Major General Eaton's Letter to President Bush Regarding His Veto

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, May 1, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    May 1, 2007 President George W. Bush

    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, DC 20500

    Dear Mr. President,

    Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

    Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.

    The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue. This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power - military, diplomatic and economic. The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs. Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking - or have been broken already - by the length and intensity of this war. This tempo is not sustainable - and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs. We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.

    The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops. It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped. In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.

    As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.

    I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.

    Respectfully,

    Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired

    - www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=249&Itemid=16
     
  2. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    I imagine the war-mongers among the republicans will turn on him like a tiger with fresh meat!
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    How much attention can you pay to the good general's comment when his very first sentence is a lie?
     
  4. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed this bill." - George W Bush, May 1, 2007​
     
  5. JDale

    JDale
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately, as a result of the politicization of the military primarily under the auspices of the Clinton regime, many of the General Officers -- and other officers in fact -- were placed in their positions for purely social and political reasons.

    The fact that this general advocates a "strategy" that equals defeat, and that he urges the President to accept that outcome as inevitable says little for his command ability and judgment as an officer (we shall withhold comment on his patriotism, or lack thereof, at this point).

    It's really quite simple -- the Islamofascists hate us. They want to kill us. ALL of us. Not just Conservatives, not just Christians -- EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US. Unless we convert to Islam of course. Liberals -- no matter what walk of life or profession they come from -- must reject this idea because it clashes with their fundamental view of humanity -- that man is basically good and moral (or at worst a 'blank slate'). Christians know better -- or at least they should.

    JDale
     
  6. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this honorable man was placed in his various positions purely for political reasons and the blame is to fall at the steps of Bill Clinton, why did George W Bush nominate him to the senate for promotion to major general?


    PROMOTIONS DATES

    2LT 7 Jun 72 Richard Nixon in Office

    1LT 7 Jun 74 Richard Nixon

    CPT 7 Jun 76 Gerald Ford

    MAJ 1 Nov 83 Ronald Reagan

    LTC 1 Dec 89 Ronald Reagan

    COL 1 Sep 94 Bill Clinton

    BG 1 Nov 98 Bill Clinton

    MG 1 Oct 02 George W Bush

    (Source: WVEC and WhiteHouse.gov)​

    Why did Bush have him serve in Iraq...

    PREVIOUS ASSIGNMENT:

    June, 2003 - June, 2004:

    Commanding General, Coalition Military Assistance Training Team, Baghdad, Iraq, APO AE 09316
    You question his command ability and his judgment and yet...


    US DECORATIONS AND BADGES

    Distinguished Service Medal

    Defense Superior Service Medal

    Legion of Merit (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)

    Meritorious Service Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)

    Army Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)

    Army Achievement Medal

    Expert Infantryman Badge

    Parachutist Badge

    Ranger Tab

    Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge

    (Source: WVEC)​

    The war hawk modus operandi seems to be consistent. Support our troops that support the war but disrespect the ones that are opposed to it.
     
  7. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    The President should have cleaned house of all Clinton appointies whenhe first came to office. Big mistake on his part.
     
  8. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you talking about? Eaton was a Clinton appointee in your mind?
     
  9. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was hardly bipartisan.

    51-46 in the Senate (49 Dems & 2 Reps voted Yea; 45 Reps & 1 Dem (Ind.) voted Nay)

    218-208 in the House (216 Dems & 2 Reps voted Yea; 195 Reps & 13 Dems voted Nay)

    There was more bipartisan support against the measure than there was for it. 14 Dems crossed the aisle against it, while only 4 Reps crossed in favor of it.

    If it only takes 4 votes from a party in both houses to be considered bipartisan, then almost 100% of all legislation would be considered bipartisan.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    We already won. We achieved our goals of deposing Saddam Hussein and giving the Iraqi people a representative form of government.

    It is really getting tiresome hearing and reading the Bush "conservatives" slander the reputation of our troops by claiming that we did not win.

    It's too bad that President Bush cares more about protecting the borders of Iraq than he does protecting the borders of the United States. If he protected our borders then I might believe that he is something other than a dupe for the neocons.
     
  11. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    These neocons only listen to generals who agree with their pro-war stratagy.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are right, Terry. That's why they keep changing them out.
     
  13. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Of course.

    Just as defeatists and appeasers only listen to the generals who advocate a defeatist strategy.
     
    #13 carpro, May 3, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2007
  14. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    As I stated, he lied in his very first sentence.
     
  15. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
  16. JDale

    JDale
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's simple -- Because George Bush has long been under the mistaken impression that the "new tone" he tried to set after his 2000 election was the right thing to do, that it would "unite America," and that the sweet, kind-hearted liberals would happily go along with it.

    Bush made the same mistake with George Tenant at the CIA -- not only a Clinton appointee, but an oaf and liberal hack as well. Bush is pretty much in the "Republicans who never learn" category at this point -- but I hope he's learning with a Democrat Congress now...

    JDale
     
  17. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's a couple more definitions for you just in case you are unsure...

    bipartisan - representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions: (Source: Dictionary.com) ​

    bipartisan - Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties: (Source: American Heritage Dictionary)​

    You have incorrectly called a decorated U.S. Major General a liar and impugned his character. Will you be retracting your statement or should we consider that it is the accuser, rather than the accused, that is the liar?
     
  18. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
  19. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Hardly. He lied.
     
  20. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its interesting how both sides use the term bi-partisan so loosley when it favors them and get stingy with it when, again, it favors them. It is an overused and misleading term. And it no longer has any credibility.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...