- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,257
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
And I can see why. What Bush is looking for, IMHO, is another body to throw under the bus when he finally admits that the best laid plans of the minds who would not listen to the generals in the first place failed miserably. President Bush can look all he wants to, but in the end, he is going to have to accept responsibility, and no, Bill Clinton did not do this either.
Some final notes:
1) No matter which side of the Iraq war one is on, it cannot be denied that the biggest mistake was implementing the idea that a war could be waged on the cheap. They never looked at the Soviet failure in Afghanistan, where a HALF MILLION men were defeated in a war of attrition which lasted several years, and decimated the Soviet military to the point that they no longer had the power to wage war.
2) If Iraq was truly a part of a global war on terror, why were the American people told to go shopping instead of being asked to sacrifice a little?
3) If Iraq was such an important part of the war on terror, then why all the Machiavellian and Marxist "noble lies" to get us into this war? The Soviets were very good at this. Didn't they believe that, if their plan was a noble one to begin with, that the American people, unlike sheep, would be noble enough to back it? There was no reason to lie and twist the intelligence. Until the war started, I had no idea that our own leaders were just as good as the Communists at delivering propaganda to their own people, and that is what makes people like them so dangerous to the American way of life.
4) If Iraq was of such military importance, why didn't our leaders listen to the generals on the ground, who had a lifetime of study in the tactics of war, but replaced them instead?
5) Many more questions? Why Abu Ghraib? Why the loss of habeas corpus? Why spy on the Quakers and other antiwar groups? One of my favorite quotes is from Bill Mahar, who said that he was mailing a copy of the Constitution to himself every day in the hopes that the Government would open his mail and actually read it.
Numbers 1, 2, and 4 are the most important, because if our leaders had followed them, the war might be over by now, and this discussion would not even be happening. Number 3 is next in importance, because it shows how desperate the Bushneviks were to carry out a plan to remake the Middle East in its own image. Number 5 naturally follows, because it shows how desperate the Bushneviks are to hold onto power so they can continue to commit manslaughter to our troops, through gross negligence, neglect, and incompetence, bringing our military into the same state of readiness that caused the Soviet military to crack and become irrelevant. And finally, as the title implies, finding a "war czar" is important because it shows the lengths that the Bushneviks are willing to go in order to eventually put the blame on anyone but themselves. Right now, the Gipper, wherever he is, is mightily p!ssed off.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Generals_shun_position_of_war_czar_0411.html Article is here.
Some final notes:
1) No matter which side of the Iraq war one is on, it cannot be denied that the biggest mistake was implementing the idea that a war could be waged on the cheap. They never looked at the Soviet failure in Afghanistan, where a HALF MILLION men were defeated in a war of attrition which lasted several years, and decimated the Soviet military to the point that they no longer had the power to wage war.
2) If Iraq was truly a part of a global war on terror, why were the American people told to go shopping instead of being asked to sacrifice a little?
3) If Iraq was such an important part of the war on terror, then why all the Machiavellian and Marxist "noble lies" to get us into this war? The Soviets were very good at this. Didn't they believe that, if their plan was a noble one to begin with, that the American people, unlike sheep, would be noble enough to back it? There was no reason to lie and twist the intelligence. Until the war started, I had no idea that our own leaders were just as good as the Communists at delivering propaganda to their own people, and that is what makes people like them so dangerous to the American way of life.
4) If Iraq was of such military importance, why didn't our leaders listen to the generals on the ground, who had a lifetime of study in the tactics of war, but replaced them instead?
5) Many more questions? Why Abu Ghraib? Why the loss of habeas corpus? Why spy on the Quakers and other antiwar groups? One of my favorite quotes is from Bill Mahar, who said that he was mailing a copy of the Constitution to himself every day in the hopes that the Government would open his mail and actually read it.
Numbers 1, 2, and 4 are the most important, because if our leaders had followed them, the war might be over by now, and this discussion would not even be happening. Number 3 is next in importance, because it shows how desperate the Bushneviks were to carry out a plan to remake the Middle East in its own image. Number 5 naturally follows, because it shows how desperate the Bushneviks are to hold onto power so they can continue to commit manslaughter to our troops, through gross negligence, neglect, and incompetence, bringing our military into the same state of readiness that caused the Soviet military to crack and become irrelevant. And finally, as the title implies, finding a "war czar" is important because it shows the lengths that the Bushneviks are willing to go in order to eventually put the blame on anyone but themselves. Right now, the Gipper, wherever he is, is mightily p!ssed off.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Generals_shun_position_of_war_czar_0411.html Article is here.
Last edited: