The Problem with Barack Obama... to me...

[maineman]

the point the folks on the right fail to acknowledge is that General Petraeus fully supports Obama's decision and participated in formulating it.

And when Petraeus DID ask for 40K troops, he was not expecting the first new sets of boots to hit the ground until early 2010...So Obama's deliberate and thoughtful approach which resulted in his current plan, which has troops arriving before Christmas, did not cause any delay in implementation.... in fact, just the opposite.

 

[Oldandtired]

the point the folks on the right fail to acknowledge is that General Petraeus fully supports Obama's decision and participated in formulating it.

And when Petraeus DID ask for 40K troops, he was not expecting the first new sets of boots to hit the ground until early 2010...So Obama's deliberate and thoughtful approach which resulted in his current plan, which has troops arriving before Christmas, did not cause any delay in implementation.... in fact, just the opposite.

Patreus?
LMAO....you surely know what you are talking about.

 

[maineman]

the point the folks on the right fail to acknowledge is that General Petraeus fully supports Obama's decision and participated in formulating it.

And when Petraeus DID ask for 40K troops, he was not expecting the first new sets of boots to hit the ground until early 2010...So Obama's deliberate and thoughtful approach which resulted in his current plan, which has troops arriving before Christmas, did not cause any delay in implementation.... in fact, just the opposite.

Patreus [sic] ?
LMAO....you surely know what you are talking about.

McChrystal asked for the troops... Petraeus, as his boss, supported and endorsed his request. Now..Petraeus is fully supportive of the plan that resulted from the Obama team thoroughly examining all the various strategy/force strength options.

 

[Oldandtired]

the point the folks on the right fail to acknowledge is that General Petraeus fully supports Obama's decision and participated in formulating it.

And when Petraeus DID ask for 40K troops, he was not expecting the first new sets of boots to hit the ground until early 2010...So Obama's deliberate and thoughtful approach which resulted in his current plan, which has troops arriving before Christmas, did not cause any delay in implementation.... in fact, just the opposite.

Patreus [sic] ?
LMAO....you surely know what you are talking about.

McChrystal asked for the troops... Petraeus, as his boss, supported and endorsed his request. Now..Petraeus is fully supportive of the plan that resulted from the Obama team thoroughly examining all the various strategy/force strength options.

Petraeus NEVER asked for the troops. McChrystal was the "project manager" who did the research work necessary for the request and the he was also the Author of the request.
Obama is Petraeus' boss...so was it Obama's request? You see my point.

Now, as for the rest of what you say...I see it differently...

If a project manager for a construction project determines based on his experience, research and overall knowledge that 400 workers are necessary to get the project completed.....what would make anyone think that the developer would know better when he decides only 300 people were necesary instead. And if so....then who in their right mnd would continue to use that project manager for that same project?

And in THAT scenario....lives are not at stake.

 

[maineman]

Patreus [sic] ?
LMAO....you surely know what you are talking about.

McChrystal asked for the troops... Petraeus, as his boss, supported and endorsed his request. Now..Petraeus is fully supportive of the plan that resulted from the Obama team thoroughly examining all the various strategy/force strength options.

Petraeus NEVER asked for the troops. McChrystal was the "project manager" who did the research work necessary for the request and the he was also the Author of the request.
Obama is Petraeus' boss...so was it Obama's request? You see my point.

Now, as for the rest of what you say...I see it differently...

If a project manager for a construction project determines based on his experience, research and overall knowledge that 400 workers are necessary to get the project completed.....what would make anyone think that the developer would know better when he decides only 300 people were necesary instead. And if so....then who in their right mnd would continue to use that project manager for that same project?

And in THAT scenario....lives are not at stake.

clearly, you have no idea as to the distinct difference between civilian "management" and military "leadership".

 

[nodoginnafight]

If any of you guys READ McChystal's request - he made it emphatically clear that request was FIRST and FOREMOST a request for a review of strategy and tactics and that additional forces were NOT the crux of his request.

The 40,000 figure was based on a specific strategy for what he actually wanted to DO WITH 40,000 additional troops.

Obama obliged and made a very careful review of strategy and tactics and opted for a modified course of action that could be accomplished with 30,000 troops. McChrytal agreed.

I STILL disagree with the decision - but for crying out loud, I do wish people could stop falling all over themselves trying to gin-up something to whine about.

