Tell us again why Casey is being replaced? - New England Patriots Forums

***PressCoverage*** · 01-04-2007, 10:42 PM

i mean, i think i know the answer, but I'd like one of the war enthusiasts to offer their take

ABC: Bush set to replace Abizaid, Casey. President Bush “intends to nominate Admiral William J. Fallon to replace General John Abizaid at Central Command” and Lieutenant General David Petraeus to replace General George Casey as Baghdad commander. “The president wants a clean sweep” an official told ABC News. “Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command; he will be overseeing two ground wars, so the appointment is highly unusual.”

this blogger on the ABC site asks a tough question:

Quote:

The incompetence rolls on: we had an air force Chairman JCS fumbling around during the invasion of Iraq, followed by an incompetent Gen Franks incomplete/mis-guided war plan....now comes the Navy running a ground war out of control, and the man who ran the 101st Airborne on the gound in Iraq going back to do some more of the samo samo. Why isn't impeachment on the Congressional agenda as Priority One ???!!!!!

italia44 · 01-04-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

i mean, i think i know the answer, but I'd like one of the war enthusiasts to offer their take

ABC: Bush set to replace Abizaid, Casey. President Bush “intends to nominate Admiral William J. Fallon to replace General John Abizaid at Central Command” and Lieutenant General David Petraeus to replace General George Casey as Baghdad commander. “The president wants a clean sweep” an official told ABC News. “Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command; he will be overseeing two ground wars, so the appointment is highly unusual.”

this blogger on the ABC site asks a tough question:

There are no "war enthusiasts",only Patriots who wish Democracy and Freeedom to prevail and those who do not.

italia44 · 01-04-2007, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

Does it matter if those we are attempting to force feed a democrcy , don't want our kind of democracy?

Since when do our soldiers and marines have to die, or be maimed for life, trying to give something to someone who doesn't want it?

Please show me where inour Constitution that is written?

That is a fair question......I believe that the Iraquis don't want it.......therefore,we should get out,on a timetable that protects our soldiers as well as the interests of our allies.This doesn't mean all was wrong with our intent or conduct,during the war.
The term "war enthusiasts",was particularly galling
to me.No reasoned person should be "enthusiastic" about war,nor should we shirk from it's inevitibility.

The Predator · 01-04-2007, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

Does it matter if those we are attempting to force feed a democrcy , don't want our kind of democracy?

Since when do our soldiers and marines have to die, or be maimed for life, trying to give something to someone who doesn't want it?

Please show me where inour Constitution that is written?

I just wanted to point out the we don't have a democracy nor are we trying to set up a democracy in Iraq or Afg. We are a representative republic which is very different that a democracy. Sorry for butting it, it is just a pet peave.

***PressCoverage*** · 01-04-2007, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by italia44

That is a fair question......I believe that the Iraquis don't want it.......therefore,we should get out,on a timetable that protects our soldiers as well as the interests of our allies.This doesn't mean all was wrong with our intent or conduct,during the war.
The term "war enthusiasts",was particularly galling
to me.No reasoned person should be "enthusiastic" about war,nor should we shirk from it's inevitibility.

please don't make me provide for you the dozen or so entries i've seen here whereby some genius Bunkerite has shown unquestionable enthusiasm for war, especially in Iraq...

now, can you possibly concentrate on the thread topic, or do you have no input?

***PressCoverage*** · 01-04-2007, 11:36 PM

anyhow, back to the topic presented.... Curious George says he wants a "clean sweep"....

that's interesting... this wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Gen. Casey knows 20,000 extra troops will do absolutely nothing (and you don't like that kind of advice), does it George?

here are some examples of you, George, and the Dark Lord, praising Gen. Casey over the past year... Of course, it's not terribly surprising to find you guys lying again, but this contradiction's so egregious -- so easily exposed -- that you almost have to marvel at the audacity of it. Either they were lying then, or they're lying now -- and my vote is for "now."

