Reports: Bush to replace top generals (1 Viewer)

[Gibberish]

Bush wants to replace Abizaid with Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific, and Casey's replacement will be Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces, the reports citing administration officials said.

Reports: Bush to replace top generals - Yahoo! News

What's the thoughts?

Is Bush truly making a good move by replacing leaders with experience in the region with leaders who can bring a fresh look at the situation?

Is Bush replacing them merely because they do not agree with the troop increase or with the lack of progress in Iraq OR are they directly responsible with said progress?

 

[Iriemon]

Reports: Bush to replace top generals - Yahoo! News

What's the thoughts?

Is Bush truly making a good move by replacing leaders with experience in the region with leaders who can bring a fresh look at the situation?

Is Bush replacing them merely because they do not agree with the troop increase or with the lack of progress in Iraq OR are they directly responsible with said progress?

He's going thru meaningless motions to make excuses to delay taking meaningful action so to pass the buck of the fiasco he create to the next president to deal with.

 

[saggyjones]

He's going thru meaningless motions to make excuses to delay taking meaningful action so to pass the buck of the fiasco he create to the next president to deal with.

I agree with you, and I can't really say it better lol

 

[Hatuey]

Maybe...maybe he DOES have a plan for Iraq...and the reason he's replacing all the people he's replaced is cause it only works if everybody in his administration agrees it does...which would kinda make it true....right? :rofl hahahahahaha- Sorry I couldn't keep a straight face on that one

 

[jfuh]

Reports: Bush to replace top generals - Yahoo! News

What's the thoughts?

Is Bush truly making a good move by replacing leaders with experience in the region with leaders who can bring a fresh look at the situation?

Is Bush replacing them merely because they do not agree with the troop increase or with the lack of progress in Iraq OR are they directly responsible with said progress?

Since all the generals in the pentagon now are seemingly more so speaking up against Bush, time to clean house so that there is no dissent.
I think that is more so the reason that Bush is replacing the generals.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Let's recap the thread so far.

Liberals have been clammoring for the President to do something - anything - different from what they deem a 'stay the course' approach. Then when he does, it still isn't good enough. Hate for hate's sake. Make up your minds.

Let me guess, you voted for the 87 billion before you voted against it, right?

:lol:

 

[AndrewC]

Let's recap the thread so far.

Liberals have been clammoring for the President to do something - anything - different from what they deem a 'stay the course' approach. Then when he does, it still isn't good enough. Hate for hate's sake. Make up your minds.

Let me guess, you voted for the 87 billion before you voted against it, right?

:lol:

It's about trust. People who don't trust Bush see this as a meaningless gesture. Like Rumsfeld leaving. Until something actually does change (like stability for Iraqis and US leaving Iraq). They just see it as more of the same.

 

[disneydude]

Let's recap the thread so far.

Liberals have been clammoring for the President to do something - anything - different from what they deem a 'stay the course' approach. Then when he does, it still isn't good enough. Hate for hate's sake. Make up your minds.

Let me guess, you voted for the 87 billion before you voted against it, right?

:lol:

I don't know of anyone, let alone a "Liberal" who has been "clammoring" for King George to do "anything different".

Most of us are simply asking that he do something "intelligent" which he appears incapable of doing.

So....this information is just more of King George's typical "leadership".
If your people don't agree with you.....replace them with someone who will.

Every military expert that I have heard, including these General's have said sending in more troops will not help and will likely hinder efforts there.

But then again.....Bush is "the decider"....he "decides things"....and who is anyone to question his decisions in light of his "brilliant track record".

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

Okay disneydude then what amzing decision should Bush do trhat you see as "intelligent" since everything that he does after you whine and complain, is meaning less and that he's incompetent?

If he does anything...anything you guys have to complain about it.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Why is it that the President is somehow above criticism? He is an elected official and therefore a public servant. As taxpaying Americans we have every right in the world to complain even if it is about foolish things. However, I think it's rather safe to say that the majority of the people in this country are against how he and his administration are handling this war and I think he owes them.

 

[disneydude]

Okay disneydude then what amzing decision should Bush do trhat you see as "intelligent" since everything that he does after you whine and complain, is meaning less and that he's incompetent?

If he does anything...anything you guys have to complain about it.

Do you disagree with the mounting evidence that he is incompetent?
Seems like more and more Americans are getting it everyday....seems like the only ones who don't are the hard-core Bush Apologists that will defend him at any cost because of his allegiance to the right-wing.

What would I do? Well, I am not the President, nor do I pretend that I have the experience to do so. But that said...Personally, I would start by listening to the people who are there. The generals who say that a surge in troops will not only not help but will likely hinder. I would listen to the soldiers who many have said increasing troops will not help. I would listen to military experts who are saying that we are in the middle of a civil war and that neither side wants us there causing us to be a target for both of them.
I would listen to the people of Iraq who have clearly said that they want us out of there.
I certainly wouldn't have the mentality of a compulsive gambler that if I just gamble another grand I might win back the 3 grand that I have lost. The mind of a compulsive gambler is sick...because they think they know better than anyone else, despite the odds, despite advice from counselors and people who know....they cannot control their actions.
I am starting to believe that Bush is a compulsive incompetent. He has become so obsessessed with trying to salvage something...anything out of the mess that he Rumsfield and Cheney created that he is willing to throw thousands more US lives into the fire. Next week we will here him once again talk about Freedom/Victory and Sacrifice. Talking points created by his administration's spin doctors. But at who's sacrifice? Bush is trying to salvage his tattered legacy with the blood of our American soldiers and anyone who does not find that despicable is blinded by the enamor that they have for this man who clearly is not a leader in any shape or form.

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

And I'm actually a hardcore Bush Apologist.I can now add you to the list of people on this board that have called me one.Thanks for your ignorance.Obviously if you support some of what Bush does you must be a fool and have alligiance to the right-wing.

Oh...they want us to leave Iraq? Well actually I'm sure EVERYONE there wants us gone and the help we are trying to give to them is completely fruitless, leaving tommorow would clearly be the brightest idea ever."well, too bad, bye".

 

[disneydude]

And I'm actually a hardcore Bush Apologist.I can now add you to the list of people on this board that have called me one.Thanks for your ignorance.Obviously if you support some of what Bush does you must be a fool and have alligiance to the right-wing.

Oh...they want us to leave Iraq? Well actually I'm sure EVERYONE there wants us gone and the help we are trying to give to them is completely fruitless, leaving tommorow would clearly be the brightest idea ever."well, too bad, bye".

Your post is so full of distortions that I don't even know where to start:

1. Bush apologist - I never referred to you as a Bush Apologist....but if the shoe fits.....What I said was that it seems to me that the only people left defending this man are the hardcore Bush Apologists....but is that true? As Rumsfield would say "WHO KNOWS"....I haven't read enough of your posts to know if you personally fit into that category.

2. Where did I say that EVERYONE there wants us gone? I am assuming that you are referring to the people of Iraq? If thats the case, pretty much every poll I have seen says the vast majority of them, even our supporters there...want us out. But I would not say everyone there wants us gone. I don't think that is the case.

3. Where did I say that we should pull out tommorrow? I didn't. I think we need to develop an exit strategy...not increase our numbers. I don't pretend to have enough knowledge to know when it would be feasible for us to leave but I certainly would meet with my top military officials and try to develop a plan to get us out of there as soon as we legitimately can.

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

Your post is so full of distortions that I don't even know where to start:

1. Bush apologist - I never referred to you as a Bush Apologist....but if the shoe fits.....What I said was that it seems to me that the only people left defending this man are the hardcore Bush Apologists....but is that true? As Rumsfield would say "WHO KNOWS"....I haven't read enough of your posts to know if you personally fit into that category..

Seems like more and more Americans are getting it everyday....seems like the only ones who don't are the hard-core Bush Apologists that will defend him at any cost because of his allegiance to the right-wing.

Which going by what you said, implies that anyone who does not see that Bush is compeltely incompetnt, if a full right-wing Bush Apologist.

3.Where did I say that we should pull out tommorrow? I didn't. I think we need to develop an exit strategy...not increase our numbers. I don't pretend to have enough knowledge to know when it would be feasible for us to leave but I certainly would meet with my top military officials and try to develop a plan to get us out of there as soon as we legitimately can.

But if we increased the number of troops there things may get done faster and we can pull out sooner.

 

[disneydude]

But if we increased the number of troops there things may get done faster and we can pull out sooner.

