How To Lose A War: The Sequel (Ollie North)

GOP USA ^ | 11-18-05 | Oliver North

[nopardons]

He sure is!

[Watery Tart]

...Andropov said, wisely, "Now all we have to do is to keep the Vietnam-era anti-Americanism alive."

Source, an article entitled, "Kerry's Soviet Rhetoric" from NRO.

---

The Vietnam-era antiwar movement got its spin from the Kremlin.

Old Yuri was right. He could get someone else to do his work for him. And it's STILL WORKING! Just add all of the current "lawmaker's" names. Talk about losers!

Maybe Hitlery is showing her hand and letting them peek at the FBI files in her posession. I can't think of another reason so many republicans would go insane.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"But my GLORY we need a changing of the guard in that big round building up there."

Damned right we do. We need to get some leaders in there, people with freaking backbone who will stand up to the Communists in the Government and kick their collective arses.

Not just on the war, but on ALL issues.

[Blind Eye Jones]

'if the Senate has its way, we're "pulling out" in 2006.'

Is that true or is it just that there has to be a progress report on the war?

[smoothsailing]

I'm not sure what your quote is all about.

The Senate having it's way means nothing when it comes to spending, spending bills supporting on-going military commitments originate in the House.

The Senate can vote down spending, but it never has the final say.Obstruction is the weakest posture the Senate can take when opposing the House and the Executive.

[Blind Eye Jones]

There seems to be two separate issues: one, where North says the Senate gets its way and troops are pulled out in 06; the other, is a progress report (what some Freepers say may not be a bad thing). Are these two things related?

If they just voted for a progress report, how is it a bad thing? Is there a time table? I read from another article that 06 should be "a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces." Does this mean "cut and run"? Or does this mean that the conditions created for a withdraw is having the Iraqi Army up to fighting capacity -- standing up as America stands down?

Hopefully the latter or they're complete idiots.

[smoothsailing]

I've seen the threads and quotes of which you speak.

From my point of view, it is the responsibility and obligation of the Commander in Chief and his Generals to decide when the battle is waged and when the battle is won.

The Congress in it's wisdom, can support or reject, based on it's own perception of it's worth, funding for the goals and mission of the requests it recieves.

In a time of war, as exists today, we must hope that Congress shows deference to those who are duty bound to defend us.

Beyond that, my FRiend, I have no answer for you.