On October 20, 2006, Cheney gave an interview to NPR's Juan Williams, in which he said:

Quote:

QUESTION: Do you think you're getting good advice, good estimates from the generals who tell you that they have enough men on the ground and women on the ground to get the job done?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think we get honest advice from them. I think George Casey gives it to us straight in terms of what he thinks he needs...we'll give him whatever resources he thinks he needs. And my experience with George Casey is he's a first class officer, and he tells us what he wants....

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I -- I spent some time as Secretary of Defense myself, Juan. The men that we've got serving at the upper levels of the U.S. military today I think are some absolutely outstanding individuals. George Casey, John Abizaid sort of have the lead responsibilities in Iraq and for that region -- are outstanding officers. They know the region very well. Abizaid even speaks the language. They are, I think, very good advisors to the President, and they're the guys on the ground who have to, in fact, execute on the policy.

On September 15, 2006, Bush publicly said the following:

Quote:

Can the President trust his commanders on the ground to tell him what is necessary? That's really one of the questions.

In other words, if you say, I'm going to rely upon their judgment, the next question is, how good is their judgment; or is my judgment good enough to figure out whether or not they know what they're doing? And I'm going to tell you I've got great confidence in General John Abizaid and General George Casey. These are extraordinary men who understand the difficulties of the task, and understand there is a delicate relationship between self-sufficiency on the Iraqis' part, and U.S. presence.

On June 26, 2006 -- after some of the horrific violence that according to the Times persuaded Bush that Casey was "more committed to withdrawal than victory" -- Bush stated explicitly that Casey was committed to achieving "victory" and that Bush trusted him:

Quote:

But in terms of our troop presence there, that decision will be made by General Casey, as well as the sovereign government of Iraq, based upon conditions on the ground. And one of the things that General Casey assured me of is that, whatever recommendation he makes, it will be aimed toward achieving victory. And that's what we want. And victory means a free government that is able to sustain itself, defend itself; it's a government that will be an ally in the war on terror. It's a government that will be able to fight off al Qaeda and its desires to have a safe haven.

And so I did visit with General Casey, and I came away once again with my trust in that man.

italia44 · 01-04-2007, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

please don't make me provide for you the dozen or so entries i've seen here whereby some genius Bunkerite has shown unquestionable enthusiasm for war, especially in Iraq...

now, can you possibly concentrate on the thread topic, or do you have no input?

Unfortunately,you have become the "thread topic",by your banal,inane and vaucous diatribe.

Someone had to "b-tch-slap" you,and I was more than happy to oblige.

italia44 · 01-05-2007, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

Would you like to borrow this?

Thanks Nem.......that's a little too literal......(but,I stole it,just in case).

***PressCoverage*** · 01-05-2007, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by italia44

Unfortunately,you have become the "thread topic",by your banal,inane and vaucous diatribe.

Someone had to "b-tch-slap" you,and I was more than happy to oblige.

where did i diatribe in the original post? are you being overdramatic like your allies here? you took indignant, irrelevant acception to the "war enthusiasts" comment... to which i challenged you ...

do you want me to provide links to posts around here where people have shown undeniable enthusiasm for the war? or do you have anything, for once, to add to the thread theme about Gen. Casey's replacement? pick one, and give the hyperbole and personal assault a rest ... because you're already shown to be inaccurate, overdramatic, and hypocritical...

as for the b!tch slap, i wonder how much of a likeness you have to the womanly image above... considering you're kinda being one about one word in this thread...

italia44 · 01-05-2007, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

where did i diatribe in the original post? are you being overdramatic like your allies here? you took indignant, irrelevant acception to the "war enthusiasts" comment... to which i challenged you ...

do you want me to provide links to posts around here where people have shown undeniable enthusiasm for the war? or do you have anything, for once, to add to the thread theme about Gen. Casey's replacement? pick one, and give the hyperbole and personal assault a rest ... because you're already shown to be inaccurate, overdramatic, and hypocritical...

as for the b!tch slap, i wonder how much of a likeness you have to the womanly image above... considering you're kinda being one about one word in this thread...

diatribe is a noun,never a verb......it's exception,not acception........hippocritical,not hypocritical.

English as a second language.....jeez,you're not worth being b!tch-slapped.