McGentrix wrote:
.....These are the people in charge of the war. They have more than enough military experience.
And the experience is gushingly apparent in such a well planned and well organized and well executed conflict and subsequent occupation...even Lt General William Wallace stated that they underestimated the regional defiance of an American occupation.
...all this in direct contradiction with the administrations' prediction of an outpouring of flowers, candy and support for the Americans.
In terms of the proportion of the vote garnered, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. is the most popular Republican President in history. In fact, leaving aside Washington who ran unopposed twice, and James Monroe, who was unopposed in his second term--Roosevelt was the most popular President ever, on that basis.
He and Henry Cabot Lodge were constantly pressuring McKinley to make war on Spain. McKinley's personal physician, Leonard Wood, was in the same camp, and McKinley would ask him: "Well, Leonard, have you and Theodore declared war on Spain yet?" Wood usually answered to the effect: "No Mr. President, but we'e hoping you will soon."
Before taking the position as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt secured a promise that he would be allowed to resign the position and given a commission in the event of war. Due to the frequent ill health of John Long, the Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt was often Acting Secretary in Long's absence. That was the case in 1898, and Roosevelt, who had, during other absences of Long, prepared the Navy for war with Spain, sent out the final orders to put the fleet in motion, got out his resignation, signed it, and sent it in. He then promptly began making arrangements to recruit Harvard athletes and cowboys to form the First United States Volunteer Cavalry. Because he knew he didn't have the credentials and know-how to run a regiment, he asked Leonard Wood, already a serving officer in the Army, to command the regiment, to which Wood agreed. They left for Cuba as fast as arrangements could be made to assemble and train the boys, and get to Tampa to ship out.
In plain American vernacular, that's called putting your money where your mouth is. Something you don't see much of with Republicans these days.
McGentrix wrote:These are the people in charge of the war. They have more than enough military experience.
you just keep doing your best to avoid the meaning and intent of my comment.
it's really quite disingenuous on your part. but let me try to clear it up for you... eh, hemm...
"THE MILITARY DOESN'T MAKE POLICY."
not to mention that your assertion that "generals indeed have military experience" is completely ludicrous.
nearly as ludicrous as your inclusion of bush's alledged national guard service.
you keep trying to paint my criticism of the bush administration and it's related toadies as criticism of the military when you know that is exactly NOT what i'm doing.
but i guess that's easier for you than to admit that the republican party has been taken over by a bunch of chickenhawks.
McGentrix wrote:So, let me get this straight, if the bully down the street tells you if he catchs you with his girlfriend he'll kick your ass, you would try your hardest to be around her?
Yeah.... that makes sense... sure...
It's getting very freudian, now. You think the H-bomb equates with sexual desirability? Wow.
Well, duh . . . all them neo-cons get a big woody when they think about nukin' somebody . . .
McTag wrote:McGentrix wrote:So, let me get this straight, if the bully down the street tells you if he catchs you with his girlfriend he'll kick your ass, you would try your hardest to be around her?
Yeah.... that makes sense... sure...
It's getting very freudian, now. You think the H-bomb equates with sexual desirability? Wow.
I'm pretty bad with metaphors McG...please tell me...who is the "bully" in this analogy?
And who is the boyfriend?
McTag wrote:McGentrix wrote:So, let me get this straight, if the bully down the street tells you if he catchs you with his girlfriend he'll kick your ass, you would try your hardest to be around her?
Yeah.... that makes sense... sure...
It's getting very freudian, now. You think the H-bomb equates with sexual desirability? Wow.
sometimes a cigar is... a cruise missle ??
Setanta wrote:Well, duh . . . all them neo-cons get a big woody when they think about nukin' somebody . . .
maybe they should head on over, spend a little while ogling some arms catalogs, get all, uhh, resolved (?), and get painted up like the picts ?
tehran would either be scared to death or be laffing too hard to fight.
crap. i'm never gonna be able to watch "braveheart" with a straight face again...
"awraht ya'll moo-lahhs. heeyahz wutcha gonna git fer hatin' r freedoms!".
A cigar looks more like a torpedo.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:McGentrix wrote:These are the people in charge of the war. They have more than enough military experience.
you just keep doing your best to avoid the meaning and intent of my comment.
it's really quite disingenuous on your part. but let me try to clear it up for you... eh, hemm...
"THE MILITARY DOESN'T MAKE POLICY."
not to mention that your assertion that "generals indeed have military experience" is completely ludicrous.
nearly as ludicrous as your inclusion of bush's alledged national guard service.
you keep trying to paint my criticism of the bush administration and it's related toadies as criticism of the military when you know that is exactly NOT what i'm doing.
but i guess that's easier for you than to admit that the republican party has been taken over by a bunch of chickenhawks.
Why do you keep changing what you say and then ask me why I answer your posts? If, as you say, the civilian governement makes policy, and I agree with you completely on that, why do your fellow liberal DA's keep harping about the amount of military experience they have as though that is an indicator of something? Why did you feel the need to post the military records of various politicians who have nothing to do with the war?
Perhaps you guys need to have a committee meeting or gather a focus group to decide what your message actually is?
McGentrix wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:McGentrix wrote:These are the people in charge of the war. They have more than enough military experience.
you just keep doing your best to avoid the meaning and intent of my comment.
it's really quite disingenuous on your part. but let me try to clear it up for you... eh, hemm...
"THE MILITARY DOESN'T MAKE POLICY."
not to mention that your assertion that "generals indeed have military experience" is completely ludicrous.
nearly as ludicrous as your inclusion of bush's alledged national guard service.
you keep trying to paint my criticism of the bush administration and it's related toadies as criticism of the military when you know that is exactly NOT what i'm doing.
but i guess that's easier for you than to admit that the republican party has been taken over by a bunch of chickenhawks.
Why do you keep changing what you say and then ask me why I answer your posts? If, as you say, the civilian governement makes policy, and I agree with you completely on that, why do your fellow liberal DA's keep harping about the amount of military experience they have as though that is an indicator of something? Why did you feel the need to post the military records of various politicians who have nothing to do with the war?
Perhaps you guys need to have a committee meeting or gather a focus group to decide what your message actually is?
i've said repeatedly that " i, dtom, do not think that it is all that important that a president, or politician have military experience".
it is the conservattives or republicans or whatever the right is calling itself theses days that have made it a benchmark.
except when the opposition has that experience. then, of course, it's not good enough experience, or "he faked it", or "he got his arm and legs blown off by accident" or some such tripe.
and when it is primarily the right that was/is lockstep with bush on war and "bring it on" while continuously harping on how dems are soft on defense and hate the military, it is absolutely relevant to note just who in the administration and congress has or has not pulled time in uniform.
and what do you mean by "DAs" ?
as far as you answering my post, i.e., questions, you never do. you just throw out some jibe.
