They told him that they needed more troops to begin with, but he refused to send them. Shouldn't someone who supports the military have sent the troops? If I was going to war, I sure would have...
2006-12-07 05:08:59 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Only p - Your analogy is flawed - that's like saying the CEO shouldn't listen to the CFO regarding financial decisions for the company. The CEO makes the final decision, but he stills listens to the CFO.
2006-12-07 05:16:49 · update #1
Oh, and the budget - would this be the budget that includes 11,000 trailers left wasting in Arkansas that were purchased by the government for use in N.O., but couldn't be used because of regulations? Or would this be the same budget that includes a $250 million dollar bridge to from Ketchikan, Alaska to a city with 50 people in it?
2006-12-07 05:18:16 · update #2
thats too much like work to him. when does the boss ever listen to their staff until they are made to and even then they dont complete the whole job.
2006-12-07 05:12:06 · answer #1 · answered by MiaDiva28 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I ask that same question to myself almost every day. That's the problem when you surround yourself with yes men. Bush didn't listen to Powell or his generals and decide to go with Rumsfeld instead. I believe this due in part to his success in Afghanistan which relied heavily on special operations troops. The problem is in war the same battle plan almost never works twice. You notice, we did kick *** (as always) in throwing the Baathist Party of Iraq out of power but it looks like they completely miscalculated in how long it would take the Iraqis to become self-sufficient and they didn't take any historical differences between the Islamics sects into play. This created a power vacuum and it's all about who has the biggest gun in the Middle East. Politic ans playing warriors never does work well.
2006-12-07 13:23:56 · answer #2 · answered by dasuberding 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ok unlike the people who answer questions like jerks by say well if you know so much why don't you try it....number one i don't have enough money to run for president i do have the background of a DWI and Drugs...lol....He was money hungry and had to do something about the ever growing debt and also think about how bad our economy was after 9/11 what is the one thing that has always pulled out economy back up a WAR well me being a sales man of the market place i can tell you no one is spending money like they did before 9/11
2006-12-07 13:16:35 · answer #3 · answered by Lab Runner 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush does not have to listen to anyone, in my opinion,he is a Strong willed stubborned guy who had to learn with hindsight.unfortunate for the thousands upon thousand of people who lost their lives.I am in constant prayer for everyone over there and here,I am not waiting for bush to come to his senses,I reconize a higher power than man,so do not kid yourself with thinking that he really care about the military because if he or any other political figure really cared, the military would give the troops better pay and benefits to start with.
2006-12-07 13:20:36 · answer #4 · answered by lolo rachi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Opinion from the military leaders was far from unanimous. I think Bush listened to the wrong 1's. Hindsight is 20/20.
2006-12-07 14:15:18 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question. General Shinseki testified to Congress before the war that several hundred thousand troops were needed and he was fired. Bush has continually said, however, that generals on the ground did not ask for more troops. So who knows what they told him?
2006-12-07 13:13:32 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
You have it turned around Bush is the Decider and Chief of the Military.
They are obligated to listen to and obey him.
That is why the Joint Chief's of Staff were given the Battle plan from Karen Hughes.
Go big Red Go
2006-12-07 13:13:11 · answer #7 · answered by 43 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Who said they had to be American troops? There is something like 250,000 Iraqi soldiers and 250,000 Iraqi police now in Iraq. Also more American troops might not have mattered, killed more American troops (more targets), and would have cost much more. There also would have had rotation problems (maybe no rotation at all).
2006-12-07 13:15:40 · answer #8 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we have the liberals to blame for this. If Bush had sent more troops we might have gotten the job done, but the libs would be crying for his impeachment.... oh wait it doesn't seem to matter anyways.
2006-12-07 13:19:42 · answer #9 · answered by Josh 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because of this thing we call the budget. You libs complain that he spends too much as it is. Also, he is the Commander in Chief. Do you think your boss at McDonald's will listen to you when you say you need more fries.
2006-12-07 13:13:17 · answer #10 · answered by only p 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You obviously don't understand how the government works, there are far more people involved in those decisions than just the president. learn how the government works and maybe your next question on this subject will be less naive.
2006-12-07 13:16:53 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