'Has Bush neutered his generals?'

President Petraeus will come back with a glowing report for Prez Chimpy, you watch......but of course it won't be good enough that we won't need to "Stay The Course" until Jan. 09.

Patraeus is a Republican lapdog who was doing re-elect George W Bush commercials in 2004.
If you are a General with any sort of independent thought process you have already been fired by this pathetic administration.

Who is the Commander in Chief anyway and since when does a democracy like America let the military dictate it's foreign policy?

Neutering his generals!! How ridiculous!

NO ONE is neutered under Bush -- especially if they're careful to do exactly what he tells them, WHEN he tells them to do it, and as long as they don't say anything that could be construed as critical of Bush or anybody in his Administration, or any Republican, or any IDEAL held by the Republican Party, or anything any of them have done or said or thought, or might do, say or think, or .....

And, before anybody brings it up, PLEASE refrain from commenting on neutering anybody's privates. Thank you.

Army Chief of Staff Shinseki testified before Congress that the Iraq mission would require "several hundred thousand" troops. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz responded "[Shinseki] is wildly off the mark."

Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld's strategy prevailed over Shinseki and here we are 4 1/2 years later with the "surge" and still no Iraqi political reconcilliation.

And the 26% dead-enders to their Dubya-defending dieing breath want to give the Commander Guy more time.

Sigh.

The title of this article assumes the generals had (parts) in the first place.

As many who read this blog regularly remember, I've long believed that it is NOT Chimpy McFlightsuit who is the Commander in Chief. He may be the "Commander Guy", but he is NOT the Commander in Chief. That title properly belongs to Dick "Shotgun" Cheney. Cheney is a devourer of massive amounts of raw intelligence data - in his attempts to try to justify his positions on Iraq. Cheney's positions have routinely conflicted with those of the professional intelligence community. We know that from the beginning, Cheney's views have prevailed over those of the professionals. Given where we currently are in Iraq, we all know how correct he's been . . . .

The tactics Patraeus has been implementing and finding some success with are the smartest course this leadership has taken since the war began. The tactics in themselves validate something that the Bush team was in denial about since the beginning of the war -- America is an occupying force that needs to secure territtory and then slowly build bridges with an extremely volatile and fractious Iraqi public. As Colin Powell said, you break it, you own it. If this reality had been met in 2003, a lot of lives could have been saved. The fantasy that we would be greeted as liberators with flowers and parades was ridiculous based on the history of the region, and much of history in general. We wasted valuable time and allowed the simmering hatred between Sunnis and Shiites to fester and build. The tactics now being used by Patraeus have to overcome now not only the obstacles that already existed, but so much more, like the frustration of lacking infastructure, no jobs, and of ocurse, 4 years of internal killing and bloodshed. Ultimately, even if the new tactics that are making some progress were implemented in April 2003, they still would not solve the fact that the Iraqis are not ready for a democracy. Bush loves it when a plan comes together.

"BUSH ISN'T NEUTERING HIS GENERALS, DICK CHENEY IS"

WE ALL KNOW DICK CHENEY IS THE "YOUR FIRED GUY"

HE LET GO OF A GREATER GENERAL OF THEM, GENERAL DUGAN WHO THE COMMANDER IN THE FIRST GULF WAR. WHEN HE HAD HIS SIGHTS ON SADAAM, AND WE COULD OF TAKEN HIM OUT WAY BACK THEN. NO...DICK CHENEY IS THE ONE WHO SUMMONED THIS GENERAL TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND SAID "YOUR FIRED"

CHENEY DOESN'T LIKE LEAKS! HE DOESN'T LIKE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT HE WAS FOR ASSINATIONS BUT AS LONG AS HE WASN'T THE ONE THAT BLAMED FOR ITS ENDORSEMENT, EVEN THOUGH HE ORDERED IT.

WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE GREATEST GENERALS OF OUR TIME. 001-006 ONE BY ONE THEY GET LAID TO REST. ONE BY ONE. UNLIKE PUTIN WITH SOME DIGNITY AND NO SUBMARINE INSPECTIONS THAT GO STRAY IN THE DEEP SEA.

SAY WHAT I WANT OR GIVE ME THAT STAR! SUPREME NATO ALLIED COMMANDER IN CHIEF. OOOPS NOT YOU SIR!

BUSH HAS NEUTERED ONLY THE GOP SURVIVORS. HIS VERY ON VETO EVERYTHING AMERICAN GANG/ORGANIZATION/CLUB. HE IS THE SHIPS CAPTAIN, AND HE IS DEFINITELY DETERMINED TO GO DOWN WITH THE SHIP, AND ITS MEN, AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ESPECIALLY THE 4TH AMENDMENT.

AMERICA ALL ABOARD!

I'LL BE BACK FROM VACATION IN THREE WEEKS. CAN'T YA'LL ALL WAIT!

