does General Petraeus wear a hairpiece? - Page 2

Steeler · 09-11-2007, 10:00 PM

Petraeus is a political figure delivering a political message that has been so vetted and scripted by his superiors that only a fool would trust it at face value. In terms of his physical surroundings and level of comfort, I'm going to assume that between Washington and Baghdad he is not living in a bivouac, and is comfortable enough to sleep most nights, and that as a general his schedule affords him time enough to do so. As to whether his mental state allows him a full night's sleep, that I can't speak to. I am, however, willing to bet that he's fairly well rested, hence my post.

I don't respect him, no. I think he's lying, or at least spinning, and so no, I don't support him. Your attempt to spin that back to read as if I am somehow disrespecting the ubiquitous "troops" is justly described as obnoxious. Petraeus isn't "the troops."

leejo · 09-11-2007, 10:47 PM

Right. Troops is who you say is troops. You support some troops, just not the war. You support troops who agree with you? Just not the war? You support troops who agree with you and feel sorry for the dumb ones who disagree? Just not the war?

You support the troops who agree with you and sneer at the officers who lead them who disagree with you but admire the (retired) officers who agree with you?

Help me understand how this works. Is this triangulation or "is is" or what?

**UnDeaD77** · 09-11-2007, 10:59 PM

Cool last name, my next kid is getting it.

**CingularDuality** · 09-12-2007, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Petraeus is a political figure delivering a political message that has been so vetted and scripted by his superiors that only a fool would trust it at face value. In terms of his physical surroundings and level of comfort, I'm going to assume that between Washington and Baghdad he is not living in a bivouac, and is comfortable enough to sleep most nights, and that as a general his schedule affords him time enough to do so. As to whether his mental state allows him a full night's sleep, that I can't speak to. I am, however, willing to bet that he's fairly well rested, hence my post.

I don't respect him, no. I think he's lying, or at least spinning, and so no, I don't support him. Your attempt to spin that back to read as if I am somehow disrespecting the ubiquitous "troops" is justly described as obnoxious. Petraeus isn't "the troops."

You are quite ignorant on this topic, obviously. He's a general, so obviously he has to deal with politics, but as to whether or not he's gotten a full nights sleep recently? I think you'd lose, Steeler. He's still a soldier, just with more responsibilities...

**Pokerface** · 09-12-2007, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I think this thread is really obnoxious, man.

Given the gravity of the situation and the man's work, you good and well ought to know better than to mince about his hair as if he were some John Edwards or Kerry poof. But of course that's your instinct and the degree to which you hold the man in high esteem - the degree to which you support him. And Steeler is happy to wager that he's sleeping well; such is his lack of respect for the man and Steeler's belief that he is not giving this mission his full devotion. Either that or a profound lack of understanding of how soldiers in theater live.

I mean no disrespect to you or Steeler - you may think what you like about Patraeus or anything else - but I am well within my rights to believe, and to express my belief, that you two aren't exactly going out of your way to show respect, or support, here either, and call it piss even if you say it's rain.

Given the gravity of the situation, you should know that mincing about his hair does not mean mincing about his politics. AMosely ruminated, nothing more. Nothing was said about Patraeus' beliefs, or the spin (or lack thereof) on the report he was about to give, or "supporting the troops" or anything of the sort.

Not everything in the sandbox needs to be a knock-down drag-out Left versus Right battle to the death. Sometimes it's possible to just ask how someone's hair looks. :-/

**curtagain** · 09-12-2007, 01:18 AM

I was able to catch quite a bit of General Petraeus's testimony and I found him to be straightforward and believable. Of course there are envious factions that want to faultfind and attempt to emasculate a soldier who believes that some things are worth fighting for. I saw a soldier and saw nothing about him that looked dumb and dumber but I guess thats a difference in our perspectives.Quote: Leejo said:"I think this thread is really obnoxious, man.Given the gravity of the situation and the man's work, you good and well ought to know better than to mince about his hair as if he were some John Edwards or Kerry poof." I agree with Leejo on this. Neverthless I've spent hours gaming with Mosely and found him to be a great squadmate and squad leader so this whole thing is slightly upseting to me as is the current state of affairs in our nation and around the world. This seems to be displayed in America by the right and the left but I tell you there's a middle ground we all need to work toward!

