...didn't the moonbats of the left have their panties all in a bunch over Bush disregarding the wisdom of generals like Zinni? Well, then Barry had better watch out when they get wind of this.
UPDATE: Just another story highlighting the president ingnoring the advice of his generals, which, as we all know, is unconscionable. Right libs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
hmm, let's see
if the withdrawal works, the neocons get shown, for the murderers and liars that they are
if it doesn't work, barky winds up with egg on his face...
either way, it works for me :)
I would love to hear how you support the first part, Hash. But let me pee first, as I'm sure your explanation will elicit extreme belly laughs for its stupidity.
First, what do you mean "if the withdrawal works"? They either withdraw or they don't. Do you mean if the withdrawal occurs and Iraq doesn't backslide into chaos? That would only mean that the Bush admin was a bit off in terms of the Iraqi ability to handle their own business. Not a bad thing to be cautious. As to the murderers and liars bit, that's just lunacy that you pick up when you've got the tin foil hat on.
Further, what kind of asshole is filled with glee over the failures of either administration when human suffering is the measure?
It's time to get out. The occupation has gone on long enough.
Security in Iraq: Relatively Speaking
"I'm surprised at myself for being surprised that the situation is as unbearable as it continues to be. As a succinct summary after a week's stay, I have this to offer: The situation in Iraq has not changed except to worsen. What the passage of four years of occupation during my absence has brought to the people of Iraq is greater displacement, more economic degradation, extreme desperation, untreatable sickness and a near-total loss of hope."
--Dahr Jamail
My concern is that Obama will take troops out of Iraq only to put them in Afghanistan. I am against that.
Bring the troops home now from Iraq and Afghanistan. Then take care of them when they get here.
Marty,
Questions provoked by your obviously slanted link:
1) On who's side is the author. Don't tell me "Iraq's", because that merely begs other questions regarding who's perception of Iraq.
Actually, that's the most important question the answer colors everything he says. So...
2) Why should we take this dude's perception of the situation on the ground as objective and accurate?
3) What thoughtful, objective person would read this and not believe he's unwilling to quote from those who are happy the coalition arrived?
4) What thoughtful, objective person would believe that nothing has improved in the four years this yahoo's been away, particularly knowing others have reported progress in a variety of areas?
5) Why do continue to bore me with links to articles that are nothing but doom and gloom as if I only present a picture of flowers and joy?
6) Why do you, and others who haven't the sense to see the value in overthrowing a known despot with bad intentions, insist that without perfection there can only be failure?
Frankly, I'm sick of it. We know it sucks. "Sucks" is part of the deal. But there is far less of it than there was, and the world is better off for it.
And BTW, Marty, you're link has nothing to do with the point of the post. Don't go all Geoffrey on me.
Bush and Rumsfeld ignored the generals in the planning stages for both the war and the (training for the) occupation. Too few to do the job well. As it happened, the war itself was pretty quick; the occupation, though, not so much. The generals who either got fired or quit were in serial dispute over a variety of issues - training, troop duty assignments, etc. - and Bush exercised his capacity as C-in-C of the armed forces in each and every case. I never had a problem with this; I did, indeed, have a serious problem with both the press and liberals holding up such persons as marks of integrity, precisely because it was vaguely . . . un-American. The so-called "Revolt of the Generals" in 2003 and 2004 was a dangerous precedent.
Fast forward, and I still have no problem with a President sitting down, listening to his military commanders, and then saying, "As your Commander-in-Chief, this is what you will do." Regardless of the merits of the motives - patriotism a concern for both tactical and strategic coherence, for the well-being of the troops - truly good generals salute and say, "Sir, yes, sir." They don't run to the press, either liberal or conservative, and complain; especially when they're still in uniform.
Further, what kind of asshole is filled with glee over the failures of either administration when human suffering is the measure?
Rush Limbaugh
"But let me pee first, as I'm sure your explanation will elicit extreme belly laughs for its stupidity..."
come off your high horse and spare us the unnecessary personal information, your prostrate complications are not our fascinations
"Do you mean if the withdrawal occurs and Iraq doesn't backslide into chaos?"
the only "chaos" in iraq, was caused, when we invaded the wrong friggin' country, based on your administration's lies
hit a va hospital some time, and see the fruits of your cabal's handiwork
"Further, what kind of asshole is filled with glee over the failures of either administration when human suffering is the measure?"
the same kind of asshole, that sets our own troops up for slaughter, and picks our pockets to do it, for the benefit of another
Let me add, by way of revision and extension, that Bush's constant invocation of "listening to commanders on the ground" was a lie; he kept firing generals who told him the truth and doing whatever he wanted anyway. He didn't listen.
