Bush Leadership Style: Trust Me (Great read!)

A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last week showed that about 70 percent of Americans surveyed supported the war despite a number just as high saying the Bush administration hadn’t done an adequate job of explaining the cost involved, how long the war would last or how many American troops could be killed.

This is an issue only to journalists, who seem to think that any question they can formulate requires an answer. Most people are smarter than journalists, and they understand that humans do not know the future. To demand that Bush -- or anyone else -- "explain" how long the war will last, how much it will cost (depends on how long it lasts), and what the casualties will be (totally unknowable), is ridiculous.

What people really want to be assured of on those issues is that the people who have planned it and are executing it are knowledgeable and competent, and that they are taking what measures they can (given this is a war) to minimize casualties, and only secondarily, costs. The 70% rating means that people are comfortable that this is the case, i.e. that Bush has trustworthy, competent people in place. That most journalists do not believe this is obvious from their questions at the daily press briefings, but they are clearly out of touch and not a little bit arrogant. Here comes Joe Reporter, who wouldn't know an AK-47 from a helicopter, to ask whether a four-star General has considered the possibility that the Iraqis might shoot back. It is to laugh. What's amazing is that so few journalists understand why people are laughing at them.

What I Luv about GW is the fact that he keeps his "eye on the prize".

He runs the race to win. I love that too, he appears to stay focused on the big picture.

Typical of Jimmy Carter was the spectacularly audacious "rescue mission" that resulted in the needless loss of American lives.

I've always wondered how the last two decades might have turned out differently if Carter had announced that the full force of the American military would be used to invade Iran if the hostages were not released in the next 24 hours.

I don't mean a misbegotten long-distance helicopter raid, but an explicit announcement that a large expeditionary force would be coming, regardless of any threats to harm the hostages. It would be an Israeli-fashion operation, with explicit acknowledgement that all the hostages risked being killed-- in which case Tehran and the oil fields and the sea ports would be laid waste, and the officials responsible would face a firing squad.

Probably the one thing that kept Carter from doing so, other than his own milquetoast personality, was the Russian menace. But I really wonder if thousands of lives might not have been saved since then if Carter had taken the podium of the U.N. to announce that this was what we intended to do, and that we would use all necessary means up to and including nuclear war to see that our national will was carried out.

The Arab and Islamic world respects only naked brute force and our current involvement is long past due. I am afraid we will have to keep a boot on their throat for decades to come, perhaps even quarantining all travel to or from the area, if we want peace. So be it.

-ccm

he seemed unburdened with the need to explain himself, detail his motives or elaborate upon his inner thoughts.

The way of a true leader, imo . . .

It isn’t a matter of timetable, it’s a matter of victory.

I've always wondered how the last two decades might have turned out differently if Carter had announced that the full force of the American military would be used to invade Iran if the hostages were not released in the next 24 hours.

Funny, I've often wondered that myself. But then, he wouldn't have been Jimmy Carter, would he.

“This has become a legacy maker or breaker,” Crockett says. “He’ll either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences.”

And our president is just as *worried* about that as he is about everything else the author says he isn't worried about.

Damn, Im glad I voted for "W"!!!