**Pokerface** · 09-12-2007, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curtagain

I was able to catch quite a bit of General Petraeus's testimony and I found him to be straightforward and believable. Of course there are envious factions that want to faultfind and attempt to emasculate a soldier who believes that some things are worth fighting for. I saw a soldier and saw nothing about him that looked dumb and dumber but I guess thats a difference in our perspectives.Quote: Leejo said:"I think this thread is really obnoxious, man.Given the gravity of the situation and the man's work, you good and well ought to know better than to mince about his hair as if he were some John Edwards or Kerry poof." I agree with Leejo on this. Neverthless I've spent hours gaming with Mosely and found him to be a great squadmate and squad leader so this whole thing is slightly upseting to me as is the current state of affairs in our nation and around the world. This seems to be displayed in America by the right and the left but I tell you there's a middle ground we all need to work toward!

Where -- WHERE -- are people seeing ANYTHING detracting from what Patraeus believes in the question "Is he wearing a hairpiece?" Is that really an emasculating question that strikes at the very heart of why we're in Iraq?

leejo · 09-12-2007, 06:43 AM

<snip>

AMosely · 09-12-2007, 12:46 PM

I actually started this thread not as an insult to Patraeus but as more of a comic relief to the unbelievable pressure that this man is under and was about to go under (I started the thread just as the hearings were beginning). I did intend for the thread to evolve into a discussion of the hearings, and it appears as though that's happened. Good. He is a political figure though. Don't for a second think that politics doesn't run the military in this country. I've known enough D.C. generals to know the pressure cooker that is the Pentagon.

Now that the hearings are finished, I do think he did a great job of walking the barbed tightrope that he's so clearly on. I sensed a lot of frustration from both Patraeus and Crocker, though - moreso from Crocker - over the pain and frustration of that tightrope. Patraeus knew that he was presenting marginal gains - incidents down slightly in 8 of the last 12 weeks - that doesn't mean a whole lot when put against the greater timetable of this conflict. Militarily I do believe there is hope in Iraq and a rapid pullout would be worse than any alternative at this point in time. Patraeus can see that, but I think he also sees that hope taking years to reach, and he knows how painful that's going to be for the soldiers on the ground and their families at home. Crocker, on the other hand, can't possibly see much hope. The middle east has a very poor track record when it comes to diplomacy and Iraq so far has pretty much followed suit. Democracy just doesn't jive with tribal tradition. We may never really see an ally in Iraq, and he's got to know that. He just can't come out and say it. All he can say is what he did say - that he's trying, and it is frustrating.

The one thing I can't get out of my head is that diplomatic policy black cloud hanging over these hearings. Though some congressmen brought it up in questioning from time to time, the hearings weren't about foreign policy - after all, it was the armed services that they were there to talk about. We might be getting some Al Qaeda and generic jihadi blood on our hands out of all this, but we will not get a stable, truly democratic Iraq. Not without a decades-long occupation, and at that point you can't even really declare it 'free.' Further, history has shown that dissent runs generations deep. I could sense that many people in that room, including the general and diplomat, were in their mind's eye staring at the bad hand of cards they had been collectively dealt.

Every time I take all this in, I have to ask myself if it is all worthit, in terms of American lives and dollars, just to put Saddam out of power and deny Al Qaeda that supposed 'haven'? Was he that much of a problem to be worth all this - of what has happened and what is to come? While Americans remain divided, every poll I've seen says Iraqis do not think it is worthit. Hundreds of thousands have fled their homes and continue to leave. Perhaps it is not even worth asking anymore.

Meanwhile, another Sept. 11 anniversary, and another video from the man who pulled it off. I keep thinking of that 8 out of 12 figure. Marginal. Distracted.

**curtagain** · 09-12-2007, 01:00 PM

Pokerface this is the first I've met you so hello. I see that my friend Mosely used the phrase dumb and dumber to describe one of our soldiers. I also see he's responded in greater detail concerning his thoughts and for this I thank him. My opinion is we are at war so I believe it's more constructive to let the powers that be in Iran,Syria,Saudi Arabia,China and North Korea judge General Petraeus's appearance. I respect him for the job he has ahead of him. This will be all you'll here from in this arena cause you all have a right to your opinions.

