Posted on 01/30/2003 10:18:22 AM PST by txradioguy
Might they be the same ones that were happy sewing on that damn diversity quilt?.
The very word "lead" implies that a path is set for others to follow. The worth of the cause is measured after the deed is done.
And it isn't macho to suggest that in an Army, officers are not obligated to discuss their plans with the rank and file, it is reality. Indeed, the directions soldiers receive from their commanding officers are called "orders", not "suggestions".
America has a problem with world oppinion regardless of what any president does. We could appease those who hate us for "meddling" in the affairs of other countries (they hate us because our "meddling" often disrupt theirs), only to be hated by those who would then feel abandoned, and betrayed.
If a drug dealer stands in your street corner, in the path that your kids take on their way to school daily, you will have him removed, even if he hasn't tried to sell them crack yet.
"I'm sure, the Bush family themselves, are very queasy about invading a sovereign country before a demonstrable act of aggression has been committed against us or an ally has come under attack."
I recall Japanese planes attacking Pearl Harbor, I do not recall any German planes joining in...do you?
"The friend of my enemy is my enemy."
"Bush needs to clearly lay out the danger Saddam poses, including all the hard evidence the intelligence agencies possess against him..."
He did a good deal of that in the State of the Union address, and his detractors still said "not enough"...they'll continue to do so in spite of any evidence presented.
You are aware that Germany declared war on us on Dec. 11, 1941, aren't you? Later that day we declared war on them.
Your post also seems to assume that President Bush is a military leader, and the American people his troops. If you read my post you will see that nowhere do I say that a military officer must divulge tactics to his troops or ask nicely for their compliance with his orders. That would be crazy. But we're not talking about battlefield leadership. We're talking about disclosing casus belli to the people who will pay the bill for that belli, both in cash and in blood. Bush is an elected leader in a democracy. The American people are not his troops. He is fully acountable to them.
Also, although his SOTU address was persuasive, if, as the subject of this thread suggests, he has more evidence than he divulged there, now is the time, before the conflict begins, for the American people to examine it.
Even if he showed them a picture of OBL getting a Lewinski from Saddam or vice versa, (or both at the same time I suppose) they wouldn't be convinced of ties between Saddam and Al-Qaida.
They are civil servants, you can't fire them. Well you can, but it takes longer than the 8 years a President has in office to do the job.
Read more closely, he's got the information, the CIA is just opposing releasing it. POTUS, will make the final decision, with adice from the Veep, and Condi. He'll get advice from Rummy and I suppose that Clintonista at CIA too.
From his CIA bio:
George John Tenet was sworn in as Director of Central Intelligence on 11 July 1997 following a unanimous vote by both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the full Senate. In this position he heads the Intelligence Community (all foreign intelligence agencies of the United States) and directs the Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Tenet served as the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, having been confirmed in that position in July 1995. Following the departure of John Deutch in December 1996, he served as Acting Director.
Mr. Tenet previously served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council. While at the NSC, he coordinated Presidential Decision Directives on ''Intelligence Priorities,'' ''Security Policy Coordination,'' ''US Counterintelligence Effectiveness,'' and ''US Policy on Remote Sensing Space Capabilities.'' He also was responsible for coordinating all interagency activities concerning covert action.
Prior to serving at the National Security Council, he served on President Clinton's national security transition team. In this capacity, he coordinated the evaluation of the US Intelligence Community. Mr. Tenet also served as Staff Director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for over four years under the chairmanship of Senator David Boren. In this capacity he was responsible for coordinating all of the Committee's oversight and legislative activities including the strengthening of covert action reporting requirements, the creation of a statutory Inspector General at CIA, and the introduction of comprehensive legislation to reorganize US intelligence.
Prior to his appointment as Staff Director, Mr. Tenet directed the Committee's oversight of all arms control negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States, culminating in the preparation of a report to the US Senate on ``The Ability of US Intelligence to Monitor the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty.'' Mr. Tenet came to the Committee in August of 1985, as designee to the Vice Chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, after working three years on the staff of Senator John Heinz as both a legislative assistant covering national security and energy issues and as legislative director.
Mr. Tenet holds a B.S.F.S. from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and an M.I.A. from the School of International Affairs at Columbia University.
BTW, the DCI (Tenet) can be fired, he is political appointee, not a civil servant!
Classic dis-info.......
Well no, but there was the little matter of the "Thousand Year Reich" declaring war on the US right after 7 December, in fulfillment of their treaty with Japan and Italy, and then promptly setting off to sink every ship on our Eastern Seaboard and in the Gulf of Mexico that they could get a submarine close to. That was a lot of them, even though they were somewhat short of subs at that point, it was "target rich environment"
Interesting that CIA director Tenet once worked for Leahey as staff of that same committee.
My post assumes nothing, the Constitution makes the president of the United States the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
"The American people are not his troops."
He's not sending the American people into battle, he is sending the US Armed Forces into battle.
BTW, is there some section of the Constitution that I am missing which would command the Federal government to conduct itself in the sort of "sunshine law" manner that you seem to claim it's obligated to behave like?
George Bush is fully accountable to the American people. The American people are his BOSS. We don't answer to him, he answers to us. His constitutional duties as commander-in-chief have nothing whatsoever to do with his role as servant of the American people when the case for war or peace is being made.
This ain't no party; this ain't no disco; this ain't no fooling around. This is war! As I said previously, there are good reasons to force Saddam Hussein from power, but implementing a new doctrine of "preemption" to do it introduces an element into geopolitics they may be more deadly than the disease it is supposed to cure. If Bush expects to use this doctrine to justify war, he better be damn sure the weapons in Saddam's arsenal need "preempting." And he better convince the American of same by presenting us with his evidence.
Your post is so confused it is laughable. The kind of deference to authority apparent in your post is completely un-American and has nothing to do with the conservative tradition or the ideal of a free republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.