Bush: "Politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job."

[bigtree]

Bush today: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070423.html

"I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job . . . Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job."



"The Creator has not thought proper to mark those in the forehead who are of stuff to make good generals. We are first, therefore, to seek them blindfold, and then let them learn the trade at the expense of great losses. --Thos. Jefferson

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. got mirror?

tell me more about this surge thingie that a washington pol instructed the Military to follow

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. Is Bush a politician?

[CrazyOrangeCat]

4. he's king.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. sorry I forgot

[Monkeyman]

3. A AWOL President does not have room to talk

[lazer47]

8. Your only AWOL for 30days

after that you are a f**king deserter and supposed to be shot, or hung

[Monkeyman]

13. Yep Your Right so can we jail Bush

[lazer47]

15. Since medieval is the way they want to act, forget jail

and think dungeon,

[Monkeyman]

17. LOL

[AndyA]

5. And wasn't it Bush who replaced the top brass in the field when they

didn't tell him what he wanted to hear?

Hypocrisy strikes again! Do as I say, not as I do.

IMPEACH!

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Now, let's be accurate - he didn't tell those generals how to do their

jobs. He simply fired them, and replaced them with people who agreed with him.

See the difference?

General - I don't think that a troop surge is going to work.

* - Well, you're going to make it work. I'm tellin ya, put another 30,000 in Bagdhad.

Compared with...

General - I don't think that a troop surge is going to work.

* - Yer fired.

[AndyA]

21. How very Rovian of you to make that clarification!

:rofl:

[MADem]

6. Presidents who don't understand the concept of Free Speech in America should be forced to stand on

the Mall in DC, reading the entire fucking Constitution ALOUD for four hours a day for a week.

Despite what his mangling of the language might do to the poor passers-by....

[w4rma]

7. How many top generals has Smirk forced into early retirement now? (nt)

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. He's all about the generals when things turn to shit.

It's all up to them now, before, when he was the "popular wartime president" he was the decider.

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. Then name them! Tell us which politicians are doing this

So far, the only 'politicians' "telling generals how to do their job" has been Bush, unless he's also abdicated his role as Commander in Chief. :shrug:

:crazy: :freak:

[Lobster Martini]

19. Abdication? Done.

If searching for a "war czar" isn't abdicating the position of Commander-in-Chief, I will give you a donut.

[Norquist Nemesis]

22. Except they mis-named the position of 'war czar' or 'execution chief'

or whatever. They should just name him/her "Chiefly Responsible Stooge" and be honest about it. He's not looking to abdicate; he's looking to set up a fall guy.

[bdamomma]

11. who is bush kidding it is his way or the highway.

we have a big problems in the WH. This man is definitley wrapping himself in a delusional cloud of being a King, he just does not understand.

[rodeodance]

12. thats his lesson learned from VN??

[Loge23]

18. No, only incompetent hacks should! (eom)

[originalpckelly]

20. Isn't that sort of like encouraging a military dictatorship?

:shrug:

[bumblebee1]

23. How about two words regarding firing of generals, eh President Bush?

Hitler. Russia.

[BuyingThyme]

24. I really wish some fucking Dems would seize this moment.

General Petraeus wrote a whole fucking book saying that the current strategy would not work because they simply don't have enough troops. So it's Bush (Cheney) who's doing exactly what Bush is accusing the Dems (Harry) of doing.

This is a softball. Hit it, Dems!

Petraeus wrote the book, but can he follow it?

By Sarah Sewall
Special to The Washington Post

...

On the surface, President Bush's new ''surge'' strategy appears to coincide with Petraeus' approach to counterinsurgency: providing security for the population and allowing the host government to take charge. But if you hold the president's strategy up to the light of Petraeus' doctrine, there's only one conclusion you can draw: You can't get there from here. The Bush plan is burdened with three main deficiencies: too few capable U.S., allied and Iraqi counterinsurgent forces; weak U.S. efforts at promoting political and economic reform; and corrupt or feckless Iraqi institutions and leadership. The administration's strategy may have changed, but the supporting components have not. And even if the general asks his chain of command to address these shortfalls, it's unlikely that fixes can be found.

According to the new counterinsurgency field manual, the proper ''troop-to-task'' ratio for Baghdad requires 120,000 U.S. and allied security forces. During his confirmation hearings, Petraeus carefully predicted that the present numbers will rise to 85,000, but only with some important caveats: if there is a full surge of 21,500 additional U.S. troops (recent administration hints of stopping deployments midway through the increase raise questions about this, however), and if you count all Iraqi security forces (which presumes that the troops both report for duty and prove capable - both large assumptions). If you also count private American and foreign security contractors and the Iraqi guards that protect government ministries, the counterinsurgent numbers increase by tens of thousands.

...

Sarah Sewall is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense and director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University.


http://www.morningsentinel.com/news/2007/0227/Commentary_Cent/016.html

[gravity]

25. Pot, meet Kettle

[katmondoo]

26. And non medical people should not be telling doctors how to treat women