Is everything Bush's fault ?

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: polm
thats why they call him Commander-in-Cheif .

Does Bush really need to tell the military to protect 380 tons of explosives or is that something the military should figure out on it's own?

No, he just gives the ok to use 100,000 fewer troops than were needed. Welcome to responsibility. The buck stops where?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Look, you guys must have some brains, otherwise you probably wouldn't be posting here. However, i find your lack of comprehension baffling.
1. The soldiers would not be there but for Bushs's insistence on attacking Iraq.
2. The troop numbers, strategy, and conduct of the war is a product of the "planning" done by...President Bush and his administration.
Come on! Talk about critical thinking!

And not one General was willing to complain to the public and say that we need 500,000 troops before the war began which is a failure if military leadership. The entire military kept silent.

Those people who spoke out got sacked.

But the RBB refuse to believe that is true.

 

[TravisT]

Despite the fact i'm a pretty big Bush supporter, i think a lot of the Republicans, just as I've seen a lot of the Democrats be recently, are being two faced about issues.

I was listening to some right-winged conservative talk radio this morning, as I normally do despite the fact I know it is quite bias....

Anyhow, I was one of the few people from the right who was not calling for Rather's head on the whole news scandal stuff. I agreed with Bill O'Reilly in the means that despite the fact it was a big mistake, it shouldn't have been Rather's head over the whole situation.

The Republicans in this forum immediately went after Rather and it became known as 'Rathergate'....

But now situations happen in Iraq, and while the Democrats want to blame it all on Bush and take up for Rather, the Republicans are doing exactly the opposite. I find it quite ridiculous. I'm a firm believer that you have to go to the source of the problem first. Sometimes things happen that leaders cannot help or made a wrong decision. I think it is stupid to say one thing in one place, then do something else in another. And this crap is flowing on both sides of the fence......

Bush should not be 100% blamed here just as Rather should not have been 100% blamed.

 

[TranceNation]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: polm
thats why they call him Commander-in-Cheif .

Does Bush really need to tell the military to protect 380 tons of explosives or is that something the military should figure out on it's own?

yes that is wha Bush and his administration is for. They need to know what to protect, how many resources they have, plan out if they need more or not, etc. Military just follows orders, orders come from the top.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Who put the troops in the position of having to be concerned about those explosives?

Why the person who's fault that is. Bush.

While this particular incident was not forseeable, the collective mess was. Maybe he doesn't think the buck stops at his desk, but it does.

 

[Pepsei]

Gee, the way that the administration keep saying they're not at fault, you'd think that they don't do anything risky except taking vacations.

 

[fjord]

Bush war against our military

 

[The Aficionado]

Originally posted by: TranceNation
yes that is wha Bush and his administration is for. They need to know what to protect, how many resources they have, plan out if they need more or not, etc. Military just follows orders, orders come from the top.

LMFAO. That's not even close to how the government, or any other large organization, works. Micromanaging military operations from DC has never been a good idea, and hasn't been done since the 70s. The administration sets policy - who is to be invaded, what for, what the general goals will be - and the military takes care of the details. The administration signs off on important details, but doesn't have anything to do with planning each individual sortie, directing each tank platoon, or securing each individual weapons site.

I find this trend to always blame the top for things going wrong, demand resignations, etc., very funny. We're dealing with a war here, not a high school football game. It's better for all involved to find out what actually happened (Did the military know about the site but not assign it priority? Was the unit assigned to guard it incompetant? Did the message from the IAEA never get past the state department? etc) than to mindlessly point fingers at whoever is the most politically convenient to blame.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: The Aficionado

Originally posted by: TranceNation
yes that is wha Bush and his administration is for. They need to know what to protect, how many resources they have, plan out if they need more or not, etc. Military just follows orders, orders come from the top.

LMFAO. That's not even close to how the government, or any other large organization, works. Micromanaging military operations from DC has never been a good idea, and hasn't been done since the 70s. The administration sets policy - who is to be invaded, what for, what the general goals will be - and the military takes care of the details. The administration signs off on important details, but doesn't have anything to do with planning each individual sortie, directing each tank platoon, or securing each individual weapons site.

