Bush hits a new low

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Dana - I tried to be very careful and not promote the extreme right either - I am for getting whatever need be done over there done so we can get the hell out. We cannot just walk away, that is obvious to all - I hope. Its just the motivation behind the democratic party seems to be simply to gain power at too great an expense to our country. Does anyoneone have any ideas other than simply "stay the course" or "leave tomorrow?"

First, the reasons for leaving are very different for each person. Yes, leaving would be devastating for Iraq but that is not the question, we already know that. The question is, can we stop the civil war and genocide even if we stayed? Most Democrats will say no and most Republicans will say yes.

I have a very hard time believing that we can help Iraq at all unless we use martial law, and we missed our chance at that already. So, in my opinion, the best thing we can do is pull out and hope for the best, we are doing nothing except prolonging the killings and creating more hate by staying there.

I believe Joe Biden of the Democratic party and one other Republican (can't think of the name) have an idea for splitting up Iraq into 3 countries but I don't see any support for that from either side.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Seems the main people who are interested in finding whatever strategy is functional are the generals. The Administration at least tries to let the generals do the job, as it's done since the beginning of fighting (instead of ignoring) the War. The Democrat-controlled Congress is now launching try after try at preventing the generals from doing the job. This is known as DamnoCraps Behaving Badly, and it's appalling. A Democrat-controlled Congress fucked South Vietnam over -- and had to wait until Democrats controlled Congress to do that -- and now these sons of poodles want to fuck over another people?? Fools. UnDemocrats is what they truly are. Myopia cases -- if this creates a Democratic Presidency, it will be that President that actually loses the War, and do they know that? They aren't bright enough to accept and understand that PNAC is probably the best political idea going, and too weakwilled -- without faith that democracy is what humans will do, particularly if they can kill off the fascists -- to implement it.

The 3-states idea isn't favored because nobody thinks it would be stable. The three ministates would end up becoming puppets for neighboring states and a proxy-wars zone. We're trying to get it all over and done with rather than creating a permanent abscess in the body politic through a failure of imagination.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Seems the main people who are interested in finding whatever strategy is functional are the generals.

You mean the fired ones? Seems to me any suggestion that we were going in with too few troops lead to public smack downs.

As we build Caesar at home and take the lid off religous and ethnic rivalries abroad, I ask, what service is this administration doing democracy? I'm no big democrat. I really think a republic better serves humanity, but if your administration's goal is world-wide democracy, what has it done toward that end?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Seems the main people who are interested in finding whatever strategy is functional are the generals. The Administration at least tries to let the generals do the job, as it's done since the beginning of fighting (instead of ignoring) the War. The Democrat-controlled Congress is now launching try after try at preventing the generals from doing the job.

Umm...read.

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.

http://www.votevets.org/index.php?op...=249&Itemid=16

This was a letter to President Bush on May 1, 2007 from retired USA Major General Paul D. Eaton.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Scary? Only for the America-must-lose variety of extremist, as is currently on display right here in post # 63. Of course, his sort deserves to be kept afraid and frustrated and impotent. Or kept within the bounds of the DPRK.

I see you display a singular care all of a sudden for the tender feelings of the kind of sociopathic brutes who not only hate America but are unacceptable in their own countries because they were such Kacsinskis, such Malvos. God damn, you're such a slutboy for the fascists. You know why you smell so bad? It's because your shirt is brown, you Untermensch.

And you fear to answer a simple question I've posed you, moldy-mind, so I'll pose the question again and watch you run from it: Do you really want America to win?

You can't give me the answer I want to hear, because it's not how you feel. You can't give the answer according to how you feel because everyone else's patriotism will be outraged and they'll run you right out of the Cellar, ravening for your blood.

[DanaC]

Urbane, my friend, I think you popped a vein.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Urbane, my friend, I think you popped a vein.

He's moving from denial to anger. Then we'll see bargaining, depression, and acceptance. It won't be pretty but eventually he'll call for a troop pullout, as he realizes our countrymen are dying to no good end.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Urbane, my friend, I think you popped a vein.

That rhymes!

[Undertoad]

Shinseki's Wikipedia entry confirms that the administration overrode Gen. Shinseki's advice for a greater number of troops. However it says that he retired as planned at the end of his four-year term, not that he was "forced out".

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

However it says that he retired as planned at the end of his four-year term, not that he was "forced out".

In April 2002, 14 months before Shinseki was due to retire, The Washington Post reported, quoting "Pentagon officials", that his replacement had already been selected. ... This reported departure from precedent somewhat undercut Shinseki's authority within the Army.

Shinseki was all but removed from office more than one year earlier because Shinseki was demanding what the Generals needed. George Jr administration was shorting the military at every turn - in complete contradiction to an obscenity laced post by Urbane Guerrilla.

Worse, neither Sec of Defense Rumsfeld nor Asst Sec of Defense Wolfovitz appeared at Shinseki's retirement party. As a result of doing harm to the military, Shinseki's farewell speech stated, first, that there was a difference between being a boss and a leader. Second, Shinseki noted how he started and ended his career the same way. He was wounded three times in Nam including loss of half a foot to a land mine. He was leaving as Chief of the Army the same unhappy way.

