Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Factoring in Reality Is Important
#1
I am fearful Bush is too rigid to face reality. Call it what you will,either the Shia will kill or move out their Sunni persecutors and we ought to make policy with this understanding in mind.

The Israelis ought to do the same with their persecutors. Moving people 50-100 miles across a river isn't the harshest of conduct and "can't we all get along" doesn't REALLY seem realistic on earth after several thousands years of experience so far.





http//westhawk.blogspot.com/2006/12/will-mr-bushs-new-plan-acknowledge.html#links
Reply
#2
This morning's news has Bush basically saying he can't figure out what to do, after five or six years of not knowing what to do. He may not have what it takes to make tough decisions by himself. Rumsfeld's gone, and Chaney's still there, and they don't know how to get out of the quicksand. In that respect, Bush resembles LBJ.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#3
Fit2BThaied Wrote:This morning's news has Bush basically saying he can't figure out what to do, after five or six years of not knowing what to do. He may not have what it takes to make tough decisions by himself. Rumsfeld's gone, and Chaney's still there, and they don't know how to get out of the quicksand. In that respect, Bush resembles LBJ.
---------------------------------------------
Well. Bush didn't have any good advisers as for the Iraq policy. He can't help it himself. Or he should have asked his father for more advice.

/track_snake
Reply
#4
track_snake Wrote:
Fit2BThaied Wrote:This morning's news has Bush basically saying he can't figure out what to do, after five or six years of not knowing what to do. He may not have what it takes to make tough decisions by himself. Rumsfeld's gone, and Chaney's still there, and they don't know how to get out of the quicksand. In that respect, Bush resembles LBJ.
---------------------------------------------
Well. Bush didn't have any good advisers as for the Iraq policy. He can't help it himself. Or he should have asked his father for more advice.

/track_snake
I agree, track snake. And I don't know if Bush knows how to make his own decisions. I think he got to the White House without ever having to make any more important decisions than to stop ingesting abusive substances. The media indicates that junior hardly ever asks his father for advice. Obviously, the elder Bush was always an internationalist, a diplomat, etc., and only rescued Kuwait according to a UN mandate that he respected.

I hope he'll make a right decision soon.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#5
Track,

I think GW is a prisoner of his pre dispositioned belief system as most Americans are.

We bombed and slaughtered Serbs allegedly to prevent them "ethnic cleansing" Albanians out of their own nation. As it happened,all we did was preserve the rights of Albanians to do the same to Serbs in Kosovo.

Yet,to this day most Yanks will agree it was proper to do(not myself).

GW thought that Iraq would take up the liberal democracy mentality and now that it is obvious the Shia intend the same as the Sunni did,he hasn't changed his mind and recognized reality. My guess is almost all Americans suffer these delusional problems,we cannot seem to understand our mindset is ours only.

I wish Bush at this point would evacuate Iraq and let the Shia do what they are going to do anyway. Rule Iraq harshly.
Reply
#6
Fit2BThaied Wrote:This morning's news has Bush basically saying he can't figure out what to do, after five or six years of not knowing what to do. He may not have what it takes to make tough decisions by himself. Rumsfeld's gone, and Chaney's still there, and they don't know how to get out of the quicksand. In that respect, Bush resembles LBJ.
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Do not get a job as a political analyst, or historian.
Find a sentence where he says "I don't know what to do next, or now"
You posses and amazing ability to interpet what has not been said from what has been said and done.
The only problem is you don't get it right and your not even close.
That far left perspective makes you dyslexic.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government
Edward Abbey
[Image: eagle_1721.png]
Reply
#7
Palladin Wrote:I am fearful Bush is too rigid to face reality. Call it what you will,either the Shia will kill or move out their Sunni persecutors and we ought to make policy with this understanding in mind.

The Israelis ought to do the same with their persecutors. Moving people 50-100 miles across a river isn't the harshest of conduct and "can't we all get along" doesn't REALLY seem realistic on earth after several thousands years of experience so far.





