Welcome to PatsFans.com

AJC's Tucker: Active Generals May Revolt

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PressCoverage, May 13, 2007.

  1. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Tucker: Active-Duty Generals Will ‘Revolt’ Against Bush If He Maintains Escalation Into 2008 »

    Appearing on NBC’s Chris Matthews Show this morning, Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker revealed that sources within the military are warning of “a revolt from active-duty generals if September rolls around and the president is sticking with the surge into ‘08.” Watch it:


    Noting that retired generals such as Gen. John Batiste have already begun voicing their discontent with the president’s strategy in Iraq, Tucker added that the generals “don’t want to fall by the wayside like the generals in Vietnam did, kept pushing a war that they knew was lost.”

    When President Bush vetoed the Iraq timeline legislation earlier this month, he claimed that “the measure would ‘impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat’ by forcing them to ‘take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, DC.’”

    But despite past claims that “the right force level” will be determined by “the sober judgement of our military leaders,” the Bush administration has a proven track record of disregarding the advice of military leaders. As recently as last December, when the White House was first pushing its escalation plan, the administration explicitly ignored “the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

    It appears the commanders on the ground in Iraq are getting tired of “taking fighting directions” from a politician “6,000 miles away” in the White House. And they might not stay quiet for long.

    Transcript: expand post »
    Last edited: May 13, 2007
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,563
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +438 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Anti war stuff from Chris Mathews . . . shocking.
  3. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    actually, it's the Atlanta Journal Constitution...
  4. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,542
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    Even less shocking. The most left paper in the country. :rolleyes:

    Makes the Grey Lady look conservative.
  5. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,563
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +438 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Understood - and covered by Lefy Mathews.

    There's lots of pro war stuff out there if the media chose to cover it.
  6. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    PressCoverage is just showing what we all already know: that he is a complete moron without a slightest clue regarding how the military works. I love it when liberals discuss the military because they just humiliate themselves over and over.

    All servicemen swear a duty and oath to the Constitution of the United States of America. This isn't some 3rd world African backwater. If any general suggested a revolt (or disobeying orders in any manner), he would immediately get the sh*t beaten out of him by about 100 other generals before spending the rest of his life in Levenworth.

    The worst we'd ever see is someone resigning in protest. And for every general that resigns, there are a couple thousand colonels plenty happy to put a star on their shoulders.
  7. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    leave it to our resident Star Wars masturbator to make it personal... i provided a link to a story.. .i didn't discuss the military... nonetheless, jaggov, when i do chose to disuss it, it's clearly with a bit more clarity than the minimizing spin you are trying to offer here...

    no one said anything about a coup attempt... i mean, we're all well aware that youre more dramatic than a junior high school girl, but to arrive as such a pretentious deduction is a bit of a stretch... still, your president has shown a propensity to ignore his military commanders, despite pledging to follow their lead... and they've grown quite sick of Boy King's idiocy

    it's funny, though, that, unsolicited, you'll run your wiseass mouth about me directly and yet don't have the courage to unblock me and deal with the give and take... in other words, you don't even have frame of reference, because you can't even read the original post, and yet your pie hole is bloviating away about what i must be saying...

    clearly, the navy didn't teach you accountability...
    Last edited: May 13, 2007
  8. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,542
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    I love how everyone points at the ex. Gen. Batiste as a anti-war critic as proof that our generals are unhappy. A lot probably are, but not for the reasons WE think they are.

    Convenient, except that if you look closely Batiste's record, regardless of what he's saying now, he's been mostly an advocate for MORE AGGRESSIVE action, not less.

    Like I said, they've been so partisan in thier coverage of the war, it's very difficult to take anything the AJC says too seriously.
    Last edited: May 13, 2007
  9. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,441
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +278 / 10 / -26

    Consider that this is true, wouldn't this be one of the most interesting points of history in our country? Sometimes I think that this whole Blackwater thing and the arming of mercenaries, is an attempt to field a private military force either to protect the inner circle or to be used for a coup in the future. I find this whole trend as very unsettling.. the mistake is going into a country without being provoked.. a whole bunch of crap happens after we do this kind of stuff.
  10. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,542
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    No, this is fairly typical of our most recent history of warfare.

    ... and no, going into a country with out without provocation doesn't make one whit of difference on success or failure militarily. Beleive me, if there is ANY truth to this story, then it's because the OTG commanders are frustrated at lack of progress (success), not because of Blackwater, the mission itself or any other "civilian" reason we come up with.

