or "Fuck, shit, cock, ass, dildo, boner, bitch, pussy, butthole, Barbara Streisand!" :D

If I can't say any of those things, then I've lost everything I love in the world. :(

Bush said he needed a supplemental bill he could sign. He vetoed the last one, because it meant the troops might come home.

No but you are saying these things to people who take your word for truth and this changes their opinions.Let people make their own minds up. The more evidence the better. If your opinion reflects the evidence, so be it. Hallelujah.





You do not know that. Don't spread heresy.

Heresy? Hahahahaha!
Fuck that bullshit. I'd recommend you grow out of middle/Dark-Age terms if you intend to represent the most up-to-date technology, innovations and capacity of the 21st century. Seriously, don't shoot yourself in the foot here.

If I can't say any of those things, then I've lost everything I love in the world. :(

Especially Yentl.
:(
*sobs on PsychoticDan's shoulder*

No, not at all. To say that being the leader of the most powerful nation in the world doesn't command respect is insane.
Leonid Brezhnev and Boris Yeltsin were leaders of one of the most powerful countries in the world too...

Someone's probably said it already, but ... doesn't the "War Czar" job description fit "President of the United States"? I'm just saying ...

Well maybe, but if it clearly did, they'd obviously change the description before total disaster struck.

Leonid Brezhnev and Boris Yeltsin were leaders of one of the most powerful countries in the world too...

So was the Kaiser, Stalin, various Caesars and Kenghis Khan.......And some of them had to work a lot harder to get to the top too, if you think about it.

Bush said he needed a supplemental bill he could sign. He vetoed the last one, because it meant the troops might come home.

Of course, if he'd just put the war in his regular budget, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But he wanted to make ludicrous claims like he'd reduced the deficit instead, and now he doesn't have a pliant Congress anymore. I love how his idea of negotiations with the Democratic leadership is that they're going to go to the White House and he's going to lecture them about what they need to do. I hope he vetoes the bill and that they send him an even tougher one and tell him "either sign it or you're out of money." Two-thirds of Americans want the troops home. I doubt they'll be upset if that happens because Bush won't sign a bill he doesn't like.

Sir, you are correct and sometimes I allow my emotions to overrun my intellect. I do this in places where I place myself in the least amount of risk and always am sure to not let it get to anyone under me. I will cease and desist from any disrespectful comments regarding the POTUS. I will purvey my opinion without venting anger. Thank you for your sound advice.

I was a bit of a hothead as a 1st Lieutenant, no harm done, Marine. I had a fairly smart Colonel and a really smart Chief Master Sergeant there to keep me from self-destructing. So it goes in the next generation of officers.

I always try to give sound advice to younger officers, and you are welcome.

Let people make their own minds up. The more evidence the better. If your opinion reflects the evidence, so be it. Hallelujah.

I was talking to Liuzzo, not you.



Heresy? Hahahahaha!
Fuck that bullshit. I'd recommend you grow out of middle/Dark-Age terms if you intend to represent the most up-to-date technology, innovations and capacity of the 21st century. Seriously, don't shoot yourself in the foot here.
If you would kindly take your attention to the 3 posts where I explained where it was supposed to be hearsay that would be great.

Further, address the issue at hand. Why do we need a war czar when we already have a CinC and and a SecDef? Attacking me will not make this issue go away. I restate, the war czar is merely a position meant to deflect responsibility from the POTUS and SecDef and to politicize the issue.

I am sorry if I came across as attacking you as that was not my intention. However I have one question. When are you getting discharged? If a high ranking official in the administration tries to pin any blame on the czar then I will concede the point to you. Otherwise it is just speculation.

I was a bit of a hothead as a 1st Lieutenant, no harm done, Marine. I had a fairly smart Colonel and a really smart Chief Master Sergeant there to keep me from self-destructing. So it goes in the next generation of officers.

I always try to give sound advice to younger officers, and you are welcome.

Always good to have some Air Force guys around. When were you in?

Always good to have some Air Force guys around. When were you in?

He's a retired Lt. Colonel from his own admission, so unless I'm displaying my ignorance in saying this: probably quite a while back.

He's a retired Lt. Colonel from his own admission, so unless I'm displaying my ignorance in saying this: probably quite a while back.

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense.

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense.

Might I ask, why?

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense.

Didn't think it would. My understanding of the military is about a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Might I ask, why?

How does his rank affect how long ago he retired? He could have been a brig gen and retired 3 days ago or he could have been a captain and retired 10 years ago and vice versa. I don't see where you are coming from.

How does his rank affect how long ago he retired? He could have been a brig gen and retired 3 days ago or he could have been a captain and retired 10 years ago and vice versa. I don't see where you are coming from.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound offensive or anything, it was a question of curiosity mostly.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound offensive or anything, it was a question of curiosity mostly.

Didn't mean to come off angry. I like questions. It means people want to learn.

No, saying being the leader of the most powerful nation in the world commands respect IS insane. It implies a junkyard dog mentality. "He's the most powerful, so of course I respect him."

That's just crap. It's even more crap cause the way US elections are run are nothing more than glorified American Idol contests. It's all about who can tell the biggest whopper and make it sound convincing.

If you expect anyone to respect a position of massive responsibility where the only job requirement is being able to fool the most people, you're out of your gourd.

It's like a super 401 Nigerian scam with presidency as the prize.

What you do with is what commands respect. Not how you got it.

They both earn respect. You do not have to respect him but Liuzzo has to, at the very least, on the outside because he is his superior.

Like? You'll have to do more than one instance of non-capitalization.
I wanted him to spell it out for me further but I guess I have enough evidence as it is now. Liuzzo claims to be retiring soon. In the Marines, when you go through either NROTC or just OCS to gain your commission you owe the Corps 8 years of service, 4 of which have to be AD. Liuzzo claims to be getting discharged soon which I assume means in less than 1 year. A fair assumption I would suppose. However here is where the problem comes in. He claims to still be a 1st Lt. which would mean that he would have 5 years experience at the most. However as you can see, this would leave 3 years on his contract. You see the problem?

They both earn respect. You do not have to respect him but Liuzzo has to, at the very least, on the outside because he is his superior.

So now you change your tone from completely to, at least on the outside. That's something I suppose.


I wanted him to spell it out for me further but I guess I have enough evidence as it is now. Liuzzo claims to be retiring soon. In the Marines, when you go through either NROTC or just OCS to gain your commission you owe the Corps 8 years of service, 4 of which have to be AD. Liuzzo claims to be getting discharged soon which I assume means in less than 1 year. A fair assumption I would suppose. However here is where the problem comes in. He claims to still be a 1st Lt. which would mean that he would have 5 years experience at the most. However as you can see, this would leave 3 years on his contract. You see the problem?

Possible. But there may be any number of other circumstances. Becoming medically unfit for service could be a reason for an early discharge.

Either way, insufficient information to make a judgment.

So now you change your tone from completely to, at least on the outside. That's something I suppose.
I see that there is no way that I am going to convince you to respect someone who has achieved more than you so why try.


Possible. But there may be any number of other circumstances. Becoming medically unfit for service could be a reason for an early discharge.

Either way, insufficient information to make a judgment.
He would have mentioned that but instead he simply said that he was getting an honorable discharge. You should allow him to defend himself. He doesn't need someone else to make up an excuse for him if he is who he says he is. He has also shows a fundamental lack of knowledge that even people outside of the military who show an interest in it would know. Such as not capitalizing Marine.

I was talking to Liuzzo, not you.Perhaps you should perform due discretion then, and take your elitist beration to a TG format.
Or deal with it, non?




If you would kindly take your attention to the 3 posts where I explained where it was supposed to be hearsay that would be great.Hearsay =/= heresy.
For some of the more stickler-esque in a forum format, it could be a problem in the future. Thanks for clearing it up though.

Perhaps you should perform due discretion then, and take your elitist beration to a TG format.
Or deal with it, non?
It was not elitist at all. As advice, I had to tell him that what he was doing was punishable by law and not pardonable at all. Then he resisted so further "counseling" was necessary. It was not until another officer told him that he was wrong did he terminate what he was doing.

He doesn't need someone else to make up an excuse for him if he is who he says he is. He has also shows a fundamental lack of knowledge that even people outside of the military who show an interest in it would know. Such as not capitalizing Marine.

Well the other explanation is that he's purposely giving out false information to protect himself, however that doesn't sit too well. Even when providing false information, the nature of people is still to provide 'correct' false information. That's not 100% by any means but it's a general rule that you can follow.

Did you read 'Blink' - the idea in relation to this is that, as a Marine (I never knew it was always capitalized), you would have a 'gut instinct' if someone was being untruthful about any Marine matters - you may not even realise the reasons why but you can generally trust that gut instinct. It can be the language they use, the way they phrase things, all these tiny things added together put a doubt in your mind.

It's a good book though it's better as an essay - EDIT - hmmm, on research there is no specific essay - my bad

I am sorry if I came across as attacking you as that was not my intention. However I have one question. When are you getting discharged? If a high ranking official in the administration tries to pin any blame on the czar then I will concede the point to you. Otherwise it is just speculation.

For what other reason do we need a war czar? We have plenty of great military men on the job now. I will be done next May unless I have a drastic change of heart. This will all be after a promotion and a nice pay increase. I let my anger get the best of me and I accept your apology and hope you will accept mine. Honesty is the quality I admire even above bravery, and there's nothing honest about this war. Guard well good sir and good night.

Well the other explanation is that he's purposely giving out false information to protect himself, however that doesn't sit too well. Even when providing false information, the nature of people is still to provide 'correct' false information. That's not 100% by any means but it's a general rule that you can follow.

Did you read 'Blink' - the idea in relation to this is that, as a Marine (I never knew it was always capitalized), you would have a 'gut instinct' if someone was being untruthful about any Marine matters - you may not even realise the reasons why but you can generally trust that gut instinct. It can be the language they use, the way they phrase things, all these tiny things added together put a doubt in your mind.

It's a good book though it's better as an essay - EDIT - hmmm, on research there is no specific essay - my bad

You are a smart man. I do not intend to wind up with a dishonorable for any one cause. I have apologized to USMC2 and will take his advice to heart. I will attempt to not let my emotions take control of my head. Good night all. My ideas on the war czar stand, a fool's errand it is.

It was not elitist at all.I don't think you have the luxury of discerning your statements from a different point of view, and your presentation often implies that you possess some kind of superiority. Indeed, in a forum environment, you are quite reachable and addressable, and as such, you're going to have to handle interlopers and defenders of other peoples' arguments and statements.
As advice, I had to tell him that what he was doing was punishable by law and not pardonable at all.Ah.
Then he resisted so further "counseling" was necessary.Ah, again ... perhaps you've heard this once or twice ... you're going to get a lot of "resistance" here. That's exactly what's gonna happen. The "rules of engagement" of text have already been established, and i really don't need to mention whom the real authorities here are ... not m'self, of course.

I see that there is no way that I am going to convince you to respect someone who has achieved more than you so why try.

Come talk to me when you accord equal respect to Hitler, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung and a whole host of other dictators who clawed their way to power. They certainly had a tougher job getting to the top than the winner of some popularity contest with massive industry backing.



Such as not capitalizing Marine.

I did specify you would have to use more than an instance of capitalization as proof. You're not helping your case here.