Republicans blame the troops

[billvon 3,131]

Rudy Guiliani, while stumping for the president, found a novel way to deal with the missing-explosives issue - blame the troops. Denying the issue isn't working, and a simple "hey, so some explosives went missing; we'll do better next time" isn't an option, so following the old shit-rolls-downhill philosophy, our troops in Iraq were an obvious target:

"No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough?"

http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_302174510.html

[pajarito 0]

I don't believe the White House authorized or publicly agreed with those comments by Rudy. Did they?

[wmw999 2,600]

I'm sure they didn't. And, in one sense, it was the troops who were there. So, like almost any other statement made in the last month, this one can be tortured to say anything.

In fact, just to prove it...

Quote

So, like almost any other statement made in the last month, this one can be tortured to say anything

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[TheAnvil 0]

JACKASS ears and smiles in amusement>

You take the position that a military commander would not be responsible had he made the decision to not guard such a dump? You maintain that POTUS and his staff should be involved in making decisions at that level?

Bill, having dealt with several flag officers on several occasions - I just had a meeting with a two star on Tuesday - I assure you unequivocally that such a thing is preposterous. IF the explosives were left unguarded, a military officer IS to blame. Kerry knows this and is playing on public ignorance to gain votes. It's sickening on many levels...amusing somewhat in the abstract.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

And if a military commander made a mistake, I'm sure the rush to war without proper planning when there was no immediate need to rush to war was not a factor whatsoever? It has nothing to do with the growing quagmire in Iraq, right? No influence on the inability to secure strategic weapons stockpiles, right? Not a significant cause of military errors at all. It's all due to incompetent troops and military leaders and nothing to do with the poorly framed time table demanded of them by the man making the decisions.

Double-

[TheAnvil 0]

This unbridled hatred of GWB and your reaction to it is most amusing.

- Rushing to war without proper planning? Preposterous. An invasion of Iraq had undoubtedly been planned many times over. The US military has been planning to fight conflicts that have and have not happened under a myriad of different conditions for years. War Plan Orange. Excellent book - you should read it.

- having a few friends over in Iraq and a brother who has been there thrice, it's hard not to chuckle at your quagmire comment, though given the media's performance I can see why you would say that

The media's performance during the entire Iraq war has been pathetic. Go to a library or a bookstore and grab Bozell's book, 'Weapons of Mass Distortion', and read the chapter on the Iraq war over a cup of coffee.

'It's the administration's fault weapons dumps weren't guarded' holds almost as much water as 'Rumsfeld is directly responsible for the Abu Ghraib incident(s)'.

Quite amusing. JACKASS juice.>

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[pajarito 0]

Blah...blah...blah...blah...Bush wins in 04....blah...blah...blah....blah.....

[kelpdiver 2]

Given the long lead time to prepare for war, I don't buy that one. Part of the reason we went in anyway without world support was the massive effort to plan and stage for war. There was nothing wrong with the military plans; the quick defeat of Iraq proved that. You'd make a better argument in that the oil fields were prioritized well above all else.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Rushing to war without proper planning? Preposterous. An invasion of Iraq had undoubtedly been planned many times over. The US military has been planning to fight conflicts that have and have not happened under a myriad of different conditions for years

No doubt, but Bush and Rumsfeld ignored the recommendations of the military. They deviated from the military plan and used their own that sent less troops and had different goals than what military experts recommended.

Quote

- having a few friends over in Iraq and a brother who has been there thrice, it's hard not to chuckle at your quagmire comment, though given the media's performance I can see why you would say that

Ask them how much they enjoy walking around the streets of Baghdad. According to a recently retired marine colonel and a Time mag reporter who returned from iraq last week and appeared on Bill O'Reilly, you can't anymore. You could a year ago, but now you can't walk around in public without fear of kidnapping and/or death.

Quote

The media's performance during the entire Iraq war has been pathetic. Go to a library or a bookstore and grab Bozell's book, 'Weapons of Mass Distortion', and read the chapter on the Iraq war over a cup of coffee.

This coming from the guy who blasts the books that come from former members of the administration as propaganda.

Quote

'It's the administration's fault weapons dumps weren't guarded' holds almost as much water as 'Rumsfeld is directly responsible for the Abu Ghraib incident(s)'.

No, bad analogy. Rumsfeld is not responsible for the criminal actions of soldiers. I've never attributed blame to Rumsfeld for that. Bush however is responsible, as commander in chief, of the overall policies and goals of the military action. Those goals were to look for WMD that weren't there and to secure the oil wells. Nothing else.

[nigel99 644]

Bush is good at planning for war - just hopeless at planning for the post war phase.

This has been proven in Afganistan & Iraq.

Maybe he doesn't think he'll win and therefore no need to bother? By now he should have learn't his lesson - but maybe its politics - No US troops for Nation building thing? Who knows but some of us are getting pissed off with him blowing countries up & leaving them in ruins

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Bush is good at planning for war - just hopeless at planning for the post war phase.

The latter is much much harder for anyone. It's even harder when you don't have a clear goal, and I don't think they really thought too far beyond "eat sand, Saddam!"

