Bush is an Embarrassment

Published on November 30, 2004 By COL Gene In Politics

The reception President Bush received today in Canada is a true embarrassment to the United States of America. We have a president who was despised by our closest neighbor and by the people of most of the European nations.

I cannot remember a time when the world had so little regard for our nation. The story is the same no matter were you turn with very few exceptions -- the United States is not trusted and our president is looked upon as an arrogant go it alone leader. It is hard to see how the next four years will benefit the people of our country or mend the huge rifts that exist between the United States and much of the rest of the world.

Comments (Page 8)

106

Evorg

on Dec 04, 2004

I read Gen. Franks book, American Soldier, and this is what it says "When President Bush focused world attention on the threat of Iraq, Franks seized the moment to implement a bold new vision of joint warfare in planning Operation Iraqi Freedom. Rejecting Desert Storm-style massive troop deployment in favor of flexibility and speed, Franks was questioned by the defense establishment -- including Secretary of State Colin Powell. Yet his vision was proven on the ground: Within three weeks, Baghdad had fallen. "

Also Bush sent a one-time Army intelligence operative and CIA agent, Goss to head the CIA. To get rid of more Dinosaurs like Scheur.

107

drmiler

on Dec 04, 2004

Reply #109 By: Lee1776 - 12/4/2004 12:19:30 AM
If we had gone into Iraq with the 300,000-400,000 troops that Gen Franks and the Fomer Army CoS said were required

Please provide me with the link to when Gen. Franks wanted 300,000-400,000 troops. I got his book and it says the oppsite

COL Gene you mean to tell me all this time you were trying to stuff down my throat that Gen Franks wanted more troops that it was/is a lie?

108

COL Gene

on Dec 04, 2004

Lee776 and drmiler Franks troop levels

Read," Plan of Attack", by Bob Woodward. He reviews the planning that Gen Franks did in detail for the Iraq War. There are many references to the troop levels Gen Franks said were needed and that he used in his planning. Just one specific reference is on page 96. He is sighting Op plan 1003 ... After 90 days force levels about 160,000... after 135 days - Phase Four stabilizig and occuping... it takes about 300,000.

At some point, Franks was told he could not have the levels of troops he used in his plan and choose to use a force less than half the size he said was needed to do the job. The 300,000 - 400,000 in the Franks planning is 100% in line with what the the Army CoS said were required. Even more important, time has shown that the troop levels Bush and Rummy decided to use were far too low. Today Franks is faced with the fact that he agreed to force levels that were too low and does not want to admit his erroer in not holding to his plans. We did not have the troop levels to secure the borders, control the populated areas that were bypassed as hot beds of opposition on our march to get rid of Saddam, we did not stop our enemies from using the explosive in the country and we could not protect the pipelines, water and electric. We had almost 500,000 troops in the first Gulf War in a smaller country where the population wanted us to help them. Face it- Bush and Rummy screwed up BIG TIME and Americans are being killed and wounded because of that error! We have lost the support of the Iraq population and they look at us is an occupying force that they want to leave. The very best thing is to have the new government, after the January elections, ask us to leave. Then we can get out and save some face. If a civil war results, we can say, well we were asked to leave by the elected government of Iraq. We had no choice.

109

whoman69

on Dec 04, 2004

And yet they could not protect anything that they held. Looting, lawlessness in the streets, kidnapping for both politcal and monetary reasons, lack of basic necessities like power, water, medical supplies and foodstuffs were the result. The Bush administration looked at this in the short sighted comparison of the Americans liberating France on D-day. There's a difference, Eisenhower kept France running after it was taken over, and Iraq had not been conquered by a foreign power as France had.

110

COL Gene

on Dec 04, 2004

The truth is the United states did not have a military force, Active and reserve/guard that could field an army large enough to do the job. Bush knew he could not get the support to provide the troop levels in the Franks planning or as recommended by the Army CoS. So he dug down into his vast military experience, gained by his four years as a Air National Guard LT and gave us his "bold vision" which has proven to be a drastic error which neither Bush or Rummy will ever acknowledge! To date this war has cost the United States about 1,300 dead, 10,000 combat and 15,000 non combat injuries and about $200 billion and counting. All this to have estabished a shooting gallery for our enemies to use aginst our troops. There is no assurance that with all that investment we will not end up with a country that is as much of a danger to America and the West as the old Iraq. Great leadership, Mr. Bush!

111

drmiler

on Dec 04, 2004

Reply #112 By: COL Gene - 12/4/2004 8:37:30 AM
Lee776 and drmiler Franks troop levels

Read," Plan of Attack", by Bob Woodward. He reviews the planning that Gen Franks did in detail for the Iraq War. There are many references to the troop levels Gen Franks said were needed and that he used in his planning. Just one specific reference is on page 96. He is sighting Op plan 1003 ... After 90 days force levels about 160,000... after 135 days - Phase Four stabilizig and occuping... it takes about 300,000.

And just why, should we read someone elses book? Don't you think that Franks himself would be the better person to put on paper what was in his own head? And just where did Bob Woodward get his information? If he got it frrom Franks himself, then someone is lying! And I don't believe Franks is the one doing the lying.

