Iraq - what do we do now?

[Gilding the Lily]

Competence is more of a personality trait relating to leadership and management style.

Sure, if you are going to use a "made up" definition of competence, then I would agree with whatever you believe is the meaning of the "made up" version of competence. Just messing with you... it is all semantics and of no importance.

But in most competent people's vocabulary, competence is "being capable through skill, experience, or knowledge." People of all personalities can be competent. And though there are well-educated people who are not competent, and uneducated people who are competent... I believe that there is a positive correlation between education and competency. This does not mean that you gain competency through education or that you get education because you are competent. So, yes MBA's and Phd's may not be competent... but I bet if you get a random sample of uneducated people and a random sample of educated people, you will probably find that educated people are more competent than uneducated people. Please, I am not slamming uneducated people.

That, however, is neither here nor there. Using the more common definition of competency, Bush, IMO, does not appear to be a competent commander-in-chief.

The appearance of competency is often due to the people you surround yourself with, and Bush has made friends with some incompetent people in the past. Perhaps the most competent action Bush has done in his 2nd term is to appoint Robert Gates, a seemingly competent fellow.

 

[delldude]

Great response, Dell 🙄 Going back to Garfield's point which you apparently couldn't get even though it was simple...the armed forces and their actions are lead by their leader...the commander in chief. The pentagon, intelligence services, etc (EVERYTHING involved in a war) are all the EXECUTIVE branch which means the President's responsibility. Congress can propose directions but the commander in chief does not have to abide by them. Congress makes laws...doesn't lead the military. So no, Virginia, Congress doesn't have power to change the course in Iraq...the EXECUTIVE branch must do this. That means the President. Sure...he'll use them as a scapegoat hoping that ignorant factions of US citizens have no idea how our gov't functions but anybody who stayed awake through the "3 branches of gov't" discussions in class knows the truth. It's too bad that this administration feels that the american citizens are so ignorant that they can't see through these things. I guess there are just enough ignorant people to make the propoganda work, though.

So no, Virginia, Congress doesn't have power to change the course in Iraq...the EXECUTIVE branch must do this.

I must interject here...Duh..Duh.... 😱

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In three years of war in Iraq, the Congress has failed to exercise its historical responsibility to oversee the conduct of the war. With the current Congress seemingly unwilling to change this course, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senator Charles Schumer, and Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan today announced a major new national effort to conduct the needed oversight of America's Iraq policy. Beginning Monday, September 25, and continuing throughout the year, the Senators announced today, Democrats will bring retired military officers, veterans, and outside experts to give the Congress honest answers on Iraq. A letter from Senators Reid and Dorgan to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Jon Kyl inviting members of the Republican Caucus to participate follows this release.

Oversight of military operations has long been the duty of Congress.Traditionally, when the nation goes to war, the Congress -- acting under its Constitutional obligations -- examines the policies that led us to war, determines how we conduct the war, and oversee how tax dollars are being spent. Sadly, the current Congress has failed to provide our troops and the American people the answers to these important questions.

You are so saavy

Little constitutional study required Virginia?

 

[Garfield1966]

I must interject here...Duh..Duh.... 😱
You are so saavy

Little constitutional study required Virginia?

There is a difference between oversight (which the republican congress has not been doing) and actually setting up the execution of a war.

When is the last time you heard of a congressional committee or any member(s) of congress launching operation against an enemy target?

A President on the other hand does have that capability. When do undertake an operation, they are required (I believe) to notify certain members of congress of the operation. Even in the article you posted it says:

Oversight of military operations has long been the duty of Congress. Traditionally, when the nation goes to war, the Congress -- acting under its Constitutional obligations -- examines the policies that led us to war, determines how we conduct the war, and oversee how tax dollars are being spent. Sadly, the current Congress has failed to provide our troops and the American people the answers to these important questions.

No where does it mention or even elude to the fact that congress has the ability to dictate how the Executive Branch conducts their war.

I guess we will see if the new congress is capable of doing their duty. I really do not know what they can do given the fact that Iraq is a lost cause and that the idea of succeeding in Iraq is a pipe dream. I surely do not envy their position.

 

[KCFlyer]

There is a difference between oversight (which the republican congress has not been doing) and actually setting up the execution of a war.

When is the last time you heard of a congressional committee or any member(s) of congress launching operation against an enemy target?

A President on the other hand does have that capability. When do undertake an operation, they are required (I believe) to notify certain members of congress of the operation. Even in the article you posted it says:

Oversight of military operations has long been the duty of Congress. Traditionally, when the nation goes to war, the Congress -- acting under its Constitutional obligations -- examines the policies that led us to war, determines how we conduct the war, and oversee how tax dollars are being spent. Sadly, the current Congress has failed to provide our troops and the American people the answers to these important questions.

No where does it mention or even elude to the fact that congress has the ability to dictate how the Executive Branch conducts their war.

I guess we will see if the new congress is capable of doing their duty. I really do not know what they can do given the fact that Iraq is a lost cause and that the idea of succeeding in Iraq is a pipe dream. I surely do not envy their position.

