revel wrote:Foxfyre wrote:old europe wrote:I admire the fact that you managed to put these two paragraphs in one and the same post:
Foxfyre wrote:I do not fault him for his reasons for the war in Iraq. He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left. They should have gone in with overwhelming force and completed the job quickly and efficiently. They didn't, but it was their methodology, not their motives that are questionable.
Foxfyre wrote:President Bush is a man of principle and conviction and, unlike the average run of the mill politicians, he is not as subject to being swayed by political expediency or the public opinion pushed in the headlines that morning. People who appreciate honesty in their elected officials admire that.
And the point is that you cannot even see the contradiction in what you're saying. You're the anthropomorphic personification of a neoconservative voter.
Baloney. There is absolutely no contradiction of any kind in the two statements.
I'll try to show you the contradiction, foxfyre.
In the second paragraph you said that Bush does not bow to pressure or "not as subject to being swayed by political expediency."
There is a huge difference between "not bowing to pressure" and "not being as subject to being swayed by political expediency." So OE phrased it as he wished I had said it so that he could attack it more easily. This is a typical Left wingnut tactic of which the Left wingnuts seem incapable of seeing as being blatantly dishonest.
Quote:In the first paragraph you said," He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left."
Yes I did. It is a mistake that both he and his military advisors at that time have admitted.
Quote:You can't have it both ways, either he is "not subject to being swayed by political expediency" therefore the decision to not go in full force is all his own and not the left. Or he does bow to political expediency and the reason he didn't go in full force was because of the political "pressure of the left."
I can absolutely have it as it was. And here is what was:
He made no campaign promises regarding Iraq and, not being a military tactician, he was obligated to depend on the counsel of those who were. The decision to do it surgically neat and clean as it was done was specificially to reduce both loss of life on both sides and to appease the critics who think any death that occurs in war is an atrocity. (The same people of course had no problem with the 50,000 or so that we starved and neglected to death in the prior 12 years.) True conservatives would have gone in with overwhelming force, leveled all enemies no matter how much the liberals howled, won the war, mopped up, and gone home. The President erred in going with a 'liberal-planned war' instead of a conservative one.
He made a lot of campaign statements regarding stem cell research, right to life, faith based initiatives, NCLB, etc. etc. etc. and he has not wavered on any of these. There is no way anybody can accuse him of changing his convictions out of political expediency on any of those. I know its almost unheard of among liberals, but this President actually keeps his promises and does what he says he will do.
I did not make a blanket statement that GWB is a giant among men impervious to public opinion. He is a human being with strengths and weaknesses and occasional feet of clay as all other human beings have. I demand perfection of no person, not even a President of a different party, unlike the Left wingnuts who apply impossible standards only to somebody not in their own party.
The man is a man of conviction and the very few occasions in which he has yielded to public opinion can be counted on far fewer fingers than are found on one hand.
Quote:In any case, you are wrong on all counts, Rumfeld wanted to go in with his vision of a lean mean military and also Bush and his advisors ignored US intelligence warning about how hard the fall out from the ousting of Saddam Hussein would be. (Numerous links have been left to that effect.
You need to read more dear. It is true that there was not universal agreement on how to conduct the initial invasion, but there was sufficient consensus and the President went with the majority view that included his Secretary of Defense and the military commanders who would be in the field. And yes there were misjudgments and there were huge mistakes aplenty as there has been in EVERY war, even those orchestrated by your beloved Clinton.
And now we have a choice. Cut and run and admit defeat to the terrorists. Or get behind the President and the troops and encourage them to get in there and win this thing and get it over with. Stop tying his hands and armchair quarterbacking every decision. And criticize a media that refuses to show any successes or plays them down as unimportant trivia.
I think I do not want a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces who would bow to the advice of several million armchair quarterbacks who don't have a clue what they are talking about but if it makes Bush look bad, it looks good to them.
