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

I imagine the war-mongers among the republicans will turn on him like a tiger with fresh meat!

 

How much attention can you pay to the good general's comment when his very first sentence is a lie?

 

"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​

 

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

 

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.

 

The President should have cleaned house of all Clinton appointies whenhe first came to office. Big mistake on his part.

 

What are you talking about? Eaton was a Clinton appointee in your mind?

 

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.

 

These neocons only listen to generals who agree with their pro-war stratagy.

 

Of course.

Just as defeatists and appeasers only listen to the generals who advocate a defeatist strategy.

 

As I stated, he lied in his very first sentence.

 

Bipartisan - A term used to refer to an effort endorsed by both political parties or a group composed of members of both political parties. (Source: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:+bipartisan&btnG=Google+Search)​

 

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

 

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?

 

Like I said. He lied.

 

Hardly. He lied.

 

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.