"Further, what kind of asshole is filled with glee over the failures of either administration when human suffering is the measure?"
I guess I'll have to help you guys out with the answer to this question: there's a shit for brains who visits here that goes by the name "hashfanatic". That's the guy filled with glee. See the first comment here where he shows little concern for the consequences of an premature withdrawal (something his father should have considered), but for who loses or gains politically. Nice freakin' guy, who again is wearing out his welcome.
Hash,
You don't like the info I present, don't come here. I promise I'll get over it somehow.
If you're gonna do the "Bush lied" crap again, I'll respond now: You're an idiot. If you're gonna pretend all was roses and butterflies in Iraq before we arrived. I, and hundreds of thousands of Hussein victims, will tell you that you're one stupid son-of-a-bitch.
Anyone with the least knowledge of VA hospitals will tell you they were never the gold standard for medical care. They've always been lacking. Don't even try to pretend that Bush is the reason for it or the reason it still is. Idiot.
what about shinsecki (sp), who later turned out to be spot on, on several aspect of command that could have preserved american life overseas, and innocent iraqis at home?
what about scott ritter?
it's like, these "little" but very pertinent little details have a relevant story of their own to tell..
do we just continue to sweep it all under the carpet, to preserve someone's "legacy"?
our soldiers' lives were needlessly lost, and we are hopelessly in debt, our economy in peril because of it...at what point do we stop rewriting them all as "tragic errors", or, worse, "victories", denying that we're not going to be forced witnessing repeat performances?
Geoffrey,
"he kept firing generals who told him the truth and doing whatever he wanted anyway. He didn't listen."
Sez you and so what? Lincoln went through a few who didn't give him the results he was after. To pretend that all generals are selfless and there exists no politics within the upper echelons of the military shows the limitations of your knowledge. That he didn't listen to some doesn't mean he didn't listen to any. But now, the ones who are getting real results, the ones who should be commanding attention and respect, somehow haven't come across as convincing to THIS prez? Why? At least Bush had SOME military experience upon which to cast aspersions. Barry's got nothing but delusions regarding his own intelligence.
There is a difference between using the alleged opinions of the generals as cover for pursuing your policy, and altering your policy to suit the opinions of the generals. Bush did the former, and Obama is being pushed to do the latter.
I'm sure there were any number of high-ranking military officers who tried to discourage the Bush Administration from invading and occupying Iraq, but they were ignored at best. In some cases, they were "retired" and replaced with sycophants like Petraeus.
Now we have a new Commander-in-Chief who has a new policy. He has just as much right to push his policy over the objections of some of the brass as Bush/Cheney did in 2003.
DL,
You're making the same tired assumptions others have made with as little true knowledge or support. You, like most libs, assume the worst about Bush and assume anything said about him by those who disagree is fact, and by those who agree is false.
Now, we see Obama doing the same thing for which Bush was roundly criticized, and true to form, you cover for him like a good sheep does. It's hypocrisy, purely and simply.
"Lincoln went through a few who didn't give him the results he was after."
First, Bush was no Lincoln. Second, it wasn't a question of "results"; these men were fired because, in their testimonies before Congress, in all their public statements in their roles as Field C-in-Cs, they contradicted (false) Bush Administration talking points on everything from the necessary size of any residual force to the need for retraining to the possible benefits of redeploying troops outside Iraq's borders. It wasn't that these men were strategic or even tactical failures. They just weren't "yes" men.
Geoffrey,
"First, Bush was no Lincoln."
Nor did he pretend to be, like a certain current prez who is much further from that lofty standard.
Nor did I mean to compare the two. I would wager that the generals Lincoln dismissed were likely to hold themselves in the same regard as those who disagreed with Bush. Do you think the Lincoln generals were in full agreement with Lincoln? I submit that just like the Bush guys, they had their own ideas of both how to wage the war at hand and who commanded them. So your defense is as shot to hell as AlQueda.
Right now there is an agreement for US withdrawal from Iraq. I see no reason to rush it. If we do it Obama's way we will leave equipment that will fall into the wrong hands.
Bush fought the war and won, the "occupation" (if you can call it that since the nation elects it's own leaders) is coming to a close. Obama will put all that in jeopardy and risk having to send troops in again just to appease some anti-war hippies.
I wish he would realize that he made too many promises and cannot keep them all.
Perhaps a military coup would be in order.
Post a Comment