Gates Hammers 0s "Leadership Duty"

#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
I don't disagree and I accept his criticisms and his perspective on them.

I hardly think it is any secret that Obama is personally and professionally conflicted over Iraq and Afghanistan, and I can certainly imagine a scenario in which he on the one hand has to place authority to get something done in the hands of the military but on the other hand dislikes the hand he has been dealt and is skeptical of the military's interests in the situation.
Click to expand...

Wha..he ran for the Presidency right?....Thats like dying in a volcano filled with lava after attempting to jump over it and someone going oh man he was dealt a bad hand. No he wasnt he knew what the F he was getting into and what could happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
lawgator1 said:
So you want to just accept without question every criticism of Obama and reject cavalierly every praise.

Gotcha.
Click to expand...

volinbham said:
Ironic post is ironic
Click to expand...

lawgator1 said:
Huh? I'm saying I take his complaints very seriously and I hope reform occurs as a result.
Click to expand...

I was responding to your calling out a poster for being a sheep - from your posts in this forum you could reverse your OP or insert Bush for Obama at it would represent you.
 
#29
#29
FLVOL69 said:
You do the same thing with respect to the GOP,tea party and Ted Cruz .
Click to expand...

I have said a hundred times on here that I respect and join in on the calls for fiscal discipline and balanced budget efforts. We disagree on how to get there, and who is most at fault. But I agree with the premise of their argument.

volinbham said:
We should all resent that - FP isn't a game.
Click to expand...

Interesting. We all vote in part on what we want our candidate to do in terms of the military. Even you did so.

And so when the guy we did not vote for wins, we are shocked and dismayed that he is taking an approach which we find distasteful.

Had your guy won and made decisions based on politics you'd be lauding him as doing the right thing as the people's will in electing him in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
I don't disagree and I accept his criticisms and his perspective on them.

I hardly think it is any secret that Obama is personally and professionally conflicted over Iraq and Afghanistan, and I can certainly imagine a scenario in which he on the one hand has to place authority to get something done in the hands of the military but on the other hand dislikes the hand he has been dealt and is skeptical of the military's interests in the situation.
Click to expand...



Good to know you still watch Fox News... Your words are almost verbatim with Kirsten Powers assessment on the long legged Mack daddy.
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
I have said a hundred times on here that I respect and join in on the calls for fiscal discipline and balanced budget efforts. We disagree on how to get there, and who is most at fault. But I agree with the premise of their argument.



Interesting. We all vote in part on what we want our candidate to do in terms of the military. Even you did so.

And so when the guy we did not vote for wins, we are shocked and dismayed that he is taking an approach which we find distasteful.

Had your guy won and made decisions based on politics you'd be lauding him as doing the right thing as the people's will in electing him in the first place.
Click to expand...

you don't get it and I would not be lauding any POTUS who decided what to do with troops based on what helps him win elections.

I criticized the RoE we had in Afghanistan and Iraq because they were politically driven.

Toying with our international relations so as to maximize personal political gain is the absolute worst kind of leadership possible regardless of the person in the office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
Interesting. We all vote in part on what we want our candidate to do in terms of the military. Even you did so.

And so when the guy we did not vote for wins, we are shocked and dismayed that he is taking an approach which we find distasteful.

Had your guy won and made decisions based on politics you'd be lauding him as doing the right thing as the people's will in electing him in the first place.
Click to expand...

The sentiment in this post; particularly in the last line is disturbing (if the sentiment was intended).

1) implying decisions based on political gain = doing the will of those who elected the person

2) lauding decision making based in political gain because you voted for the person (vote justifies the behavior)

I recall how the OP trashes the GOP for using Benghazi for political purposes - note that the GOP isn't making policy here; just reacting to something that has already occurred. If that is so worthy of damning criticism isn't actually crafting and executing policy for political gain rather than what's right; particularly when it involves troops, a much more egregious sin?

And we should laud that because we voted for the person?

There is a distinction between crafting and executing policy based on your political beliefs and doing so based on political expediency. Clearly Gates is alleging the latter and plenty of other evidence supports his claims. Such behavior should never be lauded regardless of party or how one voted.

[/rant]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
So who's right? The military commanders or Obama?

Will more US troops "fix" Afghanistan, the way they "fixed" Iraq?
 
#38
#38
volinbham said:
you don't get it and I would not be lauding any POTUS who decided what to do with troops based on what helps him win elections.

I criticized the RoE we had in Afghanistan and Iraq because they were politically driven.

Toying with our international relations so as to maximize personal political gain is the absolute worst kind of leadership possible regardless of the person in the office.
Click to expand...


I think you're certifiable if you don't understand that every president takes into account the political ramifications of military action. And one can just as easily make the argument that its a good thing because it keeps them in check. If they didn't have to worry about political consequences things would be a whole lot worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
I think you're certifiable if you don't understand that every president takes into account the political ramifications of military action. And one can just as easily make the argument that its a good thing because it keeps them in check. If they didn't have to worry about political consequences things would be a whole lot worse.
Click to expand...

Yes but I highly doubt most Presidents disregard their military commanders advice for political concerns! Especially when it comes to putting troops in harms way.
 
#41
#41
volinbham said:
The sentiment in this post; particularly in the last line is disturbing (if the sentiment was intended).

