Why didn't Lincoln think of this?

[samgrant]

Seems General McClellan is now commanding U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Oh, never mind.



-

[Bonny Blue Flag]

I was working on my computer, only half listening to the "debate" and suddenly I heard the name McClellan loud and clear. After checking to see if the t.v. channel had been changed, I went back to work.

--BBF

[Michael19103]

By "think of this" you mean, think of invading a foreign (ahem, "neighboring") country to bring Americans back together? I believe Seward had some ideas along those lines in his infamous memo (pick a fight with the British, or the French, or the Spanish - over Cuba - whoever'd go along....)

Edited to add: it occurs to me we also have Seward to thank for Alaska.
This is what comes of visiting Internet forums at 2 in the morning....

[M E Wolf]

Dear List Members;

Wouldn't it be interesting to find out if General McClellan is related to "Little Napoleon" the late-Union General George McClellan?!

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[samgrant]

I hadn't expected to make any additional comment to this.

While I do respect most all of our CWT members, I have found that several of us have little or no understanding of the concept of "irony" as a form of humor.

In light of the last two posts, however, I will attempt to explain.

1) In the Vice-Presidential debate of October 2 one candidate referred to the commanding general in Afghaistan as McClellan:

IFILL: Senator, you may talk about nuclear use, if you'd like, and also about Afghanistan.
BIDEN: I'll talk about both. With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen.
The fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge -- the surge principles used in Iraq will not -- well, let me say this again now -- our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan, not Joe Biden, our commanding general in Afghanistan.
He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.
Look, we have spent more money -- we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country.
Let me say that again. Three weeks in Iraq; seven years, seven years or six-and-a-half years in Afghanistan. Now, that's number one.
Number two, with regard to arms control and weapons, nuclear weapons require a nuclear arms control regime. John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported.
John McCain has opposed amending the Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty with an amendment to allow for inspections.
John McCain has not been -- has not been the kind of supporter for dealing with -- and let me put it another way. My time is almost up.
Barack Obama, first thing he did when he came to the United States Senate, new senator, reached across the aisle to my colleague, Dick Lugar, a Republican, and said, "We've got to do something about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists."
They put together a piece of legislation that, in fact, was serious and real. Every major -- I shouldn't say every -- on the two at least that I named, I know that John McCain has been opposed to extending the arms control regime in the world.
IFILL: Governor?
PALIN: Well, first, McClellan did not say definitively the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country and conditions are certainly different. We have NATO allies helping us for one and even the geographic differences are huge but the counterinsurgency principles could work in Afghanistan. McClellan didn't say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy going into Afghanistan, clearing, holding, rebuilding, the civil society and the infrastructure can work in Afghanistan. And those leaders who are over there, who have also been advising George Bush on this have not said anything different but that.

2) Students, like me (let's not say "buffs"), of the war must have *****ed up ther ears at the mention of General McClellan. (that was not dirty, it was like some horses and dogs do with their ears, or for us human apes "to listen with attentive interest".)

3) The fact is that the comander's name is "McKiernan".

4) My post was not just to not just to point to the inanity of that candidate, but to also comment on Pres. Lincoln's handling of his generals, especially MCClellan. (It's called "irony")

5) Why should I have to explain this?


-

[Bonny Blue Flag]

I understood your initial post and got a laugh out of you and Palin's fauxpau.


What else could have been done with McClelland---besides sending him to Afghanistan? (dang...missed a golden opportunity!)

Of course, there is Mr. Cameron, a person whom Lincoln gave a political appointment to and who wasted no time in opposing Lincoln on every subject, much to Lincoln's own regret...sent him to a place very far from Washington:
" As you have more than once expressed a desire for a change in position, I can now gratify you consistently with my view of the public interest. I therefore propose nominating you to the Senate, next Monday, as minister to Russia.
Very sincerely your friend, A. Lincoln"

Could there be a McClellan clone in Afghanistan?

--BBF

[Michael19103]

I got it too! Hence my reference to Afghanistan as a "neighboring" country (because Palin called it that) and Seward's Folly. I was just trying to take it a step further (and can't resist noting once again that spelling further with an A - as I just did, before I realized what would happen and changed it - would actually be more correct according to some grammarians but would earn me a row of asterisks on this forum).