 

[Oldandtired]

McChrystal asked for the troops... Petraeus, as his boss, supported and endorsed his request. Now..Petraeus is fully supportive of the plan that resulted from the Obama team thoroughly examining all the various strategy/force strength options.

Petraeus NEVER asked for the troops. McChrystal was the "project manager" who did the research work necessary for the request and the he was also the Author of the request.
Obama is Petraeus' boss...so was it Obama's request? You see my point.

Now, as for the rest of what you say...I see it differently...

If a project manager for a construction project determines based on his experience, research and overall knowledge that 400 workers are necessary to get the project completed.....what would make anyone think that the developer would know better when he decides only 300 people were necesary instead. And if so....then who in their right mnd would continue to use that project manager for that same project?

And in THAT scenario....lives are not at stake.

clearly, you have no idea as to the distinct difference between civilian "management" and military "leadership".

Clearly you have no idea what my background is.
But thanks for the interesting debate. Too bad you had nothing more to add after my rebuttle.

 

[Oldandtired]

If any of you guys READ McChystal's request - he made it emphatically clear that request was FIRST and FOREMOST a request for a review of strategy and tactics and that additional forces were NOT the crux of his request.

The 40,000 figure was based on a specific strategy for what he actually wanted to DO WITH 40,000 additional troops.

Obama obliged and made a very careful review of strategy and tactics and opted for a modified course of action that could be accomplished with 30,000 troops. McChrytal agreed.

I STILL disagree with the decision - but for crying out loud, I do wish people could stop falling all over themselves trying to gin-up something to whine about.

LMAO.....so I am curious....did you get the clearance and the tag to enter the room with no cell phone, no camera, no one with you...oh yeah...and of course.....proof you are a member of congress...to read the unredacted report from the general?

Wow...I am impressed!

 

[Yurt]

If we want to get technical, he didn't lie to the grand jury. He chose his language very carefully to make a statement that misleading but still technically true.

it wasn't technically true at all....only a hack would say so...he flat out lied, charges were brought up for impeachment but congress didn't impeach him....

you can't explain how his statements were technically true, so you give us this pie of meadowmuffins.....

His statement was technically true. He said that he never had "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. While the plain language reading of that is no sexual contact at all, the term "sexual relations" refers specifically to intercourse. While he did a lot of things with Monica, he never fucked her.

lol....blowjobs are not sexual

i also doubt he kept it only to blowjobs....the guy is a bald face liar

 

[maineman]

Petraeus NEVER asked for the troops. McChrystal was the "project manager" who did the research work necessary for the request and the he was also the Author of the request.
Obama is Petraeus' boss...so was it Obama's request? You see my point.

Now, as for the rest of what you say...I see it differently...

If a project manager for a construction project determines based on his experience, research and overall knowledge that 400 workers are necessary to get the project completed.....what would make anyone think that the developer would know better when he decides only 300 people were necesary instead. And if so....then who in their right mnd would continue to use that project manager for that same project?

And in THAT scenario....lives are not at stake.

clearly, you have no idea as to the distinct difference between civilian "management" and military "leadership".

Clearly you have no idea what my background is.
But thanks for the interesting debate. Too bad you had nothing more to add after my rebuttle.

if your background is military, you obviously didn't learn anything. You say that your project manager scenario is synonymous with the Afghan situation.... and then you go on to make a big deal about how there are not lives at stake in yours.... Anyone who had been awake while serving in the military would realize that it is precisely because there ARE lives at stake that your scenario is fatally foolishly flawed. We have units on the ground... and they need to have confidence in their leader. Their lives depend on him. If the CinC fired every military field commander that had presented options that were ultimately rejected or modified by the civilain command authority, we wouldn't have any admirals or generals left to lead our troops.

 

[Yurt]

I never said that YOU were, so there is nothing to take back, old friend!

I misunderstood you then. Maybe it is because I was not following your prior conversation with others.

It seemed to me that you had read my points as if I were saying he was guilty and that I was lying.

The way I read this whole thing is that he was charged with Perjury and that Perjury is a felony. He was found NOT Guilty... end of story. I don't see any difference between the idea of impeachment and trial by a jury of his peers (Senators) and being charged in a criminal court.

His status at the time was the reason for the Jurisdiction belonging to the House of Reps rather than the criminal courts but the results are the same: charged with a crime (perjury in this case), trial and then either acquittal or conviction.