[nigel99 644]

unfortunately the "eat sand Saddam" (nice phrase), mindset with virtually no post war planning has resulted in terrorist havens. One of Bush's key strategies is eliminating safe havens for terrorists - defined by his team as "lawless states without proper government". He's created 1 haven (Iraq) & not solved Afganistan.

At least one reason why Bush politically should have got into bed with the UN at the beginning, was that they have beauracrates who are better than his team at that type of planning. Secondly while I dislike the man, strategically if he had engaged the UN, he could blame them for the shite nation building - and keep his nose clean.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[flyingferret 0]

So Guiliani = GOP?!

I mean they do both have G's in them, but come on Bill.

So, I guess I can take Teresa Kerry's words as DNC platform?
You really should write headlines for the New York Times.

Whatever happened to real issues, real journalism, and real accountability.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

unfortunately the "eat sand Saddam" (nice phrase), mindset with virtually no post war planning has resulted in terrorist havens. One of Bush's key strategies is eliminating safe havens for terrorists - defined by his team as "lawless states without proper government". He's created 1 haven (Iraq) & not solved Afganistan.

I don't agree - the terrorists - I'd prefer to label the Iraqis as either reactionaries or revolutionaries. You depose a regime from power, of course they're going to want to get it back. But what Bush did accomplish is removing two nations where idependent terrorist groups enjoyed state support. And all others will think about the consequences for hosting such peoples.

"Eat sand, Saddam!" was actually written by Tom Toles, a very talented political cartoonist in 1990. This was when Bush Sr. was going on and on about lines in the sand and blah blah. Toles speculated how ole Ronnie would have handled the affair.

Quote

At least one reason why Bush politically should have got into bed with the UN at the beginning, was that they have beauracrates who are better than his team at that type of planning.

I'm sorry, was this meant as a joke? Beauracracy is exactly the word to describe the UN, who utterly failed to prevent this inevitable clash. Have they ever transitioned a dictatorship to a peaceful democracy either?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The latter is much much harder for anyone. It's even harder when you don't have a clear goal, and I don't think they really thought too far beyond "eat sand, Saddam!"

My biggest question is still why?

I don't buy the WMD thing.
I don't buy the greater good for the world and Iraqis.

Why would Bush go after Saddam, when we all know that it had nothing to do with 9/11 and in his haste of going into Iraq, they have certainly put OBL on the backburner.

Why the determintation and haste to get Saddam and get control of Iraq?

[billvon 3,131]

>You take the position that a military commander would not be
>responsible had he made the decision to not guard such a dump?

If a military commander did not have the troops to both perform his mission (which was to get to Baghdad) and to perform his secondary mission (guarding a bombed-out facility) then yes, he would not be responsible for the failure of the secondary mission.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Have you seen the recent video showing the US Troops looking at the weapons post-invasion? In fact, the weapons still were locked down at the time.

It seems to be apparent that the weapons dump went missing after we were there.

Now, the real question is - where are they now? And will they be used on us? Or, are they being used on our troops right now?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[flyingferret 0]

Kinda like a RW tandem physically cannot be misrouted, so if a packer misroutes a Strong tandem, it is Strong's fault?

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[billvon 3,131]

> So Guiliani = GOP?!

Giuliani is a GOP leader, campaigning for Bush.

>So, I guess I can take Teresa Kerry's words as DNC platform?

They often are taken as just that, and are reported as such. If Ted Kennedy said that George Bush should be assassinated, ten threads here would start "democrats want Bush dead" - and newspaper headlines would read "Prominent democrat pushes assassination."

[flyingferret 0]

And that video proves conclusively that it was 'those' weapons at 'that' site, out of the thousands in Iraq?

Damn, I wish my freefly videos were that good, I could sell coaching for $$$

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[billvon 3,131]

> Kinda like a RW tandem physically cannot be misrouted, so if a
>packer misroutes a Strong tandem, it is Strong's fault?

So is it safe to say that you blame the troops who were there as well?

[flyingferret 0]

The difference is this Bill:

Democrats refers to plural Democrats.

GOP literally equals Grand Ole Party. Used singularly it is denotes a party.

Had you said republicans, I would not have said peep.

Split hairs? Maybe, but the pen is mightier than the sword.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why would Bush go after Saddam, when we all know that it had nothing to do with 9/11 and in his haste of going into Iraq, they have certainly put OBL on the backburner.

Why the determintation and haste to get Saddam and get control of Iraq?

This isn't complicated. Getting rid of Saddam has been a policy goal of the past 3 Administrations and 9/11 gave the political license to go do it.

I don't know how much support for the concept has fallen to as it drags on, but last year had 80-90% support for the invasion. That wouldn't have been there in 2000.

[billvon 3,131]

> And that video proves conclusively that it was 'those' weapons at
>'that' site, out of the thousands in Iraq?

Pretty much. The doors and the IAEA seals were shown, the boxes say "AL QAQAA" on them, and the video shows a very large amount of explosives. Might it have been faked? Sure, but given that the footage has been around a while, it's unlikely.

[flyingferret 0]

IF it is proven that the weapons were moved under our watch, then I believe the burden falls upon a field commander, if that is how you define troops. Hierarchical leadership is all about delegation, not micromanagement. Sometimes delegation falls, sometimes best efforts are not enough.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.