1) implying decisions based on political gain = doing the will of those who elected the person

2) lauding decision making based in political gain because you voted for the person (vote justifies the behavior)

I recall how the OP trashes the GOP for using Benghazi for political purposes - note that the GOP isn't making policy here; just reacting to something that has already occurred. If that is so worthy of damning criticism isn't actually crafting and executing policy for political gain rather than what's right; particularly when it involves troops, a much more egregious sin?

And we should laud that because we voted for the person?

There is a distinction between crafting and executing policy based on your political beliefs and doing so based on political expediency. Clearly Gates is alleging the latter and plenty of other evidence supports his claims. Such behavior should never be lauded regardless of party or how one voted.

[/rant]
Click to expand...

You seem to be holding the two branches of government to different standards.

My real complaint about the GOP and Benghazi is that they took what is 1) a legitimate major criticism of the government, on the whole and in the long term, for failing to properly protect consulates (even if they are really CIA outposts); and 2) a petty and minor criticism for getting the cause of the attack wrong for the first 4-5 days, all to try to make it seem like there is some dastardly cover-up. An absurd result neither compelled or even supported by the two points made on it.

Using catch phrases like "We need to get to the bottom of this to honor those four dead Americans" is political crap. They couldn't careless about them, as evidenced by the fact that the GOP itself can be faulted for bad security issues, at times and sometimes different places.

As to the current book/issue, I think the WH should really take a hard look at the stylistic criticisms and work on that. The criticisms of substantive decisions I just think that is the nature of the beast, and of course the military guy is going to take a more hawkish view. I'm not surprised by that and I think you just have to recognize that for what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#42
#42
hog88 said:
Yes but I highly doubt most Presidents disregard their military commanders advice for political concerns! Especially when it comes to putting troops in harms way.
Click to expand...


They weight it, against the political ramifications. They all have done so and they always will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#44
#44
hog88 said:
Weigh yes, only consideration absolutely not. Political results have been Obama's only concern!
Click to expand...


I guess it was only a matter of time before you'd take the points of this book and make it seem like that. Even though the book actually says otherwise.

I guess I just don't see what the hubbub is about. A military adviser to the president wanted the president to be more aggressive with the use of the military. The president, who ran in large part on not going in that direction, stuck to his guns on that platform and lo and behold the military adviser retires and says he thinks that the president was a wuss and didn't use the military more because that was against his politics.

Honestly, why is anyone surprised by that?

As I've said, the stylistic stuff is legit and I hope Obama pays attention to it. He probably won't, but I hope he does. Its just on the substantive decisions it seems to me this kind of break in philosophy was pretty much inevitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
You seem to be holding the two branches of government to different standards.

My real complaint about the GOP and Benghazi is that they took what is 1) a legitimate major criticism of the government, on the whole and in the long term, for failing to properly protect consulates (even if they are really CIA outposts); and 2) a petty and minor criticism for getting the cause of the attack wrong for the first 4-5 days, all to try to make it seem like there is some dastardly cover-up. An absurd result neither compelled or even supported by the two points made on it.

Using catch phrases like "We need to get to the bottom of this to honor those four dead Americans" is political crap. They couldn't careless about them, as evidenced by the fact that the GOP itself can be faulted for bad security issues, at times and sometimes different places.

As to the current book/issue, I think the WH should really take a hard look at the stylistic criticisms and work on that. The criticisms of substantive decisions I just think that is the nature of the beast, and of course the military guy is going to take a more hawkish view. I'm not surprised by that and I think you just have to recognize that for what it is.
Click to expand...

I'm not holding them to different standards at all. Criticizing a policy for political gains is bad but implementing policy for political gains is worse. If you are going to go after Issa you should be going after Obama even more for making real, substantive policy decisions involving lives and our role in the world for personal political gains.

I will never laud or support letting political expediency or gain drive policy development and implementation.
 
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
I guess it was only a matter of time before you'd take the points of this book and make it seem like that. Even though the book actually says otherwise.

I guess I just don't see what the hubbub is about. A military adviser to the president wanted the president to be more aggressive with the use of the military. The president, who ran in large part on not going in that direction, stuck to his guns on that platform and lo and behold the military adviser retires and says he thinks that the president was a wuss and didn't use the military more because that was against his politics.

Honestly, why is anyone surprised by that?

As I've said, the stylistic stuff is legit and I hope Obama pays attention to it. He probably won't, but I hope he does. Its just on the substantive decisions it seems to me this kind of break in philosophy was pretty much inevitable.
Click to expand...

Funny how you rewrite and interpret the book.

Gates wasn't calling him a wuss. He was directly criticizing how he made decisions.

If you read the article you'll see Gates wasn't a guy who was for more use of the military. In fact he explicitly states that the past couple guys have been too eager to use the military.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#47
#47
You make decision on what is best for your country, not your political party. Im looking at you 0bama, Hilary and Christie
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
I think you're certifiable if you don't understand that every president takes into account the political ramifications of military action. And one can just as easily make the argument that its a good thing because it keeps them in check. If they didn't have to worry about political consequences things would be a whole lot worse.
Click to expand...

I never said they don't - I'm saying it is not to be lauded and in the case under discussion here it appears to be pretty rampant.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top