AMosely · 09-12-2007, 01:13 PM

I was going to edit something in to my earlier post, but I'll just post the addenum here. American politics are going to make this next year+ all the more painful for the Iraq war issue - and by painful I'm mainly thinking of the military and their families and (secondarily) the American citizen who is witnessing hundreds of billions of dollars (approaching a trillion) being spent on this effort. Election year (that we're not even in yet) politics are going to keep this tug of war going far longer than it should or needs to be. Politics are going to take the focus off of making real progress on the Iraq battlefield. Politics are going to keep this country firmly divided right into the next presidency. It's painful enough to watch, I can only imagine what it feels like to have to live in it. At least none of the candidates are claiming to be great uniters this time around, because we all know better now. America is about as polarized as a magnet.

Side issue : can anyone find a count of how many times Petraeus and Crocker said the words 'frustrated' or 'frustrating' during the hearings?

leejo · 09-12-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

I actually started this thread not as an insult to Patraeus but as more of a comic relief to the unbelievable pressure that this man is under and was about to go under (I started the thread just as the hearings were beginning).

Fair enough. I'll take you at your word. I agree that he has goofy hair, but I also think he's proven himself to be one hell of a general. I just hope he's not too late.

Sorry for jumping on you, but I do think Steeler's latest post bore my remark out: I don't understand how one supports the troops while disrespecting their mission, their leaders, and their commanders. If that's "support" it's about the most wobbly form I can imagine. Pass.

AMosely · 09-12-2007, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I don't understand how one supports the troops while disrespecting their mission, their leaders, and their commanders. If that's "support" it's about the most wobbly form I can imagine. Pass.

I think we've covered this before, but I'll try to help you understand.

I can't really speak for anyone else as opinions do vary on this, but my belief is that dissent against a war (and the officials who ordered it) is separate from trust and support for the men and women (and their families) who carry out the orders. I disagreed with the grounds for going into this (Iraq) war in the first place, and as it plays out, I do not believe it has been worth the mounting cost in lives and in dollars. I am not one who believes military participation or complacency is equally as bad - serving is indeed a patriotic act and soldier's families depend on them.

A trivial analogy would be my opinion of Wal-Mart. I think their economic practices and principles are a scourge upon the Earth, but I have nothing against their store workers who are only trying to raise their own familes.

Dissent is a high form of patriotism - remember that. It is not personal, except for the very few men and women who actually make high level decisions in this country. Even General Petraeus himself only bears a modest culpability for the greater effects of this war.

leejo · 09-12-2007, 04:35 PM

No I understand dissent, but I don't think you understand the difference between dissent and sabotage. There is a time for people to express their opinions about the best course of action, but once the decision is made, good teamwork - support - requires that every member of a team be fully committed to executing the plan. War is a national effort, and the military is the tip of the spear. Like it or not, you're on the team, and your efforts and energy, or lack thereof, play a part in determining the nation's victory or defeat.

My cousin Dick Phillips makes a brief appearance in "Citizen Soldiers", when he was ordered to launch an attack across an open, snow-covered field in broad daylight to take a hill on which Germans were entrenched. He protested at the very idea of crossing that field in broad daylight when they could do it under cover of darkness. He was told to follow orders, and he did.

This is dissent, IMO. He heard what he considered a dangerous and misguided tactical decision. He presented an alternative. He then led the charge as if the idea were his own. This is dissent with honor.

When "dissent" and the enemy's talking points become indistinguishable, I think dissenters of good conscience should seriously reflect on whether being shown to have been right is more important than the national interests, as they see them, that prompted the dissent in the first place. In other words, would you rather be right or victorious? If you had to choose, of course.

Dissent may be a high form of patriotism, but it is also a low form of juvenile pouting. Which of the two any individual is displaying is mostly a matter of execution. I have a pretty low opinion of many pouters who wrap themselves up in "dissent". But that's my thing.

I think there are responsible and supportive ways to question the direction this nation's leadership has taken us, but unfortunately many "dissenters" - in Congress! - choose wild hyperbole instead. There are honorable ways to question Petreaus's report without assuming that he lives a relatively cushy lifestyle or calling him a liar or a political stooge. Even if you believe these things, good support of the troops who are living and giving and dying under his command suggests some discretion. No?

AMosely · 09-12-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

There is a time for people to express their opinions about the best course of action, but once the decision is made, good teamwork - support - requires that every member of a team be fully committed to executing the plan.

