Bush's 'days, weeks' add up to 6 months

Wash Times ^ | Joseph Curl

[swarthyguy]

You are placing the United Nations ahead of our GI's.

Worth repeating.

[PhiKapMom]

You are preaching to the choir! Most of my adult life has been spent around Air Force Materiel Command and before that Air Force Logistics Command.

I hear you!

[The Great Satan]

LOL! The stench of denial is overwhelming.

[dirtboy]

LOL! The stench of denial is overwhelming.

Oh, really? So you would have invaded Iraq three months ago with less than 150,000 troops and insufficient supplies and equipment? Or you would have just gone in with our assets in Kuwait at the time when Turkey denied us basing rights, instead of re-deploying them and adjusting battle plans accordingly?

You're entitled to your opinion, but it carries a lot more credibility if you bother to incorporate facts when you formulate it.

[dirtboy]

I'm sorry to add, we need this plus a lot more, to account for possible material losses --- and that, is something which the White House has also not got a handle on at all.

Now that I can agree to - since the nature of war is evolving against smaller, more elusive enemies, we need the ability to move sufficient forces against an enemy before they can melt away into surrounding countries.

[The Great Satan]

Who sent the anthrax, dirtboy? Who do you think George Bush thinks sent the anthrax? How long ago was 9/11? How long since the anthrax letters?

[dirtboy]

Who sent the anthrax, dirtboy? Who do you think George Bush thinks sent the anthrax? How long ago was 9/11? How long since the anthrax letters?

Well, since we never have been able to concretely source the anthrax letters, I'm really not sure what your point is. However, shortly after 9/11, Bush went after the immediate, apparent threat in Afghanistan, and naysayers like you were on his case every step of the way - he's waiting too long, air power won't suffice, it's getting too close to winter, we're sinking into a quagmire - and then, suddenly, when the Taliban fell and Al Qaeda was scattered, the naysayers slunk off like skunks in winter, to re-appear in the springtime of new opportunities to second-guess and bash Bush in a heady, fact-free vacuum of their own concoction.

IMO Bush made the invasion decision when Blix gave his initial report that showed the Iraqis weren't cooperating. But he hasn't had sufficient resources in place until now, and deployment was further delayed by the Turkish waffling. He as CinC is responsible for the lives of those troops, and I would rather wait until we have overwhelming force than rush in because you are too impatient to watch a chess match.

[The Great Satan]

However, shortly after 9/11, Bush went after the immediate, apparent threat in Afghanistan, and naysayers like you were on his case every step of the way

Actually, I always stated that Afghanistan would be a pushover, so you're dreaming again. And you're in total denial about the reason we haven't attacked Iraq, 18 months after Saddam flattened the World Trade Center and smashed an airliner into the Pentagon. I asked you some very simple questions which must have an answers. But you don't want to think about the questions, because you know you won't like the answer. That's called "evasion." That's called "denial." It's time for people on this site to start thinking and acting like grownups. Grownups do not run away from unpleasant realities. They deal with them.

[First_Salute]

Exactly. The need for mobility --- as it requires a very large material transport system --- is not yet understood by the Dept. of Defense overseers.

[dirtboy]

And you're in total denial about the reason we haven't attacked Iraq, 18 months after Saddam flattened the World Trade Center and smashed an airliner into the Pentagon.

And your proof that Saddam was behind this is?

I asked you some very simple questions which must have an answers.

Like who mailed the anthrax letters? Real stinkin' simple.

But you don't want to think about the questions, because you know you won't like the answer.

Actually, I don't bother with them because I have no means of answering them, and I don't care to follow your example of descending into unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

Grownups do not run away from unpleasant realities. They deal with them.

Oh, that's special. You are wallowing in speculation, and say that I'm running away from reality? BWAHAHAH!

[The Great Satan]

And your proof that Saddam was behind this is?

Do you think Bush believes Saddam was behind 9/11? Yes or no.

[First_Salute]

Do you think that some protesting outside the Boeing HQ, for more C-17's, might get some press? I can imagine that the "liberal media" would be attracted, because they'd want to spin the story to the effect that Boeing (the military industrial complex) is paying us to do it --- that at least would get the news cameras there --- and so what(?) let 'em think it, as long as we bring some attention to the public eye, that we need more airlift capacity.

[dirtboy]

Don't you think it's a little unusual that in Gulf War part 1 in 1991 the president's father went from zero troops in Saudi Arabia to 500,000 in the space of 4 months and then attacked? And that was just becuse Iraq invaded Kuwait - there was no direct threat against the US. And yet, 17 months after September 11 2001 and starting off with military bases and troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait we are still sitting in the desert waiting for things to happen, only this time there is a direct threat against the US - in fact there is evidence of Iraq's complicity in the September 11 attack.

Actually, it's not strange at all - if you look at the predecessors of the two presidents involved. Bush the elder was the beneficiary of the Reagan military buildup. Bush the younger is dealing with a military ravaged by eight years of Clinton. It doesn't take a conspiracy to explain this - the facts do nicely (plus the fact that Bush went after Afghanistan first, where the most immediate enemy was located).

[dirtboy]

Do you think that some protesting outside the Boeing HQ, for more C-17's, might get some press? I can imagine that the "liberal media" would be attracted, because they'd want to spin the story to the effect that Boeing (the military industrial complex) is paying us to do it --- that at least would get the news cameras there --- and so what(?) let 'em think it, as long as we bring some attention to the public eye, that we need more airlift capacity.

Well, the problem is, the factors here are like turning an ocean liner - there are so many vested interests in existing weapons platforms and programs, in both the private and public sectors, that it takes years to turn military doctrine around, let alone support it with the equipment needed to carry out that vision. But it doesn't hurt to start somewhere - I think that demonstrating in front of Boeing would be preaching to the choir, it might be better to start a letter-writing campaign to both newspapers and congresscritters.

[dirtboy]

Do you think Bush believes Saddam was behind 9/11? Yes or no.

I have absolutely no idea.

[knak]

Are "you" Bob Woodward? Sincere question.

[The Great Satan]

Okay, so you admit you haven't a clue. Why am I not surprised?

[The Great Satan]

Are "you" Bob Woodward?

No. But I'm flattered that you ask. I have never been invited to the White House, and I have no inside info (well, maybe a little on the anthrax question). I've just been paying attention these past 18 months.

[rrrod]

i agree ...im greatly dissapointed in all this ...i keep telling myself something is happening that has required all of the un bs ..but its looking bad for gw