Hey Brucie Whinerdyce, this is for your eyes only:

Some very interesting news from a poll of Republican voters recently done by the University of Iowa.

Romney topped the poll with 26.9 percent of respondents saying they intend to support him at the January caucus. He is up 10 points since the last University of Iowa poll in late March. Giuliani was well behind at 11.3 percent, down 9 points, while McCain fell an astonishing 17.7 points to 3.2 percent, putting him in sixth place...

Perhaps most surprising of all, BARACK OBAMA actually finished third as the preferred general election candidate of registered REPUBLICANS, at 6.7 percent, behind Romney (21.8 percent), and Giuliani (10 percent), but ahead of Thompson (5.2 percent) and McCain (1.8 percent).

Doug, Gen Tommy Franks also had a lot to do with the number of troops. He was in charge at the beginning. He continue to say the 150,000 was enough. In any war, you're going to have one general say this many is needed, another general say this many is needed. It's been that way for generations.

There were generals who thought there weren't enough troops for D-Day. MacArthur openly fought with Truman. Nothing new here.

Truth is, Franks, Myers, Pace and all have largely been right on everything. Not perfect right, but right most of the time.

John D.,

Ike would have used more troops on D-Day - if they were available. MacArthur wanted to take on China and Truman did the right thing in firing him.

Shinseki was Franks' boss. And if Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld had listened to Shinseki we (and Iraq) would be in a lot better position than we are today.

Now that we've got our history give and take out of the way.

Where pray tell is the Iraqi political reconcilliation that one and all say is necessary to have anything remotely resembling a lasting peace in Iraq?

Oh, that's right. We have to wait and see what President Petraeus has to say in September. 4 1/2 years and counting...

Truth is, Franks, Myers, Pace and all have largely been right on everything. Not perfect right, but right most of the time.

Posted by: John D | August 9, 2007 3:35 PM

Please please please please pretty please come up with an example of something ANY of those men have been right on? Please please pretty please?!?!?!

You are hopeless times 1,000 Mr. Dyslin. Why aren't you in Iraq right now fighting this war that you cheerlead for and make excuses for in ever-more-strident way each and every day?

Franks kicked butt in Afghanistan, first of all. I remember all you Loons and your media friends telling us how we couldn't win in Afghaniatan, that we would lose like the Soviets did, but lo and behold, the Taliban fleed two months later.
Franks also kicked butt in Iraq. I remember you Loons and your friends in the media telling us how it would be a long drawn out war in Iraq. But, gee, within a couple of weeks, the Hussein regime was gone, defeated.

Oh and Mr. Fantasy World, )or is that John E? dt? Janet, dear? Or any of the other loons so infatuated with me you must use my name all the time?) I am not hopeless. I have a clue, you and your ilk do not.

John D.,

And the Iraqi political solution?

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience ... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic process."
-- President Dwight Eisenhower, farewell speech to the nation, January 17, 1961

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
-- Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

Beware the unchecked power of the military-industrial complex. ...

John D. tells us Franks kicked butt in Afghanistan. The jury is still out on that one.
And if Franks kicked butt in Iraq, the U.S. wouldn't have nearly 165,000 troops stationed there. You are hopeless and clueless and a liar.

Johm D.:
You do understand I hope that we have been getting our fanny kicked for four and a half years in Iraq. I hope you do not think that our prolonged failure has been caused by "bad fairies"
Our cowardly generals have been afraid to stand up to the DOD and have let the country and the armed services down.
Go along to get along was established as military practice by that great "dog robber" Colin Powell.
Each year our position has been worse than the previous year.
This is failure and prolonged failure. The generals leading our forces must take the blame.
They let polititians dictate force size and tactics. They did not take personal risks to do the right thing.

John D, The Hussein regime was gone within a few weeks...and we have been fighting a long, drawn out war in Iraq ever since. I guess the Loons were right. Thanks for pointing that out John.

Still waiting for the revenue from oil sales to pay for the Iraq war. When will that happen?

Oh, the terrible, terrible puns that come to mind.

Has 'Weepy Bohner' been spayed yet?

Thank you, thank you...I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

Earth to Doug R., in October of 2001 the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. By December of 2001, the Taliban ran and Afghanistan fell. Soon thereafter were elections in which Hamid Karzai won election as Afghanistan's leader.

And to the rest of the Loony Leftists, please tell the sons and daughters of the U.S. military they are getting their butts kicked in Iraq, OK?

And to the rest of the Loony Leftists, please tell the sons and daughters of the U.S. military they are getting their butts kicked in Iraq, OK?

Posted by: John D | August 9, 2007 9:14 PM

You've got your connections over there. You tell em. While your at it tell there families why they're being asked to do more extended tours of duty than they bargained for. Chickenhawk!!!