kallend 2,184 #1 June 8, 2007 General Peter Pace was not nominated for a second term. Yet another scapegoat?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 June 8, 2007 QuoteGates said he had been told by Republican and Democratic senators that a confirmation hearing for Pace would be a "backward-looking and very contentious process." Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., acknowledged such advice, saying he had gathered views from a broad range of senators. "I found that the views of many senators reflected my own," and confirmation would have focused on the past four years of war, he said.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #3 June 9, 2007 Quote General Peter Pace was not nominated for a second term. Yet another scapegoat? IMO nope A scapegoat would be someone who didn't do anything wrong. Not sure about the chain of command and how much input he had on Iraq, a lot of generals used poor judgement. Pace should have kept his mouth shut about the God sqd while wearing a uniform. Seperation of church and state vs fee speech. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #4 June 9, 2007 Bullshit for obvious reasons. Pick up any newspaper to discover why instead of just inventing it as you type. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #5 June 9, 2007 Quote Bullshit for obvious reasons. Pick up any newspaper to discover why instead of just inventing it as you type. What I'm reading is that the Bush administration doesn't want Pace's re-confirmation hearing turned into an inquest on its failures in handling the Iraq war. So he's being sacrificed to make sure that doesn't happen.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #6 June 9, 2007 Quote Quote Bullshit for obvious reasons. Pick up any newspaper to discover why instead of just inventing it as you type. What I'm reading is that the Bush administration doesn't want Pace's re-confirmation hearing turned into an inquest on its failures in handling the Iraq war. So he's being sacrificed to make sure that doesn't happen. Based on what I've read, that's correct, at least the Senators that SecDef Gates talked to seemed to be forthright about it.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #7 June 9, 2007 Quote Quote Bullshit for obvious reasons. Pick up any newspaper to discover why instead of just inventing it as you type. What I'm reading is that the Bush administration doesn't want Pace's re-confirmation hearing turned into an inquest on its failures in handling the Iraq war. So he's being sacrificed to make sure that doesn't happen. I think that would make him a sacrificial lamb more than a scapegoat since they haven't (yet) tried to place blame on him for all that has gone wrong . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #8 June 9, 2007 QuoteI think that would make him a sacrificial lamb more than a scapegoat since they haven't (yet) tried to place blame on him for all that has gone wrong . So based on performance and leadership with the current situation.... I guess you would rather ...stay the course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #9 June 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteI think that would make him a sacrificial lamb more than a scapegoat since they haven't (yet) tried to place blame on him for all that has gone wrong . So based on performance and leadership with the current situation.... I guess you would rather ...stay the course. Uhhhh.....if you want to read that into my post than I guess there's nothing I can do to stop you, but that wasn't at all what I was implying. In fact, I was trying to avoid implying support or dismay with the current administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #10 June 9, 2007 [reply I was trying to avoid implying support or dismay with the current administration. I'm not concerned about implying anything,, positive or negative. The situatioon is what it is. If people can't see it with their own eye's ears, and brains.Discussing it with them is a waste of timeGenerals Rummy says "if we need more troops the generals in Iraq the generals will ask for them, and we'll respond as requested. Rummy leave's office to spend more quality time with his family & the generals in iraq that kept their mouths shut return to the states and get promoted. We get a new sec of Defense, new generals and the first thing we here is "We need more troops now!!!"Let the iraq army take care of their own challenges in their own country, they've already been trained and armed for years. "Stay the course" , "cut & run" Sec of defense said this, General so & so said that Folks are dieing, getting lifelong injuries, families are being repeatly seperated from their loved ones and some people don't have a clue yet whats going on Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #11 June 10, 2007 I'll go along with that, and it seems Pace is of the same opinion, that is not him being made a scapegoat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites