President Bush Hurting Our Defenses?

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Monorprise

Originally posted by: daveshel
Link

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush this week will announce a major reduction and re-positioning of U.S. forces deployed overseas, according to Pentagon and senior administration officials.

To those who criticized Kerry's announcement of a plan to get out troops out of Iraq as compromising the war effort there, how that that position square up with our Commander-In-Chief going public with information that exposes areas that will have decreased security after the re-positioning?

I support the President; this is a war, no time for changing top leadership in the middle. Besides the Top US General of our times. General Tommy franks, an independent retiree now, says he fully supports the Presidents efforts and leadership. So why do we need to risk in the middle of a war time situation a radical change in leadership?
I just don?t get it, I though we should be aiming to win wars, and that meant staying the course long enough to do that?
Well I just like to say Kerry?s Record scares me,
This is a complete listing of all his votes in congress, best indication of what kind of leader he would be, in reality
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

Here his what some site list, I don?t know its reliability thou sorry but seems consistent which what I?ve seen and read on the prior
http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm

Scary extreme lefty, even more so that he has clamed to take the opposite direction here in the campaign, which tends to make one wonder, can this guy even be trusted at all to his word?

Whole lotta disinformation here . . .

Gen Franks was never "the top US General of our times," because he was never a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, much less CJCS, who is the President's senior military advisor. For that matter, he has never committed to supporting either candidate, and has publicly stated Sen Kerry is qualified to hold the presidency, and that he is not sure which candidate will get his vote. He has been quite critical of the leadership at DoD, and essentially called Douglas Feith an unqualified idiot in his book.

None of this is meant as criticism of Gen Franks, for whom I have a lot of respect and some personal regard - I met him when he visited my deployed location in OEF.

You might want to edit your post for clarity - it reads like a stream of consciousness, and it's hard to understand what you're saying.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

Imagine the damage he'd do to the Supreme Court.

Your "damage" = my "improvement".

 

[Monorprise]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

Imagine the damage he'd do to the Supreme Court.

Your "damage" = my "improvement".

You're view of improvement, is judges make law, rather than strictly interpret what was written down by law?
If that is the case, we?re on the road to judicial dictatorship.
As there is little means available to remove a these kinds of judges once positioned. And if you can?t count on them to judge strictly what was written as the law. you are counting on them to make there own law, impose it on the rest of us, with out elected representation, to decide it.

The forefathers made our system the way it is, where judges strictly intemperate what the law says, and no step beyond the line, for this very reason. Because we can not remove them once in office very well, we must be very careful to select judges who will not change, laws to reflect their own political view, rather than what the law actually says.


As to Tommy franks, I think he?s a good general, and he was in charge of the whole Middle East and Afghanistan, and a 4 star general at that. I think he was one of the greatest generals in American history. Certainly better than most any we had during the civil war.
Just because he likes George Bush?s leadership don?t mean you should attack him. Man you?re just like Kerry. General Tommy Franks Served under Clinton too you know.

 

[Todd33]

He's the most liberal member of the US Senate.

No he is not, stop repeating the RNC talking points. That was for last year, the year he was campaigning. Over his lifetime of his votes, he is not even in top ten. But we do know that Cheney's voting record was further right than most, that's scary. Why imagine, we can see the crap he's gotten us into.

 

[Todd33]

He's the most liberal member of the US Senate.

No he is not, stop repeating the RNC talking points. That was for last year, the year he was campaigning. Over his lifetime of his votes, he is not even in top ten. But we do know that Cheney's voting record was further right than most, that's scary. Why imagine, we can see the crap he's gotten us into.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Monorprise

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

Imagine the damage he'd do to the Supreme Court.

Your "damage" = my "improvement".

You're view of improvement, is judges make law, rather than strictly interpret what was written down by law?
If that is the case, we?re on the road to judicial dictatorship.
As there is little means available to remove a these kinds of judges once positioned. And if you can?t count on them to judge strictly what was written as the law. you are counting on them to make there own law, impose it on the rest of us, with out elected representation, to decide it.

