Surge And Mirrors What Bush Really Said

How in the world do you consider yourself well enough informed to call this insanity? You know nothing, besides what you read in the news and on your favorite blogs. (Most of those people don't know much either.) You haven't talked to any generals or officers on the ground. You haven't seen the situation. You don't have experience in running wars or nations. You don't have much experience in leadership.

It seems to me that it is laughable for you to call this insanity. You simply don't know.

So how do you konw this is insanity? Truth? You don't. You are making a political attack.


It seems very reasonable to me that more numbers make sense. After all, that is what has been being said for a long time by Democrats and people like yourself: "Bush didn't send enough troops." Now, he wants to send more, and people have suddenly and mysteriously changed their mind. Why? Because they want the political issue. They want to disagree.

Now that's foolish, it seems to me.

 

never was in that mode, and this certainly wasn't it. I asked a question, making the point that you simply do not know whether or not this will work. So why act as if you do?

Nope.

I think so. And I think anyone who definitely says a troop increase will or will not work is silly. They have no way of knowing that, especially some guy posted anonymously on a Baptist internet forum. If you knew that much, you would probably be speaking somewhere else on this.

Why?

 

poncho, I don't know if Bush's actions rise to the lvel of insanity.

The situation is insane, the "solution" is insane, the result will be insane. Bush, on the other hand, is one of hundreds of political hacks trying to score points, and nothing more.

 

Score points? I think that is way off base. He surely knows the poll numbers, and he knows his political career is over any way you slice it. He is trying to get something close to a victory in Iraq before the troops are pulled out by the next administration.

 

You really think Bush has no real concern about the situation and the people involved? I am pretty jaded about public figures, particularly politicians, but I am not that jaded. I think he does have a genuine concern.

 

Larry, there's concern and then there's concern.

I don't wish to paint Bush as a monster, merely as someone so removed from the flesh-and-blood of the problem that 3,000 dead soldiers and umpteen-hundred-thousand dead Iraqi civilians is a concept to be concerned about, not a physical reality.

Kind of like someone "believing" in Jesus, and continuing to beat his wife: you show me what you believe by how you live.

 

I think if there is anyone who knows the physical reality it is Bush. He hears it everyday and get lambasted for it. For us, it's just a conversation. He's been there and seen it. He sends them knowing what the outcome may be. He also has the responsibility for it.

I read Ambrose's account of DDay a while back, and tried to put myself in Eisenhower's shoes, sending thousands of men to sure death. How can you do that? I find it hard to imagine making that "Let's go" call, knowing that thousands of those boys will never get off that beach.

Remember the line from U-571 where McConaghey's character is turned down for a promotion? I don't remember the exact words, but he asks why, saying he would gladly give his life for his men. The commanding officer of the sub said, yes, that's the problem. You will give your life for tlive with the consequences of it.

That's were I think being in charge is a whole different ballgame than sitting here on an anonymous board micromanaging and criticizing those who are doing something.

I think it is absurd to say that beasue 60% don't like the war we should come home. There is no way we can expect 60% of the population to have an informed opinion, understanding the intricacies of battle, particularly in the middle east.

 

A true Bush-bot to the end!

 

How is it being a bush bot to think that the guy who sends troops into harms' way and gets the daily reports and briefings and knows far more about it than anyone here does is genuinely concerned about the people involved?

Do you even think before you post? It doesn't seem like it. I am not a Bush bot in the least. I think he has made loads of mistakes. But I don't question the man's genuine concern. I think that is silly.

 

What is foolish is saying that the solution is more troops when you have no idea or evidence that will work, and from other threads, it seems that you think Bush has some kind of divine insight.

You dont know whether the person you addressed above has much leadership ability or not. The fact is Bush said he would listen to his generals. He promised the American people this. Then, when they say what he does not like, he replaces them that says what he does like. Bush, now here is a non leader, a weekend warrior that couldnt even show up at his meetings, and a Vice President that never lifted a finger in service to his country.

You say the above post seems foolish. What seems foolish to me is believing what Bush tells you after years of evidence the other way. Maybe you should open your eyes, and by the way, how much leadership experience do you have? As much as you know about Vietnam?

 

i have not said the solution is more troops. I have said that more troops is a good idea to try, and it makes sense.

What I have said was foolish was dogmatic statements that this absolutely would not work.

That is simply not true. If the person I addressed had that much leadership ability, I doubt he would be spending his time here. Let's face it. Great leaders don't waste time on fora like this. We do not know the reason why Bush has replaced generals and what all is going on there. So it is foolish to make dogmatic statements.

I am not saying I believe what Bush is saying.

I have more knowledge of Vietnam than I have leadership experience to be sure. But my leadership experience is growing; my knowledge of Vietnam is not.

So why go personal? Why not interact on the subject? That seems strange to me that your posts here seem to focus on attacking Bush and attacking me. What plan would you suggest for Iraq?

 

War critics are playing a shell game with the number of troops question.

With Bush listening to his generals in Iraq, he kept the troop levels at what we are used to seeing. For almost the entire time we have been in Iraq, the critics have used the statements of retired military personnel and anyone else they could find to make a case for more troops.

Now, it has been determined to raise the troop levels and the generals who are being replaced naturally defend their position and generals who believe they can improve the situation with more troops and a better overall strategy are now in place. The war critics now believe more troops is not the way to go.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter what the strategy has been, is now, or will be in the future. The war critics will always stand on the sidelines and snipe at and second guess whatever strategy Bush puts in place.

Why? It's simple. Their main goal is life is to see that we fail in Iraq. Therefore, as far as they are concerned, nothing has worked and nothing will. Ever.

 

Not sure what world you are living in but "working" is the point. We want success. That was the idea from the beginning and it is still the idea now.

Okay. So what? Let's assume that you are right. If there is any place in the world that needs to be "new," it is the MIddle East. Now, whether or not the so-called "neocons" have the right idea, who knows. But it is silly for you to say that he is simply giving a false debate to chew on. You don't know that and everyone here including you knows that you don't know that.

 

Poncho, on the one hand, thinks Bush is a Moron and on the other hand, Machiavelli.

He's either way too smart or way too dumb, but conspiracy theorists can never decide which.:smilewinkgrin:

 

How I long for the days, which may never have existed, in which people could disagree without questioning the motives or sanity of the person with whom they disagree. Has it ever occured to you anti-Bush people that Bush believes he is right, just like you believe you are right? Has it ever occured to you that he, and those who agree with him, may be willing to sink to your level can call you insane?

Let it be stated. I disagree with Bush's policy in Iraq, I don't believe we should be in Iraq, and I think a surge is the wrong move. However I don't doubt that Bush, McCain, and Gates believe this is the right move. I don't question their motives or sanity no matter how much I disagree with their policies. I will say the same about Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and others with whom I disagree.

 

Not "many of us", Poncho. It's primarily you having a one way conversation with yourself.

But enjoy it, I won't bother you anymore on this nonsensical thread.

Poncho wrote:
"I have been speaking elsewhere on this thank you. About the only people that disagree with me are here on BB anymore (very very few in other words)."

I have visited other boards where there is a never ending supply of nut cases. I'll agree with you that the nuts are harder to find here at BB.