112

COL Gene

on Dec 04, 2004

drmiler

You Bushies are all the same. Whenever a source is not supportive to Bush they are wrong. Woodward interviewed Franks and the data is a detailed time line of the planning for the Iraq War. Yes Franks did plan on 300,000 troops and Bush used his great military experience to create the mess we are in in Iraq by not allowing the people with the military experience to do their job . I guess the Army CoS does not know what he is doing. Well just look at Iraq. We are not in control by any means. We did not control the borders, the amo dumps, the populated areas or the pipelines. We can not even prevent attacks just outside the Green Zone. Bush is a strong leader going in the wrong direction. Saddam was also a strong leader and look at what he did.

113

Solnac

on Dec 04, 2004

I love it. Can you imagine him saying that??????? I love the "please" part.

Granted, we are different people, but *I* would say it. Maybe a bit more tactfully, but I, as a politican wouldn't want to be an idiot in front of the American people.

As for the rest of it, our own house is divided, what the hell do we need war for?

114

drmiler

on Dec 04, 2004

Reply #116 By: COL Gene - 12/4/2004 4:56:27 PM
drmiler

You Bushies are all the same. Whenever a source is not supportive to Bush they are wrong. Woodward interviewed Franks and the data is a detailed time line of the planning for the Iraq War. Yes Franks did plan on 300,000 troops and Bush used his great military experience to create the mess we are in in Iraq by not allowing the people with the military experience to do their job .

And you anti-bushies are all the same too. When something does not support your point of view, you have a tendency to ignore it. You never addressed the point I was trying to make! Woodward is saying one thing and Franks is saying another in *his* own book. I'm not the one saying he's wrong. Gen Franks is the one saying Wooward's wrong. Get a grip.

115

COL Gene

on Dec 04, 2004

The inability for us to control Iraq shows who was correct. Franks folded his tent even though his planning provided for 300,000. He is now faced with the fact that he was wrong to go ahead with less than half the force levels he planned for. If Gen Franks had the guts that the Army CoS had, he would have told Bush he needed the larger number troops to do the job. Bush has NO IDEA WHAT IT TAKES! Look at the first Gulf War. We had almost 500,000 troops and the country was smaller and the population wanted us to liberate them. If you believe we are in control in Iraq you are living in a dream world.

116

drmiler

on Dec 04, 2004

Reply #119 By: COL Gene - 12/4/2004 6:54:26 PM
The inability for us to control Iraq shows who was correct. Franks folded his tent even though his planning provided for 300,000. He is now faced with the fact that he was wrong to go ahead with less than half the force levels he planned for. If Gen Franks had the guts that the Army CoS had, he would have told Bush he needed the larger number troops to do the job. Bush has NO IDEA WHAT IT TAKES! Look at the first Gulf War. We had almost 500,000 troops and the country was smaller and the population wanted us to liberate them. If you believe we are in control in Iraq you are living in a dream world.

Do you doubt that we have the ability to destroy the country if we wanted to?

The ability to destroy something is the ultimate form of control

117

kingbee

on Dec 04, 2004

The ability to destroy something is the ultimate form of control

and there ya have it folks. my dad can kick your dads ass proving might does make right rather than the reverse.

118

Molly0597

on Dec 04, 2004

I think it's sad that so many of you are locked into the mindset that we should never evaluate how other nations feel about American policies. It would be one thing if this were Lichtenstein or someplace like that, but America has an enormous influence on the other nations. As the most powerful nation and the global police, I think it's fair to say so. I respect the idea that we shouldn't let others make our decisions for us and we should look to our interests as well, but it becomes a problem when we hardly consider them.

I almost cried when I watched a news special on Bush and Kerry and their backgrounds and I heard Bush say something about making decisions based on what he felt was right in his gut and sticking to them, no matter what anyone else thought. There is a definite distinction between looking at our own interests and completely ignoring the interests of other nations, and I think Bush crossed the line.

There definitely were times when other nations like the US. There's probably a reason why they all started hating us during Bush's reign.

119

drmiler

on Dec 04, 2004

Reply #121 By: kingbee - 12/4/2004 10:10:56 PM
The ability to destroy something is the ultimate form of control

and there ya have it folks. my dad can kick your dads ass proving might does make right rather than the reverse.

What a clown. Did you not reconize the quote? It's from literature and way before our time.

120

dabe

on Dec 04, 2004

What a clown. Did you not reconize the quote? It's from literature and way before our time.

What literature? When?

As for the relevance of it, I'd say it's a completely outdated mindset. We don't just go in and crush other countries just to show we can "control" them. That's lunacy. Kind of reminiscent of Ghengis Khan and the like. Is that what we want to show the world? That we can crush them, destroy them, bomb them back into the stone age, just so they know we ultimately can "control" them? That's barbaric. Additionally, that seems so contrary to the argument that the arms race is necessary to act as a deterent, so another country won't want to nuke us. There may be some argument made for that. But, so we can "control" them. Get a grip!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!