Isn't going to happen. Bush has already implied (if not come right out and said) that we will not leave Iraq while he is President. So any rationale that somehow putting more soldiers end will lead us to be able to leave sooner is contrary to Bush's statements.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Isn't going to happen. Bush has already implied (if not come right out and said) that we will not leave Iraq while he is President. .

link please

 

[disneydude]

link please

CNN.com - Bush: We will stay in Iraq fight - Nov 19, 2005

 

[CurrentAffairs]

CNN.com - Bush: We will stay in Iraq fight - Nov 19, 2005

Thanks for the link. What part of this article says that Bush plans to stay in Iraq for the remainder of his presidency?

I am going to guess that you will refer to the quote of him saying, "So long as I am Commander-in-Chief..." If so, that is very very lame. We all know and are familiar with this particular coloquialism and the origin of the expression.

 

[disneydude]

Thanks for the link. What part of this article says that Bush plans to stay in Iraq for the remainder of his presidency?

I am going to guess that you will refer to the quote of him saying, "So long as I am Commander-in-Chief..." If so, that is very very lame. We all know and are familiar with this particular coloquialism and the origin of the expression.

What part of it don't you understand. Did you see the video?
That is why I say he implied (if he didn't outright say it).
What does..."We will not leave Iraq as long as I am commander in chief" mean to you?
Note...he didn't say "We will not leave Iraq until the job is done as long as I am the commander in chief"?
Is your argument that this is just one of the many Bush verbal guffaws?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

What part of it don't you understand. Did you see the video?
That is why I say he implied (if he didn't outright say it).
What does..."We will not leave Iraq as long as I am commander in chief" mean to you?
Note...he didn't say "We will not leave Iraq until the job is done as long as I am the commander in chief"?
Is your argument that this is just one of the many Bush verbal guffaws?

Anyone with a brain larger than a pea understood the quote. If we achieve victory before his presidency ends, then we would, naturally, bring our troops home. As long as he is Commander-in-Chief, we will stay until we are victorious. Your hate is way out in front of your logic.

 

[disneydude]

Anyone with a brain larger than a pea understood the quote. If we achieve victory before his presidency ends, then we would, naturally, bring our troops home. As long as he is Commander-in-Chief, we will stay until we are victorious. Your hate is way out in front of your logic.

Talk to me when we are still there when Bush leaves office.
Though I'm never one to say I told you so.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Talk to me when we are still there when Bush leaves office.
Though I'm never one to say I told you so.

We may very well be there, we may not. If we are, it will be because we are still working for a stable Iraq and a democratic Middle East...not because of anything Bush haters predict. We will stay until we achieve victory. Period.

 

[disneydude]

We may very well be there, we may not. We will stay until we achieve victory. Period.

Thats the problem...What is victory?

Bush declared Victory before.

I think Victory is just a Bush talking point at this point

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Thats the problem...What is victory?
Most military experts say that there is no victory to the current quagmire due to the poor judgement that has been implemented so far.

No need to spin the discussion away from your original assertion. Bush has not said or implied that, regardless of success or disappointment, that he plans to remain in Iraq for the remainder of his term. To say otherwise is to spin his words beyond recognition.

The issue of what constitues victory or "how do you go to war against the notion of terror", etc, is for another debate and in another thread.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Let's recap the thread so far.

Liberals have been clammoring for the President to do something - anything - different from what they deem a 'stay the course' approach. Then when he does, it still isn't good enough. Hate for hate's sake. Make up your minds.

Let me guess, you voted for the 87 billion before you voted against it, right?

:lol:

You certainly are an expert in "hate for hates sake" as your posts regularly prove :2wave:

Here's the deal on good old George firing his two generals in Iraq....seems to me that they testified in front of Congress in November that they were against a "surge" in Iraq, remember?

Do you also remember that Bush said countless times that he takes his advice from the "Generals on the ground. If they want more troops all they have to do is ask." REMEMBER?

Well since they DIDN'T want more troops but Bush now does then he chose to fire them instead...in other words he does not want to take his advice from the "Generals on the ground." So instead replace them with "YES MEN" who will tell him what he wants to here...

This is another fine, fine example of the dysfunction of this President and his Administration...a prime example.

ABC News took a poll today and 57 of the 100 Senators said that if they knew then what they know now they would not have voted for the war!