Within the ranks of military, yes. But among citizens? This completely goes against the core of American democratic principle. This is like demanding that everyone bow before a king. The fact that there was no plan going into this war makes a statement like this all the more dangerous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

My cousin Dick Phillips makes a brief appearance in "Citizen Soldiers", when he was ordered to launch an attack across an open, snow-covered field in broad daylight to take a hill on which Germans were entrenched. He protested at the very idea of crossing that field in broad daylight when they could do it under cover of darkness. He was told to follow orders, and he did.

This is dissent, IMO. He heard what he considered a dangerous and misguided tactical decision. He presented an alternative. He then led the charge as if the idea were his own. This is dissent with honor.

There is a tremendous difference between the dissent of a soldier and the dissent of a citizen. This is an example of a soldier. I do not think it dishonorable in any way to disagree with any type of public policy decision, up to and including military action. This is what most people are doing when they say they are against this war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

When "dissent" and the enemy's talking points become indistinguishable, I think dissenters of good conscience should seriously reflect on whether being shown to have been right is more important than the national interests, as they see them, that prompted the dissent in the first place. In other words, would you rather be right or victorious? If you had to choose, of course.

This is a subjective choice, and in my opinion an irrelevant one in this context. As a dissenter, I honestly believe it is in our national interest to avoid engagments like this - the costs outweigh the benefits. I would hope that other dissenters carry this same logic. I do understand how you see it differently - that fighting this war is without a doubt in our national interest (I assume solely based on holding would-be terrorists at bay and the stabilization of the region, even though this was not the original aim of the war). While I may agree with you now that we are up to our necks in it, I still hold the opinion that it was not in our best national interest to start this war - it has cost much and we have gained very little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Dissent may be a high form of patriotism, but it is also a low form of juvenile pouting. Which of the two any individual is displaying is mostly a matter of execution. I have a pretty low opinion of many pouters who wrap themselves up in "dissent". But that's my thing.

Pouting about what? Losing an election? Not being in power/control? Anyone who wraps their political emotion in a shroud of dissent or support is a fool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I think are responsible, and supportive ways to question the direction this nation's leadership has taken us, but unfortunately many "dissenters" - in Congress! - choose wild hyperbole instead. There are honorable ways to question Petreaus's report without assuming that he lives a relatively cushy lifestyle or calling him a liar or a political stooge. Even if you believe these things, good support of the troops who are living and giving and dying under his command suggests some discretion. No?

I'd agree with this statement if you replaced 'support of the troops' with 'respect for the troops.' I certainly agree that dissenters in Congress choose wild hyperbole - but you should also admit that its supporters do the same. Cheney himself skipped over hyperbole and went straight for fabrication during onset of this conflict. Our government has evolved into a circus along with the media that covers it. It's shameful. This is the government that took us into the war, and I have little faith in them to effectively get anyone out of it.

To summarize my dissent again - I vehemently disagreed with the decision to start this war because it was based on false or otherwise unclear information on an imagined threat, and I still hold that opinion (is that pouting?). However, what is done is done, and a pullout in 2007 would clearly be a mistake in terms of overall foreign policy and international stability. There has been a meager but noted regional diplomatic effort in addition to this troop surge and I applaud that. For the most part I agreed with Petraeus' forecast, cautiously optimistic as it is. The American people should accept that we will have troops in Iraq for years to come, and if they don't like it, they should think about that the next time they consider supporting the invasion of any foreign country.

My apologies on the long post. As I've said before, I am a hobbyist of middle eastern history and politics, which combined with my citizenship creates great (and broad, as in beyond American) interest in this conflict. If I joke about it (as in the hair), it only out of comic relief.

09-11-2007, 10:00 PM	#16 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,841	Re: does General Petraeus wear a hairpiece? Petraeus is a political figure delivering a political message that has been so vetted and scripted by his superiors that only a fool would trust it at face value. In terms of his physical surroundings and level of comfort, I'm going to assume that between Washington and Baghdad he is not living in a bivouac, and is comfortable enough to sleep most nights, and that as a general his schedule affords him time enough to do so. As to whether his mental state allows him a full night's sleep, that I can't speak to. I am, however, willing to bet that he's fairly well rested, hence my post. I don't respect him, no. I think he's lying, or at least spinning, and so no, I don't support him. Your attempt to spin that back to read as if I am somehow disrespecting the ubiquitous "troops" is justly described as obnoxious. Petraeus isn't "the troops." __________________

09-11-2007, 10:47 PM	#17 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,411	Re: does General Petraeus wear a hairpiece? Right. Troops is who you say is troops. You support some troops, just not the war. You support troops who agree with you? Just not the war? You support troops who agree with you and feel sorry for the dumb ones who disagree? Just not the war? You support the troops who agree with you and sneer at the officers who lead them who disagree with you but admire the (retired) officers who agree with you? Help me understand how this works. Is this triangulation or "is is" or what?

