the story of the generals

[truthmatters]

4

[Gunny]

And this differentiates Bush with any other President since Abraham Lincoln HOW exactly?

[truthmatters]

4

[darin]

Well - I got through the 'Tommy Franks' Part before throwing up.


Last week, Bush rejected any blame for the chaos that ensued in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. So whose fault was it? Bush pointed the finger at Gen. Tommy Franks, the Central Command chief at the time. "My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes," Bush said.

THAT is 'stabbing in the back'? That's the President simply stating what happened. The Generals told the President something - the president gave the go-ahead. That's not back-stabbing.

[Gaffer]

An opinion from a Wash Post Bush hating reporter. Imagine that, what a great find. I noticed he didn't interview any of the generals he talked about. Just took quotes from other sources.

I love how Pace was fired. No mention that he is retiring because his confirmation for another term would be a problem in the the democrap senate. So they are looking for a more moderate general who's not as good to appease the senate doves.

[truthmatters]

4

[darin]

The history of how Bush has shuffled the generals is FACT my friend and not opinion.

Is this about appointing Generals to various positions, or about stabbing them in the back? Make up your mind, kid.

[Gunny]

Shear magnitude

Oh .. you mean like the magnitude of Woodrow Wilson getting us into WWI? Or FDR and WWII? Truman and Korea? Johnson and Vietnam?

Bush has NOTHING on any of those.

[Gunny]

The history of how Bush has shuffled the generals is FACT my friend and not opinion.

Lincoln shuffled way more generals. As did FDR and Truman fired one of our best playing politics instead of fighting a war the way they're supposed to be fought.

Your attempt to over-sensationalize Bush's use of military leaders doesn't hold water.

[theHawk]

The history of how Bush has shuffled the generals is FACT my friend and not opinion.

Wow, that shows how LITTLE you know about our military. :lol:

[theHawk]

Last week, Bush rejected any blame for the chaos that ensued in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. So whose fault was it?
Here's a novel idea, its the fault of the fucking terrorists!

[Gunny]

Here's a novel idea, its the fault of the fucking terrorists!

No way. Couldn't be them. They are just misunderstood.:poke:

[darin]

No way. Couldn't be them. They are just misunderstood.:poke:

We need to create a dialog with these poor people; that's the first step towards making them feel BETTER, and leading them into a time of peace and mutual respect and understanding. After all, they are VALID as human beings; who is to SAY their viewpoints don't deserve respect? Maybe with love and support and billions in economic aid, they will decide to stop strapping bombs to their children; blowing up markets and churches and people just trying to get to work.

[truthmatters]

4

[darin]

well except that his war is a failure because he refuses to listen to the military experts.

Okay - look, from your OWN F'ING SOURCE:


Now, history is going to look back to determine whether or not there might have been a different decision made. But at the time, the only thing I can tell you, Wendell, is that I relied upon our military commander to make the proper decision about troop strength.


So which is it, Liar? Did he listen to Experts or did he not. The VERY PURPOSE of this thread of yours is to say the President LISTENED to Generals, and later threw them under the bus.

It's to the point where you are SO ill, you've moved beyond being unable to make your point, now you cannot even decide what your point is.

[Gunny]

We need to create a dialog with these poor people; that's the first step towards making them feel BETTER, and leading them into a time of peace and mutual respect and understanding. After all, they are VALID as human beings; who is to SAY their viewpoints don't deserve respect? Maybe with love and support and billions in economic aid, they will decide to stop strapping bombs to their children; blowing up markets and churches and people just trying to get to work.

Well, yeah, it's all about them feeling better. I'm going to try the same on this nest of rattlers in my next door neighbor's yard.

Wish me luck.:salute:

[Gunny]

well except that his war is a failure because he refuses to listen to the military experts.

Wrong. The occupation is a failure because NO ONE, to include you and your unrealistic view of things will listen to military strategists who aren't guided by politics and Western idealism. None of his "generals" are going to be above that just as none of any other President's generals since Lincoln have been. They don't get appointed if they don't support the program, regardless which political party holds the White House.

[truthmatters]

4

[Nukeman]

:
No actually I say he would pick them and when they strayed from the program he would throw them under the bus and then balme them when it did not turn out like he wanted it to.

