US Military: Obama is dangerous

[Wow]

Is OBL one of Obama's advisors? Obama will get all Americans killed.

Mullen Warns Against Obama's Iraq Troop Plan - The Talk
Mullen Warns Against Obama's Iraq Troop Plan

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
The nation's senior military official warned against a plan, put forward by presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama, to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by early 2010.

"I think the consequences could be very dangerous," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on "Fox News Sunday." "I'm convinced at this point in time that ... making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important."

Obama has argued that a drawdown in Iraq is necessary to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. The Illinois Democrat was in Afghanistan on Sunday and reiterated his call to add up to 15,000 U.S. troops there.

"This is where [terrorists] can plan attacks. They have sanctuary here. They are gathering huge amounts of money as a consequence of the [opium] drug trade in the region," Obama said in an interview on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Mullen said conditions in Iraq have improved and "we're making progress." If that trend continues, he said, "I would look to be able to make recommendations to President Bush in the fall to continue those reductions."

Asked if more troops might depart before Bush leaves office in January, Mullen said, "Certainly there are assumptions which you could make which would make that possible."

 

[sealybobo]

Is OBL one of Obama's advisors? Obama will get all Americans killed.

Mullen Warns Against Obama's Iraq Troop Plan - The Talk
Mullen Warns Against Obama's Iraq Troop Plan

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
The nation's senior military official warned against a plan, put forward by presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama, to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by early 2010.

"I think the consequences could be very dangerous," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on "Fox News Sunday." "I'm convinced at this point in time that ... making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important."

Obama has argued that a drawdown in Iraq is necessary to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. The Illinois Democrat was in Afghanistan on Sunday and reiterated his call to add up to 15,000 U.S. troops there.

"This is where [terrorists] can plan attacks. They have sanctuary here. They are gathering huge amounts of money as a consequence of the [opium] drug trade in the region," Obama said in an interview on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Mullen said conditions in Iraq have improved and "we're making progress." If that trend continues, he said, "I would look to be able to make recommendations to President Bush in the fall to continue those reductions."

Asked if more troops might depart before Bush leaves office in January, Mullen said, "Certainly there are assumptions which you could make which would make that possible."

I know you will refuse to believe this, just like you refused to believe the Justice Department was politicized, but the Pentagon, Department of Defense and Military have also been politicized.

If you aren't a loyal Bushy, you don't get promoted.

I bet you "DON'T RECALL" Alberto Gonzo, Brownie or the GAO guys who screwed up and gave undercover agents components to make dirty bombs? The agents just pretended to be legit companies and falsefied documents and Bush's GAO appointees sent them the materials. Or remember the airforce accidentilly flew nukes over American cities? Pathetic.

I bet you also forgot that Bush fired 6 or 8 US Attorney's because they wouldn't do his political bidding?

So if you think the Admirals (navy) that are in charge of the desert war we are in are not political hacks, then you are sadly in denial.

 

[AllieBaba]

Ok, I know you must be young because nobody else could be this ignorant, and I sense no malice in your righteous indignation.

Every president has the authority to replace US attorneys at their own whim, and to load that department with hand-selected attorneys. It's one of the perks of being president. Clinton fired something like 97 of them. It's a time-honored tradition.

A president is expected, and the ability to achieve this is in place, to surround himself with people he trusts and who hold the same views as himself. That's what being a president is. It's having a vision, having a view, having an agenda, and using your power to forward it. And we give them that power and expect them to use it. THere are checks and balances, but the stuff the libs whine about are things which are just part and parcel of being president...and nobody whines about it when it's a dem president taking advantage of them.

To select a president and tie his hands with regards to appointees is an exercise in futility.

 

[Ravi]

I couldn't find anywhere in the linked article that said the military believes Obama is dangerous, and that's a big relief since as far as I know, the military is forbidden to be involved in presidential campaigns.

Does McCain believe the military called Obama dangerous?

 

[sealybobo]

Ok, I know you must be young because nobody else could be this ignorant, and I sense no malice in your righteous indignation.

Every president has the authority to replace US attorneys at their own whim, and to load that department with hand-selected attorneys. It's one of the perks of being president. Clinton fired something like 97 of them. It's a time-honored tradition.

A president is expected, and the ability to achieve this is in place, to surround himself with people he trusts and who hold the same views as himself. That's what being a president is. It's having a vision, having a view, having an agenda, and using your power to forward it. And we give them that power and expect them to use it. THere are checks and balances, but the stuff the libs whine about are things which are just part and parcel of being president...and nobody whines about it when it's a dem president taking advantage of them.

To select a president and tie his hands with regards to appointees is an exercise in futility.

Iglesias has been at the center of the firings controversy ever since he went public with the revelation that two New Mexico Republicans had pressured him about indicting a state Democrat shortly before the 2006 elections.

He looked into both cases and found no evidence whatsoever!!!

And, the book spends some time on discussing Iglesias' handling of voter fraud cases -- how the administration directed Iglesias' focus on the issue, and how that direction made Iglesias uncomfortable.

Sorry he wasn't a political hack. So you don't even think it's a problem to politicize the justice department? You are seriously a stooge!!!

You are a fucking moron, do you know that? Do you?

I remember morons like you defended Gonzales too. I don't recall. HA!!

At least you could just ignore my post, but instead you try to insult my intelligence? Or, are you really unaware of what went on in government for the past 8 years? Do you also approve of deleting White House emails to cover up the law breaking acts?

Do you know all the details or do you really believe the words you type? OMG. Have fun voting for McCain. You might as well not reply to me because I give you ZERO credibility on anything you say. Either you are really stupid or lying to me. Either way, I don't give a rats ass what you think because you are a joke!!!

Seriously, don't answer because you have no credibility anymore. When you can defend everything this administration has done, don't call yourself a patriot, american or constitutionalist.

 

[sealybobo]

I couldn't find anywhere in the linked article that said the military believes Obama is dangerous, and that's a big relief since as far as I know, the military is forbidden to be involved in presidential campaigns.

Does McCain believe the military called Obama dangerous?

There was a report that came out about the insurgents in Iraq. Do you know what they called them? They called them "evildoers". If that doesn't tell you the military has been politicized, nothing will.

 

[sealybobo]

Ok, I know you must be young because nobody else could be this ignorant, and I sense no malice in your righteous indignation.

Every president has the authority to replace US attorneys at their own whim, and to load that department with hand-selected attorneys. It's one of the perks of being president. Clinton fired something like 97 of them. It's a time-honored tradition.

A president is expected, and the ability to achieve this is in place, to surround himself with people he trusts and who hold the same views as himself. That's what being a president is. It's having a vision, having a view, having an agenda, and using your power to forward it. And we give them that power and expect them to use it. THere are checks and balances, but the stuff the libs whine about are things which are just part and parcel of being president...and nobody whines about it when it's a dem president taking advantage of them.

To select a president and tie his hands with regards to appointees is an exercise in futility.

1. It was unprecidented.

2. The timing was odd. Before the 2006 elections.

3. Bush was telling the attorneys to do stuff they were uncomfortable doing.

4. Is Don Siegelman in prison because he’s a criminal or because he belonged to the wrong political party in Alabama?

5. No amount of proof is going to wake you up. I suspect you don't even care if the White House did act inappropriately.