• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

Agent Ferris

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
915
Location
Past the edge of the universe, through the singula
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill

By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
10/01/09 4:37 PM EDT

The Senate defeated on a party-line vote a move by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz to set a Nov. 15 deadline for the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan and other military brass to testify before the Senate about the need for additional troops and resources to fight the war.


Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill | Washington Examiner

I'll say it right here and now Democrats clearly want us to lose the war just as they wanted us to lose in Iraq and just as they wanted us to lose every single war since Vietnam.
 
From a Senate that was thick with timelines and benchmarks regarding Iraq, this seems rather odd to me. Almost like their priorities...much like this President's, aren't in proper order.

This is what happens when you elect circus clowns into government, you get a ship that really has no idea where it's going. You get dog and pony shows to the IOC, you get health care being done behind closed doors...again...who has time to speak to the General, after all, Obama spoke to him only once, why should the Senate be involved in the war they Authorized? It's just our young men and women dying for their country, who really and truly cares?
 
As troops sit and wait, taking fire in Afghanistan, the President and the Senate fiddles..... /facepalm
 
From a Senate that was thick with timelines and benchmarks regarding Iraq, this seems rather odd to me. Almost like their priorities...much like this President's, aren't in proper order.

Sorry, this ain't odd... it's 100% Normal when talking about Democrats.
Democrats have been acting this way for decades.
Their priorities have been upside down for decades.

It should be common knowledge what these folks stand for.
Shredding the Constitution.
Having a strong federal government.
Cradle to grave tax and spend socialism.
Europeanizing... weakening America.

.
 
*crickets*
 
Having McChrystal come before the Senate seems like a waste of everyone's time. Obama isn't stalling because he can't decide to say yes or no. He's stalling because he is debating on changing the militarizes mission in Afghanistan.

McChrystal gave a the number of troops he needs to combat the Taliban. Does he still need that same number if he is no longer combating the Taliban? Should Obama oblige McChrystal's current mission based request if Obama is going to change McChrystal's mission?

Personally I think Obama is fool. Take out the Taliban and you start choking off AL-Q supplies and safety and thus make them that easier to defeat. Of course fighting the Taliban puts us into the same situation we are in in Iraq, nation building.
 
Last edited:
Having McChrystal come before the Senate seems like a waste of everyone's time. Obama isn't stalling because he can't decide to say yes or no. He's stalling because he is debating on changing the militarizes mission in Afghanistan.

McChrystal gave a the number of troops he needs to combat the Taliban. Does he still need that same number if he is no longer combating the Taliban? Should Obama oblige McChrystal's current mission based request if Obama is going to change McChrystal's mission?

Personally I think Obama is fool. Take out the Taliban and you start choking off AL-Q supplies and safety and thus make them that easier to defeat. Of course fighting the Taliban puts us into the same situation we are in in Iraq, nation building.

I can not believe this country has elected Commander in Chief a douchebag who 9 months in has no idea YET what to do in Afghanistan

What a ****ing loser
 
Having McChrystal come before the Senate seems like a waste of everyone's time. Obama isn't stalling because he can't decide to say yes or no. He's stalling because he is debating on changing the militarizes mission in Afghanistan.

McChrystal gave a the number of troops he needs to combat the Taliban. Does he still need that same number if he is no longer combating the Taliban? Should Obama oblige McChrystal's current mission based request if Obama is going to change McChrystal's mission?

Personally I think Obama is fool. Take out the Taliban and you start choking off AL-Q supplies and safety and thus make them that easier to defeat. Of course fighting the Taliban puts us into the same situation we are in in Iraq, nation building.

Yeah, he's trying to decide if he's going to change the mission to a surrender mission.
 
Yeah, he's trying to decide if he's going to change the mission to a surrender mission.

Uh you mean keep the mission as counter-terrorism, just like it was under Bush?

I won't let you get away with your ignorance on this thread, too. Go back to the thread you started and rebut my posts.
 
Obama is a weak leader. That much is obvious...
 
PBO's makng Bush look like a genius.
 
Why? Just curious...

Because he projected strength and resolve.

Every time Bush spoke about military matters I felt like I was listening to the Commander In Chief instead of some political animal.

Obama seems like he’s a hostage to political circumstance; like he's not a leader.
 
Because he projected strength and resolve.

Every time Bush spoke about military matters I felt like I was listening to the Commander In Chief instead of some political animal.

Obama seems like he’s a hostage to political circumstance; like he's not a leader.


Ok, interesting.
 
Having McChrystal come before the Senate seems like a waste of everyone's time.

I know you wouldn't want to get the opinion of Generals on the ground when discussing warfighting strategy. We should leave to a bunch of politicians.

Obama isn't stalling because he can't decide to say yes or no. He's stalling because he is debating on changing the militarizes mission in Afghanistan.

Obama is stalling because he and the Democrats are rooting for the Taliban to win and for the U.S. to fail just as they rooted for AQI and the Sadr army to win in Iraq and just as the rooted for the NVA and VC to win in Iraq. They hate the U.S. military and love our enemies.

McChrystal gave a the number of troops he needs to combat the Taliban. Does he still need that same number if he is no longer combating the Taliban? Should Obama oblige McChrystal's current mission based request if Obama is going to change McChrystal's mission?

Obama the Harvard law professor should follow the lead of people who actually know WTF they're talking about, but again Obama along with the majority of the Dems want the U.S. to lose the war in Afghanistan.
 
Ok, interesting.

Yea, I liked the cut of his jib...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMiqEUBux3o"]YouTube - CNN - Ex-President George W. Bush's Post 9/11 Speech[/ame]
 
Yea, I liked the cut of his jib...

I really did appreciate his simplicity. You knew when he talked that he didn't really posses the ability to carefully calculate every word like BHO (when he's not using a teleprompter)

Bush's downfall with me is the fact that he was a jingoist Hawk and never heard a shot fired in anger...I can't get over that; regardless of how much I liked him personally.
 
Back
Top Bottom