June 28, 2005

[bd]

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.

George W. Bush 6/28/2005

The president is scheduled to deliver a speech this Wednesday night, approximately 18 months after he made the comment above.



bd

[JakeUSA]

Bush has been criticized to no end about his inflexibility concerning the strategy in Iraq. Now he is showing a little flexibility. I'm not defending any of the strategies put forth past, present, or future, but what is it exactly that you want?

[FrankRizzoXD40]

bd, I thought you had a problem with "staying the course"???

No matter what Bush does, you will criticize him. If he "stays the course" and doesn't increase the troop level, then you think that is bad.

If he changes his strategy and stops "staying the course", then that is also bad.

You always criticized him for "staying the course" and now that he is trying to change his strategy, you criticize him?

*sigh*

Frank

[bd]

Originally Posted by JakeUSA

Bush has been criticized to no end about his inflexibility concerning the strategy in Iraq. Now he is showing a little flexibility. I'm not defending any of the strategies put forth past, present, or future, but what is it exactly that you want?

The American voters showed at the polls they want less troops - not more in Iraq.

It's been said that the military commanders do not believe that more troops are the answer.

What is this "flexibility" you refer to?

but what is it exactly that you want?

Is a little consistency too much to ask for?

bd

[newKid]

Originally Posted by bd

Is a little consistency too much to ask for?

bd

with all due respect, i thought "staying the course" for so long was pretty consistent. whether it was working or not is a different subject. and i personally dont think it was working out so great myself.

[bd]

originally posted by newkid
with all due respect, i thought "staying the course" for so long was pretty consistent. whether it was working or not is a different subject. and i personally dont think it was working out so great myself.

Consistently wrong....you are correct!



You gotta look at it like this....

The president's 'surge' plan is at best supported by a minority of generals, military affairs experts, foreign policy hands, etc. In fact, that's generous. And it is overwhelmingly opposed by the American people.

Now, 'experts' aren't always right. And popular ideas aren't always good ideas.

But going back now some four years, who can point to even a single Bush administration decision in Iraq, either strategic or tactical, that didn't turn out to be either a bad idea or a complete disaster? Anything? One good call?

When the president goes before the people on Wednesday, he is basically saying, trust me.

It's never really possible to know what the future will bring, especially for most of us who may have gut level instincts about military strategy but little detailed operational knowledge. But given the track record and the fact that few people outside the White House seem to think this is a good idea, what possible basis is there to put any trust in Bush's latest gambit?

As the article implies, can anyone point out one good call that Bush has made so far about Iraq?



bd

[Ajcrash]

Wasn't it Rummy that had a keen desire to keep the military small and fast? I thought I had read that for many of the commanders in Iraq it was career suicide to request more troops because this went against what Rummy was trying to accomplish. Also didn't Bush say way back when all this started that he trusted his generals opinions & advice when it came down to making war because they were the trained professionals that had the knowledge to get the job done.

[eleanor]

It seems that the only thing that could get him to even THINK about changing his plans was LOSING an ELECTION.

This seems to be the only thing GWB understands.

The issue appears to be that no amount of "expert", or "military", or even "on the ground" advice meant anything -- until he lost the election.

At this point I do not think actual results will mean a thing to these folks. What they want is something, anything, that will allow them to WIN the NEXT major election.

# dead, #wounded, damage to the USA -- it seems it means nothing -- IF he can find a way to win the next election.

If that seems too cynical -- that's what the actions of this administration leave as the only answer.

It isn't even that he "stayed the course", it's that he, and his acolytes attempted to destroy anyone who had a different view. It's that they are still not willing to admit there may be a problem in Iraq -- and, when they do "admit" it -- well, it's ALWAYS the fault of "the media", "the Democrats", those "anti-war-liberals" --- all people who had no possible effect on how "GWB & Co., Inc." conducted their war.

It is THEIR war, they wanted it, they sold it, they promoted it -- now it's everyone elses fault they are either unable, or unwilling to win it.

I'm beginning to believe they are unwilling to win it, because that might make it impossible for U.S / Global Companies to get their oil leases, and extract that oil.

That is exactly how cynical I've become when even thinking about those folks.

[newKid]

Originally Posted by bd

As the article implies, can anyone point out one good call that Bush has made so far about Iraq?

bd

Im not one to say that everything the president has done has been a downright disaster, but I certainly dont think anything has been going very smoothly.

Honestly Im not convinced anyone, republican or democrat, could make a "good" decision about Iraq policy, becuase I think the core of the problem lies with the Iraqi people, who quite frankly, seem idiotic, and unable (or unwilling) to make the whole democracy thing work. Which of course, bears the question, should we have gone in the first place?

I supported the war on the premise that we were going after WMDs, and I am not convinced that Iraq didn't have any. However, I am of the school of thought that says we should have gone in and beat the snot out of them for having said WMDs, not gone in to build a country. How do you build a political country out of three groups of people that obviously dont get along so well?

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by eleanor

It seems that the only thing that could get him to even THINK about changing his plans was LOSING an ELECTION.

This seems to be the only thing GWB understands.

The issue appears to be that no amount of "expert", or "military", or even "on the ground" advice meant anything -- until he lost the election.

SURPRISE! President Bush never lost a Presidential election.

You know what this means eleanor.....you started your rant based on a FALSE PREMISE..

Your entire pile of reasoning is bogus because of the FALSE PREMISE you presented when you said, "he lost the election."



Tom