What have we learned in 2063 yrs?

[Hew]

Then fired the general who said we needed more troops on the ground (shinseki), only to try and take credit 5 years later with the "surge". As Reagan would say, "there he goes again... Shinseki was given his papers more than a year before Iraq, but was allowed to finish his term as a lame duck. It was therefore impossible for his firing to have anything to do whatsoever with his Iraq troop projections. Have to admit, he got about half of Americans to buy his story. Would you rather them believe your highly inaccurate and factually-challenged version of events? The surge was a strategery fathered, championed and persued by Bush, with a lot of help from McCain, at a time when it was not popular to do so. The conventional wisdom in Washington and even at the Pentagon at the time was to cut our losses and throw Iraq to the wolves. Obama or any other politician trying to promote their agenda against the will of congress and the people could take a lesson from him! Seeing as you can't possibly be talking about the invasion of Iraq as being done unilaterally, I will presume you're referring to the Surge. And if your reference was to the Surge, then your point is well taken...you'd rather we didn't do the Surge and have lost Iraq than to give Bush his due for exhibiting the necessary leadership to push the Surge when all others were advocating defeat. Nice.

...............

[dnf777]

...............

A year before Iraq was about the time we now know that the plans were being layed. Despite talking about listening to the generals on the ground, he consistently ignored all advice except that which agreed with him. Hell, his handlers didn't let him even HEAR the dissent. In Pittsburgh, a triple-war veteran was arrested for not staying behind the "free speech zone" barricade with his anti-Iraq war poster!

After twisting my words so much, you may want to check out www.chiropractor4U.com!

[Hew]

A year before Iraq was about the time we now know that the plans were being layed. C'mon, guy. There's not a soul in the Pentagon, living or dead, who believes Shinseki was fired for his troop predictions/testimony before Congress. He was forced out long before that because he didn't get along with Rumsfeld. BTW, much of their disagreement was over Shinseki's desire to piss money down a tube buying the Crusader weapon system...a weapon designed to fight the Soviets in the Fulda Gap, and just about worthless for fighting the wars we're fighting now. In that case, Rumsfeld was the visionary and dead-on correct and Shinseki was proving the old saw that generals plan to fight the last war; not the next war. Despite talking about listening to the generals on the ground, he consistently ignored all advice except that which agreed with him. I'm not agreeing with the notion that he discounted or discouraged advice that wasn't in lockstep with his beliefs. I will agree that he wasn't beholden to following all of the advice. And with respect to the Surge, thank goodness he didn't follow the conventional advice/wisdom coming out of the Pentagon. BTW, there's plenty of historical evidence that indicates that generals aren't Oracles sent from God above. If Lincoln believed in the sacrosanctity of generals you'd be eating the hell out boiled peanuts up in your neck of the woods right now. Does General Westmoreland ring a bell?

By the way, you never commented...was it a good thing that Bush rammed the Surge down the throats of a generally unwilling Congress and populace?

------------

[dnf777]

"By the way, you never commented...was it a good thing that Bush rammed the Surge down the throats of a generally unwilling Congress and populace? "


Better he follow his general's advice late than never. I'm not sure however, nor is anyone, that the surge was merely a well-timed, yet insignificant intervention. No disrespect at all meant to my brothers-in-arms, but BOTH sides of the debate have commented that such insurgencies are won not militarily, but politically. By the time of the surge, the population of Sunni Muslims was nil, given the number of refugees counted in surrounding havens. The decrease in violence may be more due to lack of opposition, than crushing military blows. I believe you will recall this thought was floated by parties both in and outside of the Bush adminstration and Pentagon. I"m sorry I cannot quote sources, I simply do not have the harddrive space for everything.

[mjh345]

Hew, you apparently give Bush et.al. kudos for the surge and the "success" it brought. I may differ with you on your definition of the surges success.
However my question is whom do you lay the blame on for the mismanagement of the war prior to the surge?

[Hew]

Hew, you apparently give Bush et.al. kudos for the surge and the "success" it brought. I may differ with you on your definition of the surges success.
However my question is whom do you lay the blame on for the mismanagement of the war prior to the surge?

Bush. He was the Commander-in-Chief and the Decider for all aspects, good and bad, of the war. The buck stopped at his desk.

So now that we've established that I'm not the hypocrite here, we'll just need you and DNF to cop to the notion that Bush deserves credit for the Surge (sans the smarmy "success") if you'd care to join the club.

[Hew]

By the time of the surge, the population of Sunni Muslims was nil, given the number of refugees counted in surrounding havens. The decrease in violence may be more due to lack of opposition, than crushing military blows.

Interesting. I've read before that the Surge resulted in the Sunnis leaving/fleeing some neighborhoods in Baghdad, but I believe you're the very first person I've ever read making the contention that there was nary a Sunni in Baghdad when the Surge started.

[dnf777]

Bush. He was the Commander-in-Chief and the Decider for all aspects, good and bad, of the war. The buck stopped at his desk.

Here's dear Mr. Bush stopping the buck. This is from Deseret News, one of the most conservative areas in the world, so don't attack the source this time.


Bush blames CIA for N-slip
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Jul 12, 2003 by Tom Raum Associated Press
123Next »
ENTEBBE, Uganda -- President Bush on Friday put responsibility squarely on the CIA for his erroneous claim that Iraq tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa, prompting the director of intelligence to publicly accept full blame for the miscue.

"I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services," Bush told reporters in Uganda.

Hours later, CIA Director George Tenet issued a statement, saying the 16 words in Bush's State of the Union address concerning a purported uranium deal should never have been uttered by the president.

Now that's loyalty!

[Hew]

Here's dear Mr. Bush stopping the buck. This is from Deseret News, one of the most conservative areas in the world, so don't attack the source this time.

That's nice. But I wish you would have spent all that computer time looking for an article backing up your off-the-wall claim that there weren't any Sunnis in Baghdad before the Surge. But then unsourced/unfounded claims and rants about Bush are the two gals you brought to the prom, so I wasn't expecting much else. And as always, you delivered.

BTW...the source of the article is the Associated Press; not Deseret News.

And if you're gonna cut-n-paste articles, I know it's a nutty, whacky concept, but it is usually customary and helpful to put quotes around the article so readers can distinguish between the article and your comments (although the nuttiness of your comments is usually a pretty good indicator). Thanks

[dnf777]

That's nice. But I wish you would have spent all that computer time looking for an article backing up your off-the-wall claim that there weren't any Sunnis in Baghdad before the Surge. But then unsourced/unfounded claims and rants about Bush are the two gals you brought to the prom, so I wasn't expecting much else. And as always, you delivered.

BTW...the source of the article is the Associated Press; not Deseret News.

And if you're gonna cut-n-paste articles, I know it's a nutty, whacky concept, but it is usually customary and helpful to put quotes around the article so readers can distinguish between the article and your comments (although the nuttiness of your comments is usually a pretty good indicator). Thanks

The article was published in the Deseret News. It was syndicated by the AP.

I am not a paid publicist or campaign strategist for any political entity, and as such will not spend inordinate amounts of time on this, especially when I acknowledge I cannot recall a specific source. If a non-right-wing-extremist said it hurts to get kicked in the groin, you would not believe it until a randomized-controlled double-blinded study, reported by FoxNews came out complete with proper citations, so I won't pretend to live up to your standards. My day job requires such diligence, not friendly political banter.

Besides, like the 'fossil' thread revealed, when facts contrary to the agenda are produced and cited, they are dismissed as fallacy, or just ignored, so there's no utility in the time spent.

Enjoy that sandwich,
Dave