    If they are pissed, it's because, as typical in the history of our recent warfare, the combat operations are being manipulated by non-combatants (politicians) with motivations that do not have relavence to the situational conditions and overall goals for the mission.

    Things went fine in the initial combat operations, which were controlled specifically by military units (or the CIA field guys), in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It was only the after-operations, controlled mostly by paper-pushing morons, that things got FUBAR.

    So while I do not doupt that many of the military commandars aren't pissed, the AJC (and others) politicizing it for thier own gain is just as annoying.
    Last edited: May 14, 2007
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,441
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +278 / 10 / -26

    Your post sounds like the same type of argument that was used in the Viet Nam conflict in the latter years of that conflict.. that the war was being fought in DC and not by those with boots on the ground. A war cannot be PC, a war is what it is.. controlled chaos with lots of blood and guts.
  12. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    "Pro war", huh? The "pro-war" chicken hawks keep on squawking! Anything anti-war comes from leftist troop-killers, even if they're US generals or decorated veterans. Keep up the cheerleading, men. And have fun at the clubs, barbecues and ballgames while some strangers kids are getting blown away and dismembered for your little romp in the desert. Yup. War is Hell!
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,003
    Likes Received:
    191
    Ratings:
    +443 / 5 / -2

    My biggest issue with this war, before it started, and which I constantly came back to when trying to figure out where I stood, was that we were invading this time around. I really didn't like that. I understood the idea involved, geopolitical change in the ME, but invading didn't sit well with me.
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,003
    Likes Received:
    191
    Ratings:
    +443 / 5 / -2

    I heard about this report on BOR last week. BO had Col. Hunt on and they were talking about this 8 page report by Gen (ret.) Barry Mcaffery that was a no bones assessment. The good, the bad, and the ugly if you will. It's worth the read if you have the time (8 pages pdf). Some sobering news in here, along with some promising sentiment for what has transpired lately. It's by no means some ra-ra report.

    http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/McCaffrey_Report_032707.pdf
  15. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I guess that's one way to describe a military coup... so yeah I guess it would be an "interesting point of history in our country"...
    Did you forget to take your medicine again..? Here's what I want you to do: Step away from the computer, get a glass of water, and take those pills the nice man in the white jacket gave you.
  16. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,542
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    Col. Hunt has two books. They just Don't Get it and On the Hunt. Both pretty much slam the recent tactics an are very much in the vain of my last post. If you go to war, you must be prepared to win it.

    We used to fight war that way (leaving it to General to fight), we no longer do. Look at experiences in our past. Look at U.S. Grant 1864 Wilderness Campaign (also known as the Overland Campaign). People we utterly shocked at the way he threw his men into the meat grinder of war. Lincoln had a very tough time and took a lot of heat for letting it continue. History tells us though, that the war was basically won (or at least shortened) during that small bloody period.

    Ditto the Pacific Campaign during WWII.
    Last edited: May 14, 2007
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,003
    Likes Received:
    191
    Ratings:
    +443 / 5 / -2

    That will never happen again. Wars, from the shoes of western civilization, and not that of our adversaries, will be faught in as politically correct a manner as can be expected. The fact that war has now been brought into the living rooms live, and is being critiqued by the MSM like tape from Sunday's Pats game, ensures that brute force & tactics will never be used again. At least not by the west. Forget Iraq for, where we've been concerned with collateral damage, yet have been run over the coals for Abu-Graib, and look at the Israeli conflict with Lebanon. This was an incursion who's fault lied soley with Hamas, yet the Israeli's were vilified for defending their rights as a nation. While Hamas was given a free pass for shooting rockets into civilian neighborhoods, and using their own schools as shields to fire AA from, Israel was chastized for blowing up hard targets like bridges and such (which wasn't bright IMO). The west will never be allowed to take off the gloves in war again.
  18. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,542
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    Agreed, and that is why we will, in all likelihood, see some catastrophic losses visited upon us in the future. Prolly right here at home too.

    Will it be like that forever? Not likely, we all have our LIMITS **

    ** - interesting essay on the subject from a respected centrist blog.
  19. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,441
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +278 / 10 / -26

    In the real world if we were face to face would tell you to go f.. yourself, but this whole this is not real so I will just walk away. Has there ever been any time in the US with this many mercenaries on our payroll?? Anything is possible, but one never knows no do we.
  20. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,542
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    To be honest GJA, I had no idea what the heck you were getting at either with the whole "Military Coup" thing either. I left it alone, because of that. Perhaps if you reshaped the argument to make a little more sense it would help.

    Not being a dope, I'm just not following it.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>