:bsflag::bang3::bang3::bang3::bang3::bang3:

Does everyone here feel this way everytime truthdoesntmatter post something???

[Gaffer]

:

:bsflag::bang3::bang3::bang3::bang3::bang3:

Does everyone here feel this way everytime truthdoesntmatter post something???

Absolutely. She just can't see the forest for the Bush.

[truthmatters]

4

[darin]

you decide yet on a point you wish to make?

Is it either: GWB did NOT listen to Generals.

or

GWB Listened to Generals then blamed them/stabbed them in the back, later?

[Gunny]

great arguements guys.

I've made perfectly legitimate arguments, without insulting you; which, you have ignored. Something you are prone to do.

After awhile, people quit wasting their time knowing they'll be ignored in return and you'll just continue with your initial allegation as if they didn't exist.

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[Gaffer]

They all won their wars.

They all shuffled generals and won their wars.

[Gunny]

They all won their wars.

Which is irrelevant to your accusation. What are you saying here? The end justfies the means, or what?

Seems rather contradictory to your historical stance.

The fact is, I have shown where Bush was neither the first, only, worst, nor most prolific President where shuffling generals is concerned, and/or replacing them for not being willing to carry out administration policy.

You have shown absolutely nothing in return to refute me.

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[Gunny]

First ones told him he needed more troops to do the job he dumped em.

Was having more troops at the time feasible? No.

Do you think the generals did not want more ad better equipment for thier men?

Every military person I ever knew wants more and better equipment. Military procurement has nothing to do with the president.
Others were fired for being anti surge.

So? If you are going to implement a plan, do you let people who oppose that plan implement it for you? Or do you find someone who does not oppose the plan?

Use some common sense.

Franks he fired and then said he failed to tell Bush what he needed.

Again, your point?

If we were winning it I might give him a break.

This has been going on longer that WWII.

So, the end justifies the means? So it's okay with you if we launch a full-scale invasion conmplete with fire-bombing of cities until we completely subdue any and all hostile combatants?

Your last sentence is irrelevant.

[Nukeman]

I've made perfectly legitimate arguments, without insulting you; which, you have ignored. Something you are prone to do.

After awhile, people quit wasting their time knowing they'll be ignored in return and you'll just continue with your initial allegation as if they didn't exist.
couldn't agree more Gunny!!!!!!!!

She just doesn't get it. Its like trying to talk to an obstinate child or something....

[Gunny]

So you think those other mentioned president dumped Generals for not agreeing with their political aims?

Dumped for not agreeing, appointed for agreeing = same thing and yes they did or I would not have referenced them.

[truthmatters]

4

[Gaffer]

First ones told him he needed more troops to do the job he dumped em.

Do you think the generals did not want more ad better equipment for thier men?

Others were fired for being anti surge.

Franks he fired and then said he failed to tell Bush what he needed.

If we were winning it I might give him a break.

This has been going on longer that WWII.

The first one was Tommy Franks. who told Bush he had enough troops to do the job. which he did, at that time.

The surge was not Bush's plan, it was the plan presented by the military planners. Generals are not fired because they disagree with a plan. They might leave because they don't feel they are being listened too, but they are not fired.

The last General I know of that was actually fired was Wesley Clark. He was fired by clinton.

We are winning. You just chose to ignore that fact.

This war is not just iraq, and will be going on for many years to come, even after we pull out of iraq it will continue. This and the next administration will go through a lot more generals before its over.

[Gunny]

No its called American values of not following the actions of your president at all cost to protect your party over your country.

You just can't help but bury yourself deeper, huh?

Pointing out your false allegation has nothing to do with following the actions of any President.

If anything, you are attempting to villify a President at all cost to further the cost of YOUR party at the expense of the facts, logic and common sense.

I have NO party, so just WHO and/or WHAT would I be protecting?

Accusing ME of putting ANYTHING over this Nation is just about as bogus as you get.

So much for this post. Shot to shit in a hearbeat.

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

You just can't help but bury yourself deeper, huh?

Pointing out your false allegation has nothing to do with following the actions of any President.

