Listen To The Generals
Tweet
Major General John Batiste for VoteVets:
36 Responses to “Listen To The Generals”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Shouldn’t that be “Listen to A General”
And I’d love to see any evidence that he “left the Army in protest”.
And there is the political involvement predicted by Dr. P
I think both Oliver and Mj. Gen. Bastie were only addressing rational people, you god damned prick.
And I’d love to see any evidence that he “left the Army in protest”.
You mean, other than him saying it out loud?
And there is the political involvement predicted by Dr. P
Nope. he is not running for anything.
Duros: “You mean, other than him saying it out loud?”
Come on, man. Who are you going to believe, the general himself, or Pedro? I mean, it’s Pedro! He always backs up what he says and he’s a real doctor. Seriously. We all believe him.
No contest.
(It’s Pedro.)
Um, that was Frank, ND
Hell, same difference.
Whoops, my bad. Didn’t mean to rip on Pedro when I shoulda been ripping on Frank. (I get confused easily.)
So here’s the evidence Frank was looking for: “My name is John Batiste. I left the military on principle on November 1, 2005, after more than 31 years of service.”
Unless you think he was lying to the Senate, Frank.
Well clearly he was because the only other explanation is that something exists contrary to Frank’s worldview and that’s impossible.
Again, he refers to a resignation that already took place. First, he says “on principle”; then in the YouTube performance, he says, “In protest”.
I’d like to see if the resignation itself says, “I am resigning on principle”, or “I am resigning in protest”.
Now that you have directed me to a different wording, I am really curious to see what it says.
Those are mighty strong words. I was wondering if he really used those words in his official resignation.
And, Duros, the address was sponsored by VoteVets, a PAC. That’s why I said “political involvement”, and not “running for office” — “Opposite Man”.
And just who declared today “Gang up on fd10801 Day”? Can’t anybody come up with an original comment anymore?
OOOoooh! Frank’s wrong! Frank’s wrong! I haven’t got anything else to say! Frank’s a prick!
Is it necessary to clearly state on one’s resignation “on principle” or “in protest” in order to do so?
Just askin’.
It’s not necessary to state on one’s resignation that it is “on principle” or “in protest”, but don’t you think it’s kind of wimpy to resign “for personal reasons” or “to spend more time with the family”, and then afterwards, turn around and say,”I resigned in protest”, or “I resigned on principle”?
Something just ain’t right:
OnLine News Hour
GENERALS SPEAK OUT ON IRAQ
April 13, 2006
MAJ. GEN. JOHN BATISTE
“Something just ain’t right:”
Yeah, and that something is floating around where you brain should be.
Do you really think there’s a significant difference betweem resigning, “on principle”, compared to “in protest”?
April 2007
Hmmm- sounds like Batiste isn’t your typical votevets guy…
November 2006
Sounds like the “surge” is just what General Batiste was looking for. Perhaps the Generals are being listened to now…
April 2006
I think he has been consistent. I just don’t think that VoteVets wants you to know what this guy really thinks about leaving the Iraqis high and dry. Thus Batistes message carries much nuance.
(Research, courtesy of Hot Air, where I saw this video first.)
Do you really think there’s a significant difference betweem resigning, “on principle”, compared to “in protest”?
No, you fucking cretin!
I said that now there are two different “wordings” I would be curious to see the actual resignation.
Funny, you can count angels on the head of a pin with the best of them , but when it suits your fancy, details don’t mean shit to you.
You’re just a hyper – pretentious fraud!
Me: “Do you really think there’s a significant difference between resigning, ‘on principle’, compared to ‘in protest’?”
Schmuck: “No, you fucking cretin!
I said that now there are two different “wordings” I would be curious to see the actual resignation.”
Why? His reasons given have been consistent, or at least as consistent as needs be. It sounds like you are going for a fishing trip looking for a phrase you can yell, “Gotcha!” about.
Schmuck: “Funny, you can count angels on the head of a pin with the best of them , but when it suits your fancy, details don’t mean shit to you.”
There’s a difference between defining words correctly and semantic wars. This is clearly a case of the latter.
“on principle” and “in protest” are very similar, as opposed to, “stockpiles of WMDs” and “WMD-related programs.”
It sounds like you are going for a fishing trip looking for a phrase you can yell, “Gotcha!” about.
Actually, no. I am not a liberal goon — sorry for the redundancy.
I would be curious to see if he had decided after the fact to say he resigned “on principle” or “in protest” or words to that effect.
Me: “It sounds like you are going for a fishing trip looking for a phrase you can yell, ‘Gotcha!’ about.”
Him: “Actually, no. I am not a liberal goon — sorry for the redundancy.
I would be curious to see if he had decided after the fact to say he resigned ‘on principle’ or ‘in protest’ or words to that effect.”
His resignation might not give any reason. Then what?
And yes, your description still sounds like you are looking for a, “Gotcha!”
Some reason to ignore this person’s argument without actually tackling it head on.
Just ignore Frank. He’s desperately trying to find reasons that this video does not constitute a damning indictment of his precious president. Since there are none, his brain is broke.
You guys just battle it out and ignore the fact that Batiste’s beef with the administration has always been the need for MORE troops in Iraq- not fewer (or withdrawl for that matter.)
I think this is also why so many on the right give the administration low marks on Iraq- troop numbers and rules of engagement.
If that was all he wanted he wouldn’t have a problem, since that was what he got.
“You guys just battle it out and ignore the fact that Batiste’s beef with the administration has always been the need for MORE troops in Iraq- not fewer (or withdrawl for that matter.)”
The problem is Bush said, “I listen to the generals on the ground.” when clearly he didn’t then and doesn’t now.
