OCinBuffalo Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Absolutely, Lincoln was an incompetent fascist. This is retarded of course. Historically Tom is absolutely right. Lincoln's Commanders in Chief were only good at one thing: getting stuff named after them. Burnside got the Union crushed at Fredricksbug, and while Hooker was a ballsy guy, he was intellectually challenged and got the Union whipped at Chancellorsville. McClellan was a waste of space. They guy wouldn't attack unless he had amassed 5-1 numbers, and by the time he did, Lee was gone. Or worse, he would give terrible orders in massing his troops which would leave them exposed to being attacked by Lee. Lee did this on several occasions. You don't appoint a General who can't read a f'ing map. The Union had the largest army that couldn't fight, couldn't march and couldn't resupply, largely because of the incompetence of their generals, and the incompetence of the man who chose them to be generals in the first place = Lincoln. We all like to think of him as a great guy, and he was, but, he was also wrong about many things. For example: he fired his first Secretary of War for suggesting that black men be trained as...soldiers. Sorry, but those are the facts, whether you like them or not is, as it always is, irrelevant. Tom is also right about Meade. He benefited greatly due to the leadership and sacrifice of other men. But, Meade was a blue-blood from Philadelphia that knew how to take the credit. Without an infantry Colonel from Maine, and especially a innovative cavalry general from Illinois, Meade, who only got the job 3 days before, loses. Grant was hands down the best Commander Lincoln had, but he couldn't very well promote a supposed alcoholic dirt farmer above Meade. So, he did the only thing he could do: he kicked Meade upstairs, and then gave Grant all the power. And, I have no idea where the fascist thing comes from. Perhaps you are referring to Lincoln suspending habeas corpus? Link here It's helpful to actually know what you are talking about BEFORE you post. Now, you do.
Hossage Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Lincoln threw thousands of people who did nothing more than verbally disagree with him in jail, among many, many other offenses. I see him as comparable to Mussolini. He was a terrible person and a national disgrace. The sooner we admit that we are a nation of exploited, hero worshiping fools the better. OC, I am aware of what happened in the civil war. When Obama tells us he is like Lincoln, he is telling us he is a fascist.
IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2010 Author Posted June 23, 2010 I still think Hillary could end up as president in the future if she chooses to run. I couldn't support the following statement if there was a gun to my head, but I'm somehow convinced that Obama's biggest problem in 2012 is not who runs on the GOP ticket, but whether Hillary sees the open window. I keep seeing the lefty world (HuffPo, DailyKos) calling for her to dust off, clean up, grab a bat and get on deck, but in reality that doesn't mean very much right now. But the rumble keeps growing louder, which is funny to me because the reason these people are starting to call for Hillary is simply because Obama is not proving to be far enough to the left. As if Hillary will remedy that problem for them.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 The Union had the largest army that couldn't fight, couldn't march and couldn't resupply, largely because of the incompetence of their generals, and the incompetence of the man who chose them to be generals in the first place = Lincoln. Yes,largest army,but couldn't fight? Whatever. Talk about nonsense, they won the war by killing the enemy of freedom. Couldn't march? Sherman's glorious march? They marched pretty well through Georgia Listen to it!! What a great song Couldn't resupply? That's completely wrong, the Union army was VERY well supplied by rail, by wagon and by steamboat
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Lincoln threw thousands of people who did nothing more than verbally disagree with him in jail. He was a terrible person and a national disgrace. The sooner we admit that we are a nation of exploited, hero worshiping fools the better. Sing it with me!
Hossage Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Sing it with me! Every fascist promises liberty through war and state power. Lincoln was an effective propagandist: "You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce... and prohibit any further publication thereof... you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison... the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers" Order from Abraham Lincoln to General John Dix, May 18, 1864
Alaska Darin Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 I still think Hillary could end up as president in the future if she chooses to run.
whateverdude Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 He should be fired for doing an interview in Rolling Stone Mag.
GG Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 I couldn't support the following statement if there was a gun to my head, but I'm somehow convinced that Obama's biggest problem in 2012 is not who runs on the GOP ticket, but whether Hillary sees the open window. I keep seeing the lefty world (HuffPo, DailyKos) calling for her to dust off, clean up, grab a bat and get on deck, but in reality that doesn't mean very much right now. But the rumble keeps growing louder, which is funny to me because the reason these people are starting to call for Hillary is simply because Obama is not proving to be far enough to the left. As if Hillary will remedy that problem for them. Hillary next DoD chief?
finknottle Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 All this talk about various presidents' generals sidesteps the main issue: Who put them in charge? In most cases, it was the Dept Army/Pentagon. The military didn't saddle Obama with McCrystal. The Obama Administration hand-picked and promoted him to replace a wartime commander in the middle of his tour, against the SOP of the military, forcing McKiernan into retirement. This is a personnel decision that falls squarly at the feet of the White House. McCrystal was Obama's choice in what the President said was the critical theater. If McCrystal is an insubordinate buffoon, it say's something about the quality of Obama's team.
IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2010 Author Posted June 23, 2010 If McCrystal is an insubordinate buffoon, it say's something about the quality of Obama's team. While I enjoy an Obama-mocking pile-on like the next conservative, this is the equivalent of throwing a needle on a pile of golf clubs. Though clearly smaller in scope in relative terms, having had the opportunity assemble my own "team" in the past, you simply can not expect to put that many people together and expect them all to get along. What you CAN expect is that they give the public impression that they are getting along. There are plenty of reasons to pick on Obama. This isn't one of them.
Magox Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 I still think Hillary could end up as president in the future if she chooses to run. I happen to agree with you. She definitely would of made a better president than Obama, and it was quite amazing how everyone bailed out on her for the current president. One by one they were all dissing her, and it all started with the Kennedy´s endorsement of Obama. My personal belief is that they saw this super talented, likable politician in Obama who was black (which was huge for the liberal cause) who also had a very liberal voting record, who could be swayed much more easily than Hillary who of course would have Bill Clinton involved in a lot of the decisions, and I believe they thought that Hillary would be more to the right than Obama. Bill Clinton was never truly revered by the ¨progressive¨and liberal base.
John Adams Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 If McCrystal is an insubordinate buffoon, it say's something about the quality of Obama's team. He's not a buffoon. He's insubordinate. And that will be dealt with. The military answers to the civilians. Obama's failings have nothng to do with what he (and his subordinates) did. Either he had a colossal lapse in judgment, which would be hard to believe from a guy who knew politics well enough to rise to general...or he decided to do the interview know he'd get fired and possibly achieve another goal.
finknottle Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 While I enjoy an Obama-mocking pile-on like the next conservative, this is the equivalent of throwing a needle on a pile of golf clubs. Though clearly smaller in scope in relative terms, having had the opportunity assemble my own "team" in the past, you simply can not expect to put that many people together and expect them all to get along. What you CAN expect is that they give the public impression that they are getting along. There are plenty of reasons to pick on Obama. This isn't one of them. So if you claim Afgh is the central and all important front in the war against AQ; and you feel strongly enough about its leadership to buck policy and dismiss the current commander in the middle of his assignment; you appoint your own person instead of letting the Pentagon do it; you are absolved from taking responsibility for what that person does? Which personnel decisions should the president take responsibility for?
IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2010 Author Posted June 23, 2010 So if you claim Afgh is the central and all important front in the war against AQ; and you feel strongly enough about its leadership to buck policy and dismiss the current commander in the middle of his assignment; you appoint your own person instead of letting the Pentagon do it; you are absolved from taking responsibility for what that person does? Which personnel decisions should the president take responsibility for? You're misunderstanding me. Of course the president is responsible for for the hiring of McCrystal, but spending time finding fault with Obama as a result of this McCrystal-caused incident is the equivalent of pointing out that Hayward is spending Father's Day weekend with his son on a yacht. I'm sure it looks good and sounds good, but it's not addressing the issue at hand; at a time when the Afghanistan "surge" is reportedly about to shift into high gear with the Kandahar effort, the WH either has to replace the guy who pushed for the surge, or replace him with someone else. I have no idea if the latter is that big of a deal; I've heard plenty of military heads speaking since yesterday, and most feel the transition won't be that bad, but they are also unanimously against McCrystal keeping his job as well, so who knows where the right decision lives...but we have enough issues to deal with right now, many of which are extensively dividing the country. Any time spent picking on Obama about this is wasted time.
Gary M Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 A topic worth discussing, I believe. Personally, I don't care for this level of irresponsibility. It undermines everyone's efforts. Consequently, I think you have to fire him, which is too bad because we have enough problems in Afghanistan without having to replace who I understand to be the architect of the surge. Just very unfortunate, and it puts the WH in a very bad position. Look forward to hearing input from the military folks. Isn't this considered completely and utterly out of line? (Though on a strictly partisan level, the "Bite me" comment was kind of funny.) Not sure if Obama has the balls to fire him. This admin is such an ametuerish group, they will probably fire him and replace him with some one from the Salvation Army.
DC Tom Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Not sure if Obama has the balls to fire him. This admin is such an ametuerish group, they will probably fire him and replace him with some one from the Salvation Army. Reports are that after meeting with Obama today, he left before a scheduled war planning meeting. Some also expect that the administration will accept his resignation...but then spin it as a dismissal.
Hossage Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 The possibility remains that this is all theatre and that McCrystal is simply following orders to mouth off and be canned for it.
John Adams Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 The possibility remains that this is all theatre and that McCrystal is simply following orders to mouth off and be canned for it. He was ordered to mouth off? I guess it's in the realm of possible...just like it's possible that atoms will randomly join to form a pair of size 12 Air Jordan 11s.
stuckincincy Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 The smear campaign should crank up soon. The sights are aimed at the judiciary, also. See the oil spill news The banks are going to get salaries set by fiat. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-lim...ed-out-bank-ceo It's inexorable.
Recommended Posts