Five Political Advertisements Not Condemned By Congress

No. It's really simple. There are a lot of generals. Some will agree. Some will disagree. That's always going to be true. When you have several come out and publicly criticize policy because they disagree, that doesn't mean the rest disagree. It also doesn't mean Bush doesn't listen to his generals. He must, as we all must, round up a range of opinions and choose a course of action. You are confusing the lack of an ability to verify with proof of contradiction.In the end, it's the President's decision, once he's been authorized by Congress to make those decisions in war. So it is his policy, whether the 100% of the generals agree or 0% (or anything in between). As it is said, the buck stops there. By definition, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, which means of course it is his policy. No one is saying otherwise. If you look back to 2002, and back when GEN Tommy Franks (a Clinton holdover) retired, you'll see that he said quite clearly that he thought they had enough troops. In interviews, it was made clear that this was true, even after he retired and was free to speak his mind. The media told us that Colin Powell disagreed with that assessment, but he was overruled by Franks, as Powell no longer served in the capacity to command the troops.The truth is we don't know what the percentage is of generals who agree with official policy is. We can't, because they are forbidden from publicly contradicting it. They are, however, free to disagree behind closed doors. The outcome of those meetings isn't beyond reproach, but there's no reason to doubt that the generals on the ground and at the Pentagon don't have sufficient capability to let their opinions be heard, as long as when doing so they don't contribute to the breaking down of good order and discipline of the military.My level of trust in Bush, whatever it is (which I think you overestimate), is completely beside the point. Most generals in the U.S. armed forces are not going to allow themselves to be used as you're suggesting they are being used. Though they might lose their careers, by and large, they will want to keep their honor (and book deals, etc.), and though they're mostly good soldiers and will do as they're told (knowing it's the President's decision to make under the Constitution), they will endeavor to safeguard the lives of their charges as much as possible. If that means asking for twice the number of boots on the ground, that's what they'll do.Based on what we know, the "twice as many" request you cited was likely not the consensus opinion, though some undoubtedly did hold it. Bush has always said that any time his head general tells him that he needs more troops, Bush will supply them. This summer's surge demonstrates that he wasn't kidding - at least for this summer.

Um, I think you just made my argument for me: If the general isn't allowed to publicly state that he disagrees with the president's policy, that means by definition that it's the PRESIDENT'S policy -- not that of the generals. If the generals thought we needed twice as many troops as Bush has publicly stated they have requested, how would we be able to verify that? You seem to have a lot of trust in someone who hasn't done much to earn it.

Scott - If you or I have knowledge of a general's disagreement with civilian policy, then the general is openly in defiance of the UCMJ and the chain of command. That is unacceptable. It contributes to disorder and poor morale, and for that they must be relieved. However, you're assuming that the only ones who disagree are those who have spoken out. That is a fallacy of composition. What we do know is that the head generals, the ones Bush has constantly said only have but ask for what they want, have publicly supported policy, both before retirement and after.Undoubtedly some generals disagree. Of course they do. This country constantly disagrees with itself on a host of issues. There's no reason to believe generals would be any different.

If you've noticed, the generals whose views differ with Bush's don't get to stick around very long.

I think Bush listens to the generals. A separate, valid question is if the generals are providing the right advice.

I think the larger issue isn't MoveOn -- it's that the White House has been hiding behind "the generals" in devising and defending its political policies in Iraq."I listen to the generals," my ass -- does anyone really believe Bush listens to anybody?

Nonbinding resolutions are always a waste of time and money. If they want to be against an ad, fine (as Dims were of most of the ads you listed). They can do so on their own time and no one would care.MoveOn.org went over the line, as they usually do, but Congress' action here smacks of hypocrisy - Not because they didn't condemn other ads, but because the claims they made against the general -- about his essentially being a stooge for the Bush administration -- said much the same thing as the ad.Having spent a good deal of high school years around the Army and Air Force, I'm usually leary of field-grade officers in the Army, but Petraeus seems to be on the up-and-up.