Sure he listens to some, the ones that agree with him, and the others quickly learn to tow the line or lose any hope at career advancement.
Right now there are only two choices in Iraq:
1.) Drop half a million troops into the region, reconquer the area, and secure every square mile of the land and every inch of the border.
2.) Go home, lick your and learn from your mistakes, and the biggest mistake was listening to the NeoCons in the first place.
Neither choice is perfect, but at least with Option 2 we are currently seeing everything that could go wrong. After all, the situation in Iraq won’t change much if you are 350,000 troops short of maintain control vs. 500,000 troops short.
we are currently seeing everything that could go wrong.
Wrong and wrong. Just as how leaving Somalia emboldened Bin Ladin, leaving Iraq will embolden the next tinpot warlord (Ahmedinijad?) who believes they can strike at the US without serious repercussions.
If you can “see” that and still want to leave, be my guest. But don’t cry if anyone should question how “tough” you are defense issues.
Yes, we left Somalia because the Republics wanted us to so badly. Thus, emboldening Bin Laden.
Or whatever.
The way I remember it, Republicans didn’t want to go in originally. But once we were there, they backed the mission 100%. It was the Democratics who demanded we leave after Black Hawk Down.
Or Whatever.
Ah, yes. Once again, the way things actually happened and the way SaveFarris remembers them don’t quite line up.
The “Black Hawk Down” incident happened during the Battle of Mogadishu on October 3 or 4, 1993.
Curiously, the House Republicans, who according to Farris “backed the mission 100%” submitted House Resolution 239 on April 4, 1993. (Which was 6 months before the Black Hawk Down incident.)
The resolution states:
“Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should withdraw all United States Armed Forces from Somalia.”
So the Republicans backed the mission so fully that they wanted to cut and run. They also totally overstepped their duties by trying to act as Commander In Chief, which any wingnut can tell us (now that the Dems are doing the same thing to The Commander Guy) is unconstitutional.
Good catch, ND. Way to hustle out there.
It was Bush that committed the US to Somalia in a half assed fashion.
Next Marty, your argument is pure bunk. Batiste lays out more than just an upping of troops to achieve success in Iraq:
-fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq. no effort there
-secure its long and porous borders. no effort there
-enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks Nope
-step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces. nope.
- engage Iraq’s neighbors. no effort there
-weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias. Nope.
So Bush isn’t doing the things necessary to win. So, Marty, do you think Batiste realized these steps would never be taken by Bush and that continued support would just be endorsing the Bush policy of failure at the expense of blood, money, resources and time?
“Wrong and wrong. Just as how leaving Somalia emboldened Bin Ladin, leaving Iraq will embolden the next tinpot warlord (Ahmedinijad?) who believes they can strike at the US without serious repercussions.”
Just wanted to point out the douchebaggery here. Iraq didn’t strike at the US. On the other hand, bin Laden did, and he and Al Qaeda are safe and sound and bigger than ever.
safe & sound, eh? Have you seen him walking the streets in broad daylight recently? He may still be alive but “safe and sound” is nothing but unwarranted hyperbole.
As for ND, well, I plead guilty to unwarranted hyperbole. Turns out the Republicans only backed the mission 90%. So sorry for the misrepresentation…
bin Laden is safe and sound because the Bush administration cut and run from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq, emboldening other dictators and terrorists because they know that Bush won’t pursue them.
As for ND, well, I plead guilty to unwarranted hyperbole.
Props for copping to it.
Uh- MidderPidge- who are you talking to that says none of those things are being done?
Several provinces are under Iraqi control, and border control has been stepped up with both American and Iraqi forces. The Syrians are being engaged- especially concerning fighters entering from that border. Help from the tribal sheiks?- who do you think has been fighting and beating the foreign (al quaeda) fighters in Anbar province, as well who has decided to take the lead in fighting the Al Quaeda fighters in Diyala.
As for the Militia- some too are being either enlisted in the fight against foreign terrorists, or they are part of the reason for the “surge.”
And how can you be sure that all those things you list are NOT being done? Because it’s not on the nightly news? Perhaps you should seek out some other sources of information of what is happening in Iraq.
Hell- you probably didn’t realize that some provinces have been turned over to full Iraqi control. (There are several.) It is definitely awful to hear about the problems in Bagdhad and in the central region- every bad thing that happens is magnified- but just because everything “Bush” somehow has to be wrong, (which I agree- plenty things are), many of the things you (Batiste) mentions are being being done.
The only one that I haven’t read anything about is efforts to alleviate unemployment, which I’m not sure what might be done about that. It seems that is just one more thing to blame Bush for. I admit- I have not answer.
Marty knows better than a Major General who was actually in charge of some things there.
For four years we brought in workers at huge expense.
The Iraqi Army is so infiltrated by insurgents that it is virtually useless. That is why they have to bring in Kurds to patrol Baghdad.
What makes you think that Al Qaeda is being beaten anywhere in Iraq?
Can you say Warlords?
Nancy Pelosi just got mugged recently for visiting Syria. Because the Bush administration specifically didn’t want to talk to Syria because of a few issues. One issue was that Syria was not closing down its Iraq border, a job Syria says the US should do. So Pelosi forced Bush’s hand? Good for her.
And yes, 4 of 18 provinces have been turned over to Iraq control. 3 from British control who said 90% of the violence in the latest province was aimed at them,
“Wrong and wrong.”
Well, everyone else crushed you lame response so I see little reasons to go into great detail.
“Turns out the Republicans only backed the mission 90%.”
So trying to end the mission then was 90% support. What percentage would you give the Democrats now?