Here's an interesting article that indicates that we are not really at war...at least according to Bush's Attorney General.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Here's an interesting article that indicates that we are not really at war...at least according to Bush's Attorney General.

This quote was in the article about giving authorization to use military force rather than declaring war:

"In other words, Congress had granted Bush superpowers without having any idea it had done so."

That is a joke. Congress (R-majority) knew exactly what it was doing when it gave Bush authorization to use military force. The expansion of powers under "authorization of force" has been well documented since Vietnam and Korea.

 

[local 12 proud]

I must interject here...Duh..Duh.... 😱
You are so saavy

Little constitutional study required Virginia?

ch.12 and puss-n-boots are experts on everything, just ask'em. 🙄

BTW Skeeered pussy cat, Iraq could be won if we would kick the liberal media out and let soldiers do what soldiers do best.

Ohhh and the Baker report is a joke, lets have dialouge with Syria and Iran? at what price, the Golan Heights? How about we just let'em Nuke Israel altogether, would that make you and your anti-semitic liberals happy?

 

[Garfield1966]

ch.12 and puss-n-boots are experts on everything, just ask'em. 🙄

BTW Skeeered pussy cat, Iraq could be won if we would kick the liberal media out and let soldiers do what soldiers do best.

Ohhh and the Baker report is a joke, lets have dialouge with Syria and Iran? at what price, the Golan Heights? How about we just let'em Nuke Israel altogether, would that make you and your anti-semitic liberals happy?

The media is what’s holding the military back from wining? And here I thought it was because Bush had no idea what he was doing. Funny that all the retired military officers coming-out of the wood work have never mentioned the media problem. They do seem to mention Rumsfelds/civilian leadership as being incompetent.

That has to be one of your most desperate and feeble arguments yet.

BTW. Do you have any sources to back up that garbage or is this just another pipe dream you cooked up on your own.

 

[local 12 proud]

The media is what’s holding the military back from wining?

That has to be one of your most desperate and feeble arguments yet.

BTW. Do you have any sources to back up that garbage or is this just another pipe dream you cooked up on your own.

So you deny that media bias is hurting the war effort?

Not everyone follows your anti-american bush hating rhetoric.

BIAS MATTERS

Does incomplete and unduly negative reporting matter in this war? It certainly matters to the public. The American people do not give our media high grades for their coverage of the Iraq war. Only 30 percent told the Pew Research Center they have a great deal of confidence "that the press is giving an accurate picture of how the war is going." Droves of viewers concerned they are being manipulated with negative imagery have migrated to alternative outlets (like Fox, the only news organization that has enjoyed clear net increases in audience and consumer trust over the last year and a half).

Many other Americans have simply tuned out or cancelled their subscriptions. In different polls, large majorities of the public now say that our news organizations are more inaccurate than accurate, and that reporters "get in the way of solving social problems" (Gallup and Princeton Survey Research). Fully 72 percent of Americans now say "the news media have too much power and influence in Washington" (Harris). As someone doing a lot of speaking on this subject, I can tell you that a substantial portion of the American public (and most of the soldiers serving in the war theaters) is dissatisfied with the last year's journalism from Iraq.

Unbalanced war reporting can have fatal effects. Any guerilla war is as much a struggle of truthful images as it is a military encounter. Unbalanced coverage can demoralize forces of good, and encourage the sowers of chaos.

Jim Marshall is a Vietnam combat veteran, a Congressman serving on the House Armed Services Committee, and a Democrat. After returning from a fact-finding trip to Iraq he had this to say: "I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes [and] not balancing this bad news with the 'rest of the story,' the progress made daily. ... The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation, and emboldens our enemy."

Tony Blair went even further in April 2004. He warned that some journalists and opinion shapers would like to see President Bush and "the power of America" defeated in Iraq. "The truth is," Blair wrote in Britain's Observer, "faced with this struggle on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of Western opinion is sitting back — if not half-hoping we fail — certainly replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/zins...00408040849.asp

“Death to America†is not just a slogan for our enemies. It’s a deeply held conviction, on which they are feverishly acting. Only when we are ready to take them seriously, when our leaders’ brave words are matched by determined deeds, can we win — in Iraq and, more importantly, in the greater war.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

So you deny that media bias is hurting the war effort?

Not everyone follows your anti-american bush hating rhetoric.

BIAS MATTERS
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/zins...00408040849.asp

That article was published in 2004... and the Congressman's trip was likely months before that. In my opinion, the "war in Iraq" is completely different now as compared to what it was in 2004. Do you agree?

Perhaps there was "progress made daily" in 2004? Is there progress made daily now? I don't know; but it seems to me that there is less perceived progress than there was in 2004... perhaps, as you might suggest, that is caused by the unbalanced media I am surrounded by.

 

[local 12 proud]

That article was published in 2004... and the Congressman's trip was likely months before that. In my opinion, the "war in Iraq" is completely different now as compared to what it was in 2004. Do you agree?

Perhaps there was "progress made daily" in 2004? Is there progress made daily now? I don't know; but it seems to me that there is less perceived progress than there was in 2004... perhaps, as you might suggest, that is caused by the unbalanced media I am surrounded by.

Tell ya what GTL, walk over and turn on your Telly and go to your favorite source of news, then come back and report that the media bias has changed to a more favorable balanced depiction since 2004 on the Iraq situation.

If anything its only got worse, as has the outcome of the war. Gee wiz... I wonder if the two have any correlation? :blink:

 

[Gilding the Lily]

then come back and report that the media bias has changed to a more favorable balanced depiction since 2004 on the Iraq situation.

What are you talking about??? A "more favorable balanced depiction"? If it is more favorable to something or someone... how is that balanced?

I think I am misunderstanding you because I have no idea what you are trying to say.

And perhaps this is the correlation: The "war in Iraq" has gotten worse; thus, the media covering the war has shown worse depictions. Doesn't seem like a conspiracy to me.

If anything the media doesn't show nearly half of the "bad" stuff. All the reporters likely stay within a half mile of their home (where it is safe). They don't venture out where all the Iraqi's are being killed by other Iraqi's... unless of course, it is within the half mile radius of their hotel.

 

[local 12 proud]

What are you talking about??? A "more favorable balanced depiction"? If it is more favorable to something or someone... how is that balanced?

Exactly my point!
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2006/sum/sum090806.asp

I think I am misunderstanding you because I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Im saying the Terrorist are winning the Media war, stealing the hearts and minds while (our) own Tokyo Rose batallion encourages and emboldens them.

And perhaps this is the correlation: The "war in Iraq" has gotten worse; thus, the media covering the war has shown worse depictions. Doesn't seem like a conspiracy to me.

I never used the term 'conspiracy' but since you brought it up why don't you dispel it for us... Oooh and while your at it why not post a link to all the 'Good' that has come out of Iraq that has been reported by the un-biased media conglomarate.

If anything the media doesn't show nearly half of the "bad" stuff. All the reporters likely stay within a half mile of their home (where it is safe). They don't venture out where all the Iraqi's are being killed by other Iraqi's... unless of course, it is within the half mile radius of their hotel.

Oh really, what about those reporters that have taken a bullet while riding shotgun in a patrol, or the ones injured by IED's? Kinda hard to get hit from your cozy hotel room, or the 'Green Zone' eh?

 

[Flying Titan]

Local 12 -
I'm sure all the name-calling's fun, but where's your plan?

 

[local 12 proud]

Local 12 -
I'm sure all the name-calling's fun, but where's your plan?

Listen up polly, let me say this real slow so it can penetrate that liberal disease between your ears.

I - H-A-V-E - N-O - P-L-A-N - E-X-C-E-P-T - T-O - G-I-V-E - O-U-R - T-R-O-O-P-S - T-H-E - M-E-A-N-S - N-E-C-E-S-S-A-R-Y - T-O - D-E-F-E-A-T - T-H-E - E-N-E-M-Y! :blink:

Iv'e stated time after time on these boards what it will take, you liberals don't have the stomach or desire to win this war. If you can't decern from my post thats your problem, But I be damned if Im gonna pretend to have a solution that involves appeasement and capitulation with our avowed enemies as you self proclaimed experts on Military strategy and diplomacy like to project.

 

[KCFlyer]

Listen up polly, let me say this real slow so it can penetrate that liberal disease between your ears.

I - H-A-V-E - N-O - P-L-A-N - E-X-C-E-P-T - T-O - G-I-V-E - O-U-R - T-R-O-O-P-S - T-H-E - M-E-A-N-S - N-E-C-E-S-S-A-R-Y - T-O - D-E-F-E-A-T - T-H-E - E-N-E-M-Y! :blink:

Iv'e stated time after time on these boards what it will take, you liberals don't have the stomach or desire to win this war. If you can't decern from my post thats your problem, But I be damned if Im gonna pretend to have a solution that involves appeasement and capitulation with our avowed enemies as you self proclaimed experts on Military strategy and diplomacy like to project.

Local 12...while you like throwing the word "liberal" around like an insult (Rush and Michael Savage and Hannity have done a good job teaching you)...THIS liberal has said several times that we need to bring back the draft (Rangel said that, but apparently y'all think he's just posturing), and then do what the generals advised Bush to do (only Bush knew better, what with all his battlefield experience) - SEND IN A HELLUVA LOT MORE TROOPS. You won't see the good old conservatives with yellow ribbons on their trucks recommending that because...well, because THEIR kids are in their early 20's and opted not to enlist...it would be a bad thing if they were forced to go. McCain has suggested more troops, but to good conservatives, he's a RINO.

Don't get me wrong...I think Bush should certainly be impeached for starting a senseless and needless war in Iraq - but he's done sh!t in the tent, and we really don't have much choice but to endure the stink and live with the consequences of his mistake...the biggest consequence being that he has made this country and this world a much LESS safe place to be.