09-11-2007, 10:59 PM	#18 (permalink)
UnDeaD77 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Fort Worth,Texas Age: 22 Posts: 5,685	Re: does General Petraeus wear a hairpiece? Cool last name, my next kid is getting it. __________________ Call Of Duty Admin - Contact Me Report a Player or Banned From Our Servers? Call of Duty - Official Rules, Announcements & SOPs

09-12-2007, 01:18 AM	#21 (permalink)
curtagain Join Date: May 2007 Location: Upstate N.Y. Age: 45 Posts: 119	Re: does General Petraeus wear a hairpiece? I was able to catch quite a bit of General Petraeus's testimony and I found him to be straightforward and believable. Of course there are envious factions that want to faultfind and attempt to emasculate a soldier who believes that some things are worth fighting for. I saw a soldier and saw nothing about him that looked dumb and dumber but I guess thats a difference in our perspectives.Quote: Leejo said:"I think this thread is really obnoxious, man.Given the gravity of the situation and the man's work, you good and well ought to know better than to mince about his hair as if he were some John Edwards or Kerry poof." I agree with Leejo on this. Neverthless I've spent hours gaming with Mosely and found him to be a great squadmate and squad leader so this whole thing is slightly upseting to me as is the current state of affairs in our nation and around the world. This seems to be displayed in America by the right and the left but I tell you there's a middle ground we all need to work toward! Last edited by curtagain; 09-12-2007 at 01:37 AM.

09-12-2007, 06:43 AM	#23 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,411	Re: does General Petraeus wear a hairpiece? <snip> Last edited by Pokerface; 09-12-2007 at 07:36 AM. Reason: Content deleted, moved to PM

09-12-2007, 12:46 PM	#24 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 33 Posts: 2,398	Re: does General Petraeus wear a hairpiece? I actually started this thread not as an insult to Patraeus but as more of a comic relief to the unbelievable pressure that this man is under and was about to go under (I started the thread just as the hearings were beginning). I did intend for the thread to evolve into a discussion of the hearings, and it appears as though that's happened. Good. He is a political figure though. Don't for a second think that politics doesn't run the military in this country. I've known enough D.C. generals to know the pressure cooker that is the Pentagon. Now that the hearings are finished, I do think he did a great job of walking the barbed tightrope that he's so clearly on. I sensed a lot of frustration from both Patraeus and Crocker, though - moreso from Crocker - over the pain and frustration of that tightrope. Patraeus knew that he was presenting marginal gains - incidents down slightly in 8 of the last 12 weeks - that doesn't mean a whole lot when put against the greater timetable of this conflict. Militarily I do believe there is hope in Iraq and a rapid pullout would be worse than any alternative at this point in time. Patraeus can see that, but I think he also sees that hope taking years to reach, and he knows how painful that's going to be for the soldiers on the ground and their families at home. Crocker, on the other hand, can't possibly see much hope. The middle east has a very poor track record when it comes to diplomacy and Iraq so far has pretty much followed suit. Democracy just doesn't jive with tribal tradition. We may never really see an ally in Iraq, and he's got to know that. He just can't come out and say it. All he can say is what he did say - that he's trying, and it is frustrating. The one thing I can't get out of my head is that diplomatic policy black cloud hanging over these hearings. Though some congressmen brought it up in questioning from time to time, the hearings weren't about foreign policy - after all, it was the armed services that they were there to talk about. We might be getting some Al Qaeda and generic jihadi blood on our hands out of all this, but we will not get a stable, truly democratic Iraq. Not without a decades-long occupation, and at that point you can't even really declare it 'free.' Further, history has shown that dissent runs generations deep. I could sense that many people in that room, including the general and diplomat, were in their mind's eye staring at the bad hand of cards they had been collectively dealt. Every time I take all this in, I have to ask myself if it is all worthit, in terms of American lives and dollars, just to put Saddam out of power and deny Al Qaeda that supposed 'haven'? Was he that much of a problem to be worth all this - of what has happened and what is to come? While Americans remain divided, every poll I've seen says Iraqis do not think it is worthit. Hundreds of thousands have fled their homes and continue to leave. Perhaps it is not even worth asking anymore. Meanwhile, another Sept. 11 anniversary, and another video from the man who pulled it off. I keep thinking of that 8 out of 12 figure. Marginal. Distracted. __________________ \|TG-X\| Mosely 10th Tactical Guard Server Rules and SOP \| Kicked? Banned? READ THIS FIRST! Contact an Admin \| Nominate your teammates for a ribbon