http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2006/12/wil...html#links
On some things he is too rigid on others too forgiving. Hmmm maybe he is human.
As to this. He has been listening to his advisor's and making decisions based on that. What more do you or any one else want from him? Perfection?
No one seems willing to base any of their comments on the lessons of history and the reality of today. For some reason ( I understand why the left does it) everyone wants to take what the media is putting out and make their assumptions based on very biased reporting.
Place it in the context of history and you would discover that we learned from past mistakes and we are doing better than our ancestors did.
The media leads the public to a conclusion and they jump.
He is not inflexible and indeed, over time, has made changes in policy decisions regarding Iraq. They have changed with events, but not to the point where he is running around like a chicken with his head cut off responding to every incident or action. That is the wrong way to go. Policy decisions should be at times very decided and at other times somewhat impromptu but never hasty and never in reaction to singular events.
You do not know what the 'Shia' will do as the vast majority of them seek peace and want to be left alone. If you are referring to Shia militia and thugs you are off the mark. They do not represent all Shia or even a majority. Same with Sunni Militia and thugs. The main part of this 'contest' is in Baghdad, and that is a result of Politics.
I would favor moving our troops out. Encircle the city and allow only refugees without weapons to pass through to other cities. Keep the rest in and let them kill each other, go in later and clean out what remains. That is not going to happen. Now if you still feel he is rigid and won't adapt let me know what it is you think he ought to do beyond 'something'.
As he is not there he must rely on those who are. The current plan is one of infrastructure removal. difficult to accomplish especially with Maliki and Talibani fighting him along the way. (Probably has something to do with thinking they are a sovereign country and duly elected Representatives of their people.)
So then what action next? Develop intell Human intel (HUMINT) like they have been doing, which resulted in those Iranians being nabbed, and keep on trying to remove the heads of the snakes? Sadr is one but that is a political problem that is not going to be solved anytime soon.
Bomb the entire downtown section? A massive casualty producing sweep which may or may not garner all the bad guys? Block by block, again casuality producing, sweeps to clear houses and tag bad guys?
Remove Maliki or Talbani? Train them faster? How do you do that? Train too fast and it is worthless training. Nothing sticks, and all your producing is cannon fodder. Root out the traitors? They are doing that to the best of their ability. So what next? Something?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government
Edward Abbey
[Image: eagle_1721.png]
Reply
#8
eaglestrikes Wrote:
Fit2BThaied Wrote:This morning's news has Bush basically saying he can't figure out what to do, after five or six years of not knowing what to do. He may not have what it takes to make tough decisions by himself. Rumsfeld's gone, and Chaney's still there, and they don't know how to get out of the quicksand. In that respect, Bush resembles LBJ.
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Do not get a job as a political analyst, or historian.
Find a sentence where he says "I don't know what to do next, or now"
You posses and amazing ability to interpet what has not been said from what has been said and done.
The only problem is you don't get it right and your not even close.
That far left perspective makes you dyslexic.
I an not dxlsexic. :o

I'm an ultra-conservative, morally. I would vote with the Amish, except they don't vote!

:o 8-[ :oops: S1 S2 :o Shock My oh my, aren't these emoticons profound.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#9
Fit2BThaied Wrote:
eaglestrikes Wrote:
Fit2BThaied Wrote:This morning's news has Bush basically saying he can't figure out what to do, after five or six years of not knowing what to do. He may not have what it takes to make tough decisions by himself. Rumsfeld's gone, and Chaney's still there, and they don't know how to get out of the quicksand. In that respect, Bush resembles LBJ.
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Do not get a job as a political analyst, or historian.
Find a sentence where he says "I don't know what to do next, or now"
You posses and amazing ability to interpet what has not been said from what has been said and done.
The only problem is you don't get it right and your not even close.
That far left perspective makes you dyslexic.
I an not dxlsexic. :o

I'm an ultra-conservative, morally. I would vote with the Amish, except they don't vote!

:o 8-[ :oops: S1 S2 :o Shock My oh my, aren't these emoticons profound.
You did not provide the quote. Ultra Conservative or Conservative is not the issue. Your conclusion is. If you can, back it up.
I see nothing that says he does not know what to do, now or next, or is confused. I see the same track record he has displayed since he became President. He listens to everyone then makes up his own mind. Now what do you have that backs up your conclusion?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government
Edward Abbey
[Image: eagle_1721.png]
Reply
#10
I give up; I surrender. You win.

Actually, I'm too lazy to find the quote; it's just one of those things that comes up from AP when you get the Yahoo home page, two or three days ago. I started making my mind up about G. W. when he ran for governor the first time - a totally inexperienced politician against a really smart, savvy, fun politician. I checked G. W.'s biography and found him much less ready for the White House than Jimmy Carter was. I read some of his quotes, and watched his decisions to ignore the UN, ignore diplomacy, invade Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. I saw him say in 2000 that the US is bad at peacekeeping or 'nation building.'

Maybe a guy with two Ivy League degrees can actually make a decision. You win. Happy New Year. But five years ago, who'd have thought we'd be looking at another year of occupation of war-torn Iraq?
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#11
Fit2BThaied Wrote:I give up; I surrender. You win.

Actually, I'm too lazy to find the quote; it's just one of those things that comes up from AP when you get the Yahoo home page, two or three days ago. I started making my mind up about G. W. when he ran for governor the first time - a totally inexperienced politician against a really smart, savvy, fun politician. I checked G. W.'s biography and found him much less ready for the White House than Jimmy Carter was. I read some of his quotes, and watched his decisions to ignore the UN, ignore diplomacy, invade Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. I saw him say in 2000 that the US is bad at peacekeeping or 'nation building.'

Maybe a guy with two Ivy League degrees can actually make a decision. You win. Happy New Year. But five years ago, who'd have thought we'd be looking at another year of occupation of war-torn Iraq?