If anything, you are attempting to villify a President at all cost to further the cost of YOUR party at the expense of the facts, logic and common sense.

I have NO party, so just WHO and/or WHAT would I be protecting?

Accusing ME of putting ANYTHING over this Nation is just about as bogus as you get.

So much for this post. Shot to shit in a hearbeat.


http://tinyurl.com/2t5ztr



I guess that is why the retired Generals came out and said this war was a mess?

[Gaffer]

you dont fight ideas and tactics successfully with bombs and bullets.


The generals were not listened to very frequently in this war.

Lets see Casey and Adizaid were in charge and things weren't working well. So they were replaced and things are turning around. Hmmmm

You are so sure of what all went on in those private classified meetings, what's your inside source? How do you know certain generals were not listened too? How do you know what processes were discussed and accepted or dismissed? You sources are partisan hacks. Unless you were actually present at the meetings and can swear you saw and heard everything that went on you credibility is in the toilet. You only know what the liberal media and liberal bloggers tell you to know.

[Gaffer]

http://tinyurl.com/2t5ztr



I guess that is why the retired Generals came out and said this war was a mess?

Only retired generals with political agendas.

News organizations pay these guys big bucks to be analysts and contributors. And many are looking at political careers as well.

[truthmatters]

4

[Gunny]

http://tinyurl.com/2t5ztr



I guess that is why the retired Generals came out and said this war was a mess?

Which has what to do with your initial allegation?

Let me explain some simple facts to you that obviously you can't quite grasp.

The President of the United States, regardless who he is or which party he belongs to is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The final decision is his to make.

Conversely, Generals are people too. I have followed some of the best, and been ordered around by some of the worst. Those stars don't automatically make them infallible. A point you liberals are quick to bring up when they SUPPORT the President.

These generals are speaking out from a political standpoint, not a purely military one. What's it take to get that through your head?

[avatar4321]

They all won their wars.

And they won the wars by shuffling generals till they found the right one.

[avatar4321]

No its called American values of not following the actions of your president at all cost to protect your party over your country.

Yeah heaven forbid the generals actually have to follow their Commander...

[darin]

Which has what to do with your initial allegation?



Her M.O.

When her arguments get shot-down, she changes the topic and claims she REALLY meant something else.

[truthmatters]

4

[Gunny]

And Bush led this war from a political standpoint not purely a muilitary one and we are sufferig because of it. I wish he would Stop Pretending to "listen " to his generals when it helps him politically.

Well thank you Polly for repeating what I've already posted. Now quit ignoring the fact that he is not the first, worst, nor will he be the last.

You should rescind your last sentence since it is quite obvious you are not qualified to have an opinion on the matter. Whether or not he pretends to or actually listens to one general or all is irrelevant.

You've already stated your case, in so many words. The ends justify the means. If he listened to no generals and won, you'd be okay with it.

Kinda like being a fair-weather friend.

[Gaffer]

Well thank you Polly for repeating what I've already posted. Now quit ignoring the fact that he is not the first, worst, nor will he be the last.

You should rescind your last sentence since it is quite obvious you are not qualified to have an opinion on the matter. Whether or not he pretends to or actually listens to one general or all is irrelevant.

You've already stated your case, in so many words. The ends justify the means. If he listened to no generals and won, you'd be okay with it.

Kinda like being a fair-weather friend.

She wouldn't be ok with anything Bush did. If he listened to all the generals and won the war he would be wrong for doing that. If he listened to no generals and won the war he would be wrong for doing that.

She could simplify every post by simply typing I HATE BUSH. she wouldn't make such an ass of herself that way.

[Gunny]

She wouldn't be ok with anything Bush did. If he listened to all the generals and won the war he would be wrong for doing that. If he listened to no generals and won the war he would be wrong for doing that.

She could simplify every post by simply typing I HATE BUSH. she wouldn't make such an ass of herself that way.

I'm just always surprised at her lack of education on topics she insists on arguing.

[actsnoblemartin]

Ultimately, The people elect the president, not the military advisors, or any other advisors, all who serve at the pleasure of the president.

For better or worse, this is how the system has run then, now, and will be running for hundreds of years too come.

Only history knows if iraq was a mistake, we can only guess.