George Jr's administration so harmed the military that General Keane, selected to replace Shinseki, instead turned down the job for good reason - the civilian bosses. That knowledge is so understood in the military that Rumsfeld had to bypass all three and four star generals to find a replacement for Shinseki. Rumsfeld had to find a general in of retirement - Shoomaker. Why?

Urbane Guerrilla rewrote history to post this 'mother of all lies'

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The Administration at least tries to let the generals do the job, as it's done since the beginning of fighting (instead of ignoring) the War. The Democrat-controlled Congress is now launching try after try at preventing the generals from doing the job.

Disrespect for the military did not stop there. George Jr could not find a general to command "Mission Accomplished". The most junior commander in country - having only limited experience as a division commander - Gen Sanchez - eventually became commander in Iraq. Those with better experience knew how much contempt the George Jr administration has for the military.

Let's look again at the numbers. Military doctrine said 600,000 troops were neeed to create the peace - after the fall of Baghdad. Scowcroft and other well respected military experts said we needed 500,000 in Iraq last summer. Shinseki only wanted a very conservative 300,000. Therefore Shinseki had to be compromised. George Jr only provided a paltry 130,000 and started reducing that numbers when the number of troops required should have been increasing.

Urbane Guerrilla rewrites history. He says George Jr never shorted the General of troops. We know Urbane Guerrilla is lying. Even his profanity increases when UG knows he is lying.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Is that the same Gen Sanchez that did the Abu Ghraib report?

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Is that the same Gen Sanchez that did the Abu Ghraib report?

Sanchez's first divisional command was 1st Armor Division for a short time (maybe two years). He was then promoted over everyone to become commander in Iraq (V Corp). Amazing how Rumsfeld could not find another General with experience necessary to command at the Corp level.

During Sanchez' tenure, Gen Miller brought torture from Guantanamo to two cell block in Abu Ghriad. Simultaneously, Sanchez was at war with Ambassador Paul Bremer who did almost as much as he could to create an Iraqi insurgency. Bremer and Sanchez would not even talk making solutions almost impossible and even resulting in today's situations. For example, the Marines were ordered into Fallujah to do what the Marines had no intention of doing. The Marines well understood the negative consequences of what would happen as a result of Fallujah. But they were talking to and represented in Washington by Sanchez who really never understood those negative consequences. Marines did exactly what they were told. The resulting disaster is now history.

Unity of command did not exist. Neither Sanchez nor Bremer ever made an effort to solve a massive management problem setup and directly attributed to George Jr's administration. A situation that Gen Jay Garner quickly identified as a prescription for failure, tried to tell Rumsfeld, and then realized the futility of saying anything.

Meanwhile, Gen Taguba was assigned to report on Abu Ghriad. For accurately making that report, Gen Taguba's military career was terminated by a revengeful George Jr administration. But others attribute blame for Abu Ghriad to Sanchez. It was initiated under Gen Sanchez' watch. There is no reason Sanchez 'did not know'. Abu Ghriad was a result of decisions and objectives defined by top commanders.

Two star general Sanchez was later replace by a four stars Gen Casey who brought massive experience. It was repeatedly obvious that Sanchez did not have sufficient experience to perform a job made only more complex by the micromanagement of Rumsfeld and by Washington politics 'blame game' who invented enemies like al Qaeda and Syria (rather than the insurgency, religious violence, a completely corrupt Iraqi government headed by weak leaders, and civil war) . Even worse, Gen Sanchez never had a strategic objective leaving division commanders such as Gen Odiero to only make the insurgency worse by inventing objectives as they operated. The long term objectives that would have focused divisional commanders to 'nation building' just never existed under Sanchez.

During this same time, some better and promising military leaders such as Gen Petreaus and Col McMasters were pigeonholed. While in those backwater assignments, both men took the opportunity to learn and define how an insurgency and civil war must be fought.

Back in Washington, George Jr decides to give the Freedom Medal to Amb Bremer and Gen Franks in Philadelphia. Top management (George Jr) had that little grasp of what he was creating in Iraq since the entire George Jr administration had no idea of basic military principles. Sec of State Powell was first isolated and then driven from power while extremists agendas advocated by Feith and Wolfovitz were implemented. Even Gen Myers - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs - was made Rumsfeld's puppy dog. Everyone in top management who might have helped Sanchez were even less knowledgeable.

A small snapshot of people and events that swirled around Gen Sanchez during his disastrous reign as commander of V Corp in Iraq.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

DanaC, I never pop a vein in the course of rubbing tw's nose in his own nature. Think about it: would that be difficult?

Regard, too, his improbable exaggeration about "obscenity-laced" -- slut doesn't rise to the level of obscenity in anyone's book, not when we all can see what it is tw rolls over for.

He says George Jr never shorted the General of troops.

Did I? Show where.

Something else that's been rather lost in the dust raised by all the aiders and comforters of the enemy in time of war using troop levels as a stick to bash a Republican Administration with is that there aren't 500,000 deployable troops in the entire Army, and there haven't been for the entire Iraq campaign.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Well duh, that's why he shouldn't have started a war without sufficient resources, like the pentagon told him.

Bush used to remind me of Wilson, but he is not just a psychopath, he's an idiot.