Immie

This is correct...and Clinton was disbarred for it.
Bill Clinton the lawyer? Ban ending - Politics- msnbc.com

he wasn't disbarred....

On Clinton's last full day as president, Jan. 19, 2001, he agreed to a five-year license suspension. The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue criminal charges against him after he lied under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

 

[rightwinger]

If a project manager for a construction project determines based on his experience, research and overall knowledge that 400 workers are necessary to get the project completed.....what would make anyone think that the developer would know better when he decides only 300 people were necesary instead. And if so....then who in their right mnd would continue to use that project manager for that same project?

You obviously have never worked in business either. If the PM goes forward with a plan that requires 400 workers and the customer cannot afford to execute that plan, then the plan is modified, descoped or stretched out. A plan is just that....a plan. It is not a definitive declaration of the only way a project can be completed

 

[Oldandtired]

clearly, you have no idea as to the distinct difference between civilian "management" and military "leadership".

Clearly you have no idea what my background is.
But thanks for the interesting debate. Too bad you had nothing more to add after my rebuttle.

if your background is military, you obviously didn't learn anything. You say that your project manager scenario is synonymous with the Afghan situation.... and then you go on to make a big deal about how there are not lives at stake in yours.... Anyone who had been awake while serving in the military would realize that it is precisely because there ARE lives at stake that your scenario is fatally foolishly flawed. We have units on the ground... and they need to have confidence in their leader. Their lives depend on him. If the CinC fired every military field commander that had presented options that were ultimately rejected or modified by the civilain command authority, we wouldn't have any admirals or generals left to lead our troops.

You are an intelligent poster....few and far between on this board. So lets back up and start again....and I take back my barbs...especially my first one.

I learned a lot my friend. More than I care to admit.

My analogy is flawed. Yes. But it was designed to make a poiint. Not compare apples to apples....but to make a point.

In the military, one does not doubt the opinion of his senior. It may cost the life of a fellow soldier. Likewise, one does not doubt the word of a subordinate who was given the responsibility of reconnaissance. That too may cost the life of a soldier.

But I fear we will never see eye to eye on this. But one thing I know for sure. McChrystal was chosen to come up with a strategy. His strategy was tweaked. Sounds ok perhpas....but when it comes to war, I prefer the opinion of the one chose to come up with the strategy.

 

[Oldandtired]

If a project manager for a construction project determines based on his experience, research and overall knowledge that 400 workers are necessary to get the project completed.....what would make anyone think that the developer would know better when he decides only 300 people were necesary instead. And if so....then who in their right mnd would continue to use that project manager for that same project?

You obviously have never worked in business either. If the PM goes forward with a plan that requires 400 workers and the customer cannot afford to execute that plan, then the plan is modified, descoped or stretched out. A plan is just that....a plan. It is not a definitive declaration of the only way a project can be completed

Huh? DId I say the developer did not have the funds for the plan?
A PM devises a plan BASED ON BUDGET.
Whats the use....you are a waste of my time.

 

[maineman]

I misunderstood you then. Maybe it is because I was not following your prior conversation with others.

It seemed to me that you had read my points as if I were saying he was guilty and that I was lying.

The way I read this whole thing is that he was charged with Perjury and that Perjury is a felony. He was found NOT Guilty... end of story. I don't see any difference between the idea of impeachment and trial by a jury of his peers (Senators) and being charged in a criminal court.

His status at the time was the reason for the Jurisdiction belonging to the House of Reps rather than the criminal courts but the results are the same: charged with a crime (perjury in this case), trial and then either acquittal or conviction.

Immie

This is correct...and Clinton was disbarred for it.
Bill Clinton the lawyer? Ban ending - Politics- msnbc.com

he wasn't disbarred....

On Clinton's last full day as president, Jan. 19, 2001, he agreed to a five-year license suspension. The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue criminal charges against him after he lied under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

and even IF the prosecutors had pursued criminal charges, they would have needed to prove that Clinton's false statements were material to the case at hand. all falsehoods stated under oath do not rise to the level of perjury, n'est ce pas?

 

[Polk]

it wasn't technically true at all....only a hack would say so...he flat out lied, charges were brought up for impeachment but congress didn't impeach him....

you can't explain how his statements were technically true, so you give us this pie of meadowmuffins.....

