What purpose does it serve?
 

You could read what he's written about counterinsurgency and see that he's being put in a no-win situation. The President is his CIC. Of course he's not going to contradict him. But that doesn't mean the people's representatives ought to continue to defer to a President who is pursuing strategic disaster.

What purpose does it serve?
 

I don't understand why you think that any of this is responsive to the post you purportedly were responding to.

Just watch this 3 hour video and tell me it's not true
 

Nah, it's more like the "the rapture is coming" litmus test. Vince Foster Nutjobs get hired to run things; the rapture folks just get hidden messages from the president to let them know he's on their side. Hopefully no Dem administration would be wrongheaded enough to empower any 911-CIA-conspiracy wackos.

And in any case, they're Nader's core constituency.

What purpose does it serve?
 

What do you think he wants in a perfect world? Do you think in a perfect world he would want less troops? You have to admit that accepting the leader but not accpeting the plan he says he wants is just a pathetic management and policy strategy. If Congress does not like his plan (for whatever reason - because they believe it is not really his, because it is not what he really wants etc) then they should object to him. But to praise him, accept him and say he is the right man for the job, and then question what he requests is borderline insane.

What purpose does it serve?
 

Or will do his utmost with what he has available to him. I would expect nothing less from him.

What purpose does it serve?
 

He claims this is his plan. So either he is lying or it really is his plan. Why support his appointment if you think he is lying. Why support his appointment but then question his chosen strategy?

Just watch this 3 hour video and tell me it's not true
 

Only if I thought he had been appropriately directed by his RedChinese handlers.

Caption?
 

Is that Michael Jackson?

What purpose does it serve?
 

Spank--

The President has made clear (repeatedly) that he is the man in charge. Whatever the plan is, it isn't really Petreaus' plan, it's Bush's plan. Unless you think that the President is lying.

Insanity.
 

What these Senators are saying is crazy.

There are only two options here. These Senators are saying he is the right man for the job but either:

1) When he comes before the committee and says that he wants these troops that he is lying, and that they have read his mind and know that he really does not want the troops.

2) They know better than he does what he need to succeed at his job (eventhough he is the right man for the job).

What other option is there?

What purpose does it serve?
 

He said he is in charge but he also is saying he is doing what the Generals ask. Both Patreus and Bush are claiming that the surge idea and this new strategy on how to secure Bagdad are Patreus's idea. I believe them. When Bush says he is in charge, he is saying that I am going to give Patreus what he wants no matter what you bozo's say.

What other reasonable option is there than to trust what Patreus is saying? How can you possible think you can read his mind and really know what he wants? And do you really think these Senators believe what he really wants is no more troops?

What purpose does it serve?
 

The President is the CIC. He sets strategy. As he pointed out not long ago, he's the decider. As you may recall, the decision to escalate was his.

Surely he's not such a coward as to try to hide behind General Petraeus?

What purpose does it serve?
 

And Gates has made clear that the Politburo does not appreciate criticism.

If I were drafting the resolution, it would instead be a vote of no-confidence in the President and a statement that the will of the Congress is that the President should abandon these silly PR moves and, for the good of the country, turn this war over to the Generals. But, it is the President's Constitutional Right to be a lousy Commander in Chief (aka, the "Decider"), and so we are stuck with two more years with him as a lousy Commander in Chief.

Somewhere, the President and his Politburo need to learn to deal with criticism. They just might learn something. They need to learn something. Some of us would argue that this kind of criticism, and the higher level of policy discussion and consideration that should result from it, is part of what makes this country strong.

Insanity.
 

3) They think that he is trying to do the best he can with the orders he has from his commanding officer, the President. So they continue their efforts to try to get the President to adopt a different strategy.

What purpose does it serve?
 

So that whole business with the Iraq Study Group and the Pentagon's own review and the firing of Rumsfeld and the President's explanation that he's the Decider was all completely irrelevant to the decision to send more troops? All that stuff is happening, but completely coincidentally, at that time the President removes the head of the Central Command and promotes Petraeus as the new head, and completely coincidentally Petreaus then tells him, hey, I have this new strategy that needs some more troops. And it just so happens that what Petreaus has come up with mirrors what the White House was itself coming up with in the wake of the ISG report?

That's what you believe?

Huh.