The forefathers made our system the way it is, where judges strictly intemperate what the law says, and no step beyond the line, for this very reason. Because we can not remove them once in office very well, we must be very careful to select judges who will not change, laws to reflect their own political view, rather than what the law actually says.

Hmm...activist judges on the Supreme Court in Dec. 2000 = good. Activist judges since = bad

Hmmm...


BTW, I wasn't aware we now had judges that were in the Senate create law. Got any links?

As to Tommy franks, I think he?s a good general, and he was in charge of the whole Middle East and Afghanistan, and a 4 star general at that. I think he was one of the greatest generals in American history. Certainly better than most any we had during the civil war.
Just because he likes George Bush?s leadership don?t mean you should attack him. Man you?re just like Kerry. General Tommy Franks Served under Clinton too you know.

Damn fine officer. Bush/Rumsfeld shouldn't have pushed him so hard to find the barebones minimum needed to invade Iraq and let him focus on the war in Afghanistan. Perhaps bin Laden would be in custody and we'd have about 1,000 fewer dead American soldiers.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

No he is not, stop repeating the RNC talking points. That was for last year, the year he was campaigning. Over his lifetime of his votes, he is not even in top ten. But we do know that Cheney's voting record was further right than most, that's scary.

I would think that his 2003 voting record is rather pertinent to his current voting beliefs. Heck, his entire career has been quite far left, just not extremely so like he has been as of late. Though I like how people like you label Bush as "far right" when Kerry deviates from the center just as much as he does, if not more.

I'm not saying that being far left is good or bad, but thats what he is. Regardless, Kerry has yet to mention it much, and it's become ammunition for the Republicans.

Hmm...activist judges on the Supreme Court in Dec. 2000 = good. Activist judges since = bad

The same people have been judges for years. The court has been liberal for some time, as evidenced by the affirmative action and overturning the Texas sodomy law. Of course, Democrats can't say that as that would go against their evil neocon 2000 presidential decision argument. Maybe the judges wanted to actually uphold the law.

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daveshel
Link

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush this week will announce a major reduction and re-positioning of U.S. forces deployed overseas, according to Pentagon and senior administration officials.

To those who criticized Kerry's announcement of a plan to get out troops out of Iraq as compromising the war effort there, how that that position square up with our Commander-In-Chief going public with information that exposes areas that will have decreased security after the re-positioning?

This has been planned for MONTHS, if not YEARS.

I assume you mean the re-positioning has been planned for months or years, but even so, is it a good idea to publicly announce this now? But the question was really for those who had criticized Kerry for announcing he wanted to get the troops out of Iraq.

What exactly are our troops defending in europe?

Scum.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Menopause
[ As to Tommy franks, I think he?s a good general, and he was in charge of the whole Middle East and Afghanistan, and a 4 star general at that. I think he was one of the greatest generals in American history. Certainly better than most any we had during the civil war.

One of the greatest Generals? Based on what, the fact that he was able to defeat the Iraqi Army? The Iraqi Army was a lot stronger during the first Gulf War and we went through them like a hot knife through butter!

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: cpumaster
I don't mind moving our troops out of W. Europe since those place doesn't pose any serious threat to us like in the past. Plus shifting them to Eastern Europe would probably save us a lot of money. However, moving troops from S. Korea or Japan would send a wrong signal to N. Korea and China in term of our resolve to defend both S. Korea and Taiwan...

There's no "shifting them to Eastern Europe". The US Army is essentially pulling out of Germany, and several bases are likely to appear in Poland, Romania, or Bulgaria for training purposes, not as large permanent encampments like the German ones.

Moving troops from the DMZ and out of Seoul makes sense militarily, economically, and politically. Moving some forces from Okinawa to mainland Japan makes sense militarily and politically (possibly some economic benefit since they won't have to travel for live-fire training). Moving forces into Guam will send the correct message to everyone (press talk of stationing a carrier there permanently).