His statement was technically true. He said that he never had "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. While the plain language reading of that is no sexual contact at all, the term "sexual relations" refers specifically to intercourse. While he did a lot of things with Monica, he never fucked her.

lol....blowjobs are not sexual

i also doubt he kept it only to blowjobs....the guy is a bald face liar

A blowjob isn't intercourse. It's sexual, but it's not sex, strictly speaking.

 

[maineman]

Clearly you have no idea what my background is.
But thanks for the interesting debate. Too bad you had nothing more to add after my rebuttle.

if your background is military, you obviously didn't learn anything. You say that your project manager scenario is synonymous with the Afghan situation.... and then you go on to make a big deal about how there are not lives at stake in yours.... Anyone who had been awake while serving in the military would realize that it is precisely because there ARE lives at stake that your scenario is fatally foolishly flawed. We have units on the ground... and they need to have confidence in their leader. Their lives depend on him. If the CinC fired every military field commander that had presented options that were ultimately rejected or modified by the civilain command authority, we wouldn't have any admirals or generals left to lead our troops.

You are an intelligent poster....few and far between on this board. So lets back up and start again....and I take back my barbs...especially my first one.

I learned a lot my friend. More than I care to admit.

My analogy is flawed. Yes. But it was designed to make a poiint. Not compare apples to apples....but to make a point.

In the military, one does not doubt the opinion of his senior. It may cost the life of a fellow soldier. Likewise, one does not doubt the word of a subordinate who was given the responsibility of reconnaissance. That too may cost the life of a soldier.

But I fear we will never see eye to eye on this. But one thing I know for sure. McChrystal was chosen to come up with a strategy. His strategy was tweaked. Sounds ok perhpas....but when it comes to war, I prefer the opinion of the one chose to come up with the strategy.

in the military, commissioned officers are encouraged to doubt the opinions of their seniors at every step. And they voice that doubt behind closed doors... and, after discussion - oftentimes heated - the senior makes up his mind...and the subordinate officer opens the door and leaves, and carries out the order or implements the strategy as if it were his own idea. That is what McChrystal did and is doing. That is why it would be FOOLISH to replace him, or any military leader, simply because his ideas were not adopted whole hog.

And in MY opinion, when it comes to war, I want the Commander in Chief to be just that.

 

[Yurt]

His statement was technically true. He said that he never had "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. While the plain language reading of that is no sexual contact at all, the term "sexual relations" refers specifically to intercourse. While he did a lot of things with Monica, he never fucked her.

lol....blowjobs are not sexual

i also doubt he kept it only to blowjobs....the guy is a bald face liar

A blowjob isn't intercourse. It's sexual, but it's not sex, strictly speaking.

he lied....he knows, everyone knows it...why do you think he accepted a five year suspension of his license....to avoid criminal charges of perjury....

blowjobs are sexual relations as blowjobs are sexual activity

 

[rightwinger]

If a project manager for a construction project determines based on his experience, research and overall knowledge that 400 workers are necessary to get the project completed.....what would make anyone think that the developer would know better when he decides only 300 people were necesary instead. And if so....then who in their right mnd would continue to use that project manager for that same project?

You obviously have never worked in business either. If the PM goes forward with a plan that requires 400 workers and the customer cannot afford to execute that plan, then the plan is modified, descoped or stretched out. A plan is just that....a plan. It is not a definitive declaration of the only way a project can be completed

Huh? DId I say the developer did not have the funds for the plan?
A PM devises a plan BASED ON BUDGET.
Whats the use....you are a waste of my time.

Same difference.

If you have the budget for 400 workers, but only 300 are available...you rescope the project.

No project manager ever gets his plans approved without revisions. An effective Project manager has to be flexible to respond to changing conditions

 

[maineman]

lol....blowjobs are not sexual

i also doubt he kept it only to blowjobs....the guy is a bald face liar

A blowjob isn't intercourse. It's sexual, but it's not sex, strictly speaking.

he lied....he knows, everyone knows it...why do you think he accepted a five year suspension of his license....to avoid criminal charges of perjury....

blowjobs are sexual relations as blowjobs are sexual activity

sexual relation
The noun has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur
Synonyms: sexual intercourse, intercourse, sex act, copulation, coitus, coition, sexual congress, congress, relation, carnal knowledge.

sexual relations: Definition from Answers.com