09-12-2007, 01:00 PM	#25 (permalink)
curtagain Join Date: May 2007 Location: Upstate N.Y. Age: 45 Posts: 119	Re: does General Petraeus wear a hairpiece? Pokerface this is the first I've met you so hello. I see that my friend Mosely used the phrase dumb and dumber to describe one of our soldiers. I also see he's responded in greater detail concerning his thoughts and for this I thank him. My opinion is we are at war so I believe it's more constructive to let the powers that be in Iran,Syria,Saudi Arabia,China and North Korea judge General Petraeus's appearance. I respect him for the job he has ahead of him. This will be all you'll here from in this arena cause you all have a right to your opinions.

09-12-2007, 01:13 PM	#26 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 33 Posts: 2,398	Re: does General Petraeus wear a hairpiece? I was going to edit something in to my earlier post, but I'll just post the addenum here. American politics are going to make this next year+ all the more painful for the Iraq war issue - and by painful I'm mainly thinking of the military and their families and (secondarily) the American citizen who is witnessing hundreds of billions of dollars (approaching a trillion) being spent on this effort. Election year (that we're not even in yet) politics are going to keep this tug of war going far longer than it should or needs to be. Politics are going to take the focus off of making real progress on the Iraq battlefield. Politics are going to keep this country firmly divided right into the next presidency. It's painful enough to watch, I can only imagine what it feels like to have to live in it. At least none of the candidates are claiming to be great uniters this time around, because we all know better now. America is about as polarized as a magnet. Side issue : can anyone find a count of how many times Petraeus and Crocker said the words 'frustrated' or 'frustrating' during the hearings? __________________ \|TG-X\| Mosely 10th Tactical Guard Server Rules and SOP \| Kicked? Banned? READ THIS FIRST! Contact an Admin \| Nominate your teammates for a ribbon

09-12-2007, 04:35 PM	#29 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,411	Re: does General Petraeus wear a hairpiece? No I understand dissent, but I don't think you understand the difference between dissent and sabotage. There is a time for people to express their opinions about the best course of action, but once the decision is made, good teamwork - support - requires that every member of a team be fully committed to executing the plan. War is a national effort, and the military is the tip of the spear. Like it or not, you're on the team, and your efforts and energy, or lack thereof, play a part in determining the nation's victory or defeat. My cousin Dick Phillips makes a brief appearance in "Citizen Soldiers", when he was ordered to launch an attack across an open, snow-covered field in broad daylight to take a hill on which Germans were entrenched. He protested at the very idea of crossing that field in broad daylight when they could do it under cover of darkness. He was told to follow orders, and he did. This is dissent, IMO. He heard what he considered a dangerous and misguided tactical decision. He presented an alternative. He then led the charge as if the idea were his own. This is dissent with honor. When "dissent" and the enemy's talking points become indistinguishable, I think dissenters of good conscience should seriously reflect on whether being shown to have been right is more important than the national interests, as they see them, that prompted the dissent in the first place. In other words, would you rather be right or victorious? If you had to choose, of course. Dissent may be a high form of patriotism, but it is also a low form of juvenile pouting. Which of the two any individual is displaying is mostly a matter of execution. I have a pretty low opinion of many pouters who wrap themselves up in "dissent". But that's my thing. I think there are responsible and supportive ways to question the direction this nation's leadership has taken us, but unfortunately many "dissenters" - in Congress! - choose wild hyperbole instead. There are honorable ways to question Petreaus's report without assuming that he lives a relatively cushy lifestyle or calling him a liar or a political stooge. Even if you believe these things, good support of the troops who are living and giving and dying under his command suggests some discretion. No? Last edited by leejo; 09-12-2007 at 06:36 PM.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links