Are these guys liberals?

Today, two retired Generals who led troops in Iraq expressed outrage at the President's veto of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.

The President vetoed our troops and the American people. His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration. -Maj. Gen. John Batiste, USA, Ret.

This administration and the previously Republican controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America's Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever apparent, only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war - alone, without their President's support. -Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret.


Wolfpack: The Constitution is Very clear that only Congress has the authority to wage war. The commander commands according to their will and the will of the American people. These two generals served in Iraq, and they are speaking to the betrayal of your son by the current administration.

6 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Of course they're liberals. They're also Muslim traitors who want the terrorists to win because they hate American freedoms.

    Source(s): Thumbs up to those that can pick up the sarcasm.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Despite common beliefs, many officers are Liberals, graduating from the same universities that civilians graduate from and are indoctrinated by. The difference is that while in uniform, most officers will adhere to the law and not speak ill of the Commander-in-Chief, no matter WHO he is. They also tend to have a genuine understanding of the principles of Honor, Duty, Selfless Service, Integrity, Loyalty, Respect and Personal Sacrifice.

    We hated Clinton for the most part because he and his family have a genuine hatred of the military, and this dysfunctional relationship showed, if one knew where to look.

    Now that these Generals are retired, they have the opportunity to speak out. These Generals should know better, but instead are using this opportunity for whatever personal agenda (purpose) they have. Shame on them. It is this type of officer that gives good officers a bad name.

    The President of the United States does not make war plans. That is the domain of Military Strategists (officers and enlisted). The President identifies objectives and approves Plans. Again, HE DOES NOT MAKE WAR PLANS.

    By the way, these two officers are only Two-star Generals...hardly in any position to determine what the President is doing right or wrong.


    Commandercody, you are incorrect. The Congress DOES NOT have the authority to wage war.

    Under the Constitution, war powers are divided, not equal. Congress has the power to DECLARE war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), while the president is COMMANDER-in-CHIEF (Article II, Section 2), and by extension, is able to actually WAGE (engage in and control the actions within) war.

    Let's not read what we want from the Constitution, and instead actually read what it SAYS. That is all I ask of my fellow Americans.

  • 1 decade ago

    Not all generals are conservatives - approval is needed from Congress for promotions. Who do you think past Democrats in Congress approve? They are old & wars & tactics have changed. Retired means you do not get briefed & you do not

    have information needed to make any decisions.

    That was an outrageous bill. The Constitution is clear as to who is in charge of the miltary a.k.a. the Commander in Chief.

    Source(s): My son - US Army Ranger & Officer
  • 4 years ago

    If an accused individual can not project the information extra against her or him by using the state, what's the ingredient of having a tribulation, a jury and a decide? basically impose a sentence and be executed with it. (looks like a judicial circus, in case you inquire from me.) That, i think of, summarizes the Bush-Cheney administration's view.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    What you only support the troops when they agree with your party or president? Could it be that maybe they know MORE about what is going on than the president?

    Why is it that if you disagree with the mongol-hord-republican party, that makes you a liberal. Did it ever occur to you that some republicans and the soldiers are seeing the failures for what they are?

  • 1 decade ago

    Ignore the first answer from the idiot who probably never serve in the military like his leader/decider the original loyal Bushie. You can only feel sorry for him for his deep devotion to the president who would be a dictator/tyrant following the footsteps of his brother, Saddam Hussein.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.