Tell Cornyn NO!

[mavtek]

Tell him we don't support Petreaus!
http://cornyn.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=1999933132.437615.129&gen=1

Thanks in advance!

 

[johnrocks]

I do support the General, I just don't support the war and never have. A good soldier follows orders, I think the time to question the report was when Bush originally said it would be given, to do so now people just look like a bunch of sore losers.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I support the General too. It is the orders with which I have a problem. This resolution has already passed. If I'm going to gripe to Cornyn about anything, it is going to be his vote in favor of the recent Iran resolution, because it's the same dang thing we did in '98 with the Iraq Liberation Act.

 

[constituent]

let's see... illegal occupation, undeclared war to enforce UN Sanctions...

i thought the "just following orders" premise had its day already...

If a General fails to Uphold a Sworn Oath to protect the constitution,
why do we, or why should we, continue to support him?
Do his underlings not have a duty to uphold their sworn oath?

a real leader leads by example... i'm just not seeing that
from this week's administrative Yes Man.

 

[constituent]

p.s. John Cornyn is a total ass. he's going to do what he's going to do.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Constituent,

I said I supported him. I didn't say I agreed with him.

 

[happyphilter]

I support him... why shouldent we ? last I checked he was a good man

 

[Green Mountain Boy]

What does supporting him mean? What does that entail?

 

[rg123]

The General is a politician who reguarly has members of congress in Iraq to stay at lavish headquaters while they have lobster dinners per interviews I have seen on washington journal on c-span. The general should have never allowed himself to be used as a political tool for the Bush Regime. A military mans obligation is to the Constitution of the US not the Bush Adminstration. If the president ask him to do something unconstitutional it is his duty as an officer to refuse as other Generals have done. So I do not support the General

 

[libertarian4321]

The General is a politician who reguarly has members of congress in Iraq to stay at lavish headquaters while they have lobster dinners per interviews I have seen on washington journal on c-span. The general should have never allowed himself to be used as a political tool for the Bush Regime. A military mans obligation is to the Constitution of the US not the Bush Adminstration. If the president ask him to do something unconstitutional it is his duty as an officer to refuse as other Generals have done. So I do not support the General

At that level, all officers are as much politician as soldier.

I do find it interesting, though, that Petraeus, who has ZERO combat experience (none in Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I, etc) , has risen as high as he has.

In fact, Iraq is the first war zone he's ever been in- and we know 4-star general's don't go anywhere near combat- he's probably tucked safely away in some lavish palace.

He's probably the first prominent General in decades to have absolutely NO COMBAT EXPERIENCE.

Even Wesley Clark, a "political general" if there ever was one, and whom David Hackworth (a real soldier, may he RIP) called a "perfumed prince" had some combat experience.

 

[constituent]

yea yea, no combat experience... blah blah blah... who needs
combat experience with a name like DAVID PATREAUS?

I promise you that one got the Frank Luntz seal of approval.

 

[ghemminger]

Doesn't ALL military take an oath to the constitution?

 

[Syren123]

Doesn't ALL military take an oath to the constitution?

You mean like the President and every member of Congress?

 

[EvilTwinkie]

All this retoric and vitriol about moveon.org and General Patreus is distracting and only serves to frame the debate and give the appearance of debate.

Why have I heard NO one actually discuss the points and issues brought up by the MoveOn ad.

Are they fact or not? I would seriously like to know HOW they classify what is sectarian violence and what isnt, among other things. Not because I have an agenda, but because it would help make informed decisions.

 

[constituent]

Are they fact or not? I would seriously like to know HOW they classify what is sectarian violence and what isnt, among other things. Not because I have an agenda, but because it would help make informed decisions.

informed deciders are an enemy of the state.. you're learning this already,
i can tell.