I find this trend to always blame the top for things going wrong, demand resignations, etc., very funny. We're dealing with a war here, not a high school football game. It's better for all involved to find out what actually happened (Did the military know about the site but not assign it priority? Was the unit assigned to guard it incompetant? Did the message from the IAEA never get past the state department? etc) than to mindlessly point fingers at whoever is the most politically convenient to blame.

Bush tried to get by with doing the Iraqi war cheaper better quicker and failed at all 3. Of course he is to blame. If it was only one site that was left ungarded then it wouldn't be his fault but there is a pattern of ignoring ammo depos and nuclear wastes. Bush should have ensured that every possible site WMD could have been stored at would have US troops on the ground securing that position until what ever was there could have been destroyed.

 

[Vic]

Is everything Bush's fault ?

Of course not. That's ridiculous. For one thing, I wouldn't want one man in charge of everything. But scapegoating and pointing fingers has become part of the American way of life, where it's blaming Bush, liberals, neocons, tree-huggers, corporations, or lawyers. The only thing most people know is that someone else is to blame (just not themselves). It's why our nation is so polarized, and so immobilized.

 

[Steeplerot]

So I guess the fearless liar is not accountable for anything.
Well if he is a useless figurehead why are you voting for him?

 

[faiznne]

Blame it on Israel because I don't think it's good that the USA fights Israel's wars by proxy:

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Advisor
Emad Mekay

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about ?the unstated threat? during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

?Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,? Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

?And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,? said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

Source: Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=23078

General Anthony Zinni Blames Neoconservatives And Says Their Iraq Course 'Headed Over Niagara Falls'

But, don?t take what I say at face value. Listen to the words of retired General Anthony Zinni --- no nitwit he. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.

Following Gen. Zinni?s retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush Administration thought so much of him that he was appointed their special envoy to the Middle East. In mid-March of 2002, President Bush said that he and Vice President D. Cheney ?both trust? Gen. Zinni. In this same month and year, Vice President Cheney called him ?a superb officer.? And in late May of this year, even after the interview I?m about to tell you about, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said: ?We have great respect for General Zinni.?

?In one article--because I mentioned the neo-conservatives, who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy of those that propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested. I know what strategy they promoted, and openly, and for a number of years, and what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.?

For all of this, Gen. Zinni blames ?the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly? and others who are so-called neoconservatives. These individuals include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, former Defense policy board member Richard Perle, National Security Council member Eliot Abrams, and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby. He believes these persons are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq. And they advocated an invasion of Iraq to, among other things, strengthen the position of Israel.

Source: http://www.peroutka2004.com/sc...tview&event_id=234

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: steeplerot
So I guess the fearless liar is not accountable for anything.
Well if he is a useless figurehead why are you voting for him?

You've heard the Neocon Nation of Hannity, Rob Hunter, Tammy Bruce, Rush, CSG & The rest of the P&N Neocons, Bush is the only one that can save us. We're all doomed unless we re-elect Bush.

 

[sandorski]

Nothing is Bush's fault, what were you thinking?

 

[Gaard]

Is everything Bush's fault ?

Don't be ridiculous.


Bush: I've Made No Mistakes Since 9/11

WASHINGTON - American President George Bush grimaced, sighed, rambled and chuckled under his breath on Tuesday, before saying he could not think of a single mistake he had made since the September 11 attacks.

 

[Spencer278]

Why bush was asked about the 380 tons of explusives bush replied "Its my first day."

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
It's easier to point fingers than use some critical thinking, of course it's Bush's fault...

Whether or not it is Bush's fault is up for discussion but it is his responsibility. Goes with being Potus and CinC. Seems to me like the Bushies do plenty of finger pointing of their own. Maybe Bush's shoulders aren't strong enough for the responsibility that the job entails.