GB gives that impression to everyone, he is an extremely frustrating indivdual to many people. He gives one impression while actually doing something else. Most of his problems have been'appearance'. It appears he is going to cave on some subject then he doesn't cave at all. He appears to be making concessioins then he throws a curve or sticks in a hook. Like his "I will sign a bill to increase the minumum wage when they include permanent tax breaks."
He has said he will listen to what is offered. He has said he will consult.
He has said he has an open mind, all those things could lead one to the conclusion you reached. However history with GB has shown he never gives it all away and he wants something back or in return.
Look at it this way. What would you do if every idea you have put forward as been openly criticed by your political enemies on every occasion and no one idea you put forward is ever good enough. The only thing your enemies want is total withdrawal and surrender. So what is your next step? A committee that might, just might, come up with a better plan. So where is the harm in listening? He already dismissed the Iraq Surrender Group.
Who would have thought that 60 years later we would still be in Japan, Guam, Okinawa, Germany, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, or any of the other places we still continue to have a military presence in.
No need to surrender. I think a discussion on that would be fine.
He really can leave different impressions with different people.
My Cousin still works in the Five Sided slab and the one thing that permeates that place where GB is concerned is that 1. He totally supports the Troops. 2. He will not withdraw support from his Military Commanders and 3. He listens.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government
Edward Abbey
[Image: eagle_1721.png]
Reply
#12
Quote:But five years ago, who'd have thought we'd be looking at another year of occupation of war-torn Iraq?
Many people did and Bush was one of them. He said so on many occasions but you probably did not listen than.
Reply
#13
I don't think Bush and Cheney et al. are like LBJ.

Here's the difference:
LBJ got invovled in a war by accident. He didn't know why the U.S. was in Vietnam other than to project strength to the Soviets and the world, and the mistaken belief that if Vietnam fell to communism, the rest of Indochina would as well.

The Bush administrationknew why they invaded Iraq. This reason was to transform the country into a military base to intimidate other countries into cooperating with the War on Terror, and to protect U.S. oil interests. It was also to put the 1/3rd to 1/2 of the world's oil supply that lies in Iraq under U.S. protection, and thus, U.S. control.

The big miscalculation that Cheney et al. made was that they evidently believed they would be able to control the country through a new, post-Saddam government. I think they probably though they would make a Sunni strongman government and dress it up as a democracy - they were pushing Allawi pretty hard for awhile. It is possible they thought they could create a genuine democracy that would align itself with U.S. interests, but if so they were criminally incompetent to believe that.

But now their plans are ruined because the American people are unwilling to maintain a military base in Iraq, the whole purpose for the invasion.
Reply
#14
Fit Wrote:I started making my mind up about G. W. when he ran for governor the first time - a totally inexperienced politician against a really smart, savvy, fun politician. I checked G. W.'s biography and found him much less ready for the White House than Jimmy Carter was.
Perhaps your choice of biographers mirrors your anti-Bush attitude. How hard would it have been to find a serious and unbiased biographer? In your perusals did you ever read about his astonishing memory? Not quite as eidetic as Reagan's photographic memory which Reagan never bragged about, but close. Paul Harvey once did an entire "Rest of the Story" about GWB's memory.

Your description of the embarrassing Ann Richards is also noteworthy. It was her own state voters who overwhelmingly voted for Bush over her. You might describe her as "smart, savvy, and fun," but being a negative whiner who only resonates with other whiners negates that as an objective label. She never was savvy or smart. She tried to run against Bush by complaining he made his wealth by being the son of a President, yet forgot it was her own bill that asked for building funding for the Texas Rangers that he was part owner of. She multiplied his wealth virtually overnight and then complained about the money she made for him. The media loves soundbytes, and her "He was born with a silver foot in his mouth" was one of their favorites. That he followed the philosophy of Reagan and not his own father is rarely understood. He was annointed by Texas Democrats as a moderate consensus-builder, and they defied their own national party to support him when he ran for President.
Reply
#15
WmLambert Wrote:
Fit Wrote:I started making my mind up about G. W. when he ran for governor the first time - a totally inexperienced politician against a really smart, savvy, fun politician. I checked G. W.'s biography and found him much less ready for the White House than Jimmy Carter was.
Perhaps your choice of biographers mirrors your anti-Bush attitude. How hard would it have been to find a serious and unbiased biographer? .
First, I didn't read a long, semi-fictional biography written by biographers. I probably got his resume out of almanacs like Information Please and World Almanac (more recently, a NYT Almanac), or from the internet.

Second, as an employee and former manager who actually got involved in promotion actions based on the person's record of employment, I look at qualifications (unlike Republicans seem to do). The man was not quite ready for prime time as mayor of a small village when he ran for governor. And for president.

Eaglestrike, thanks mucho for your considerate reply to my post.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)