Did Bush replace his two top Generals -because they weren't saying what he wanted to hear?

Question

It is ironic -General Shinseki was forced into retirement because he said we would need at least twice as many troops in the initial invasion (Bush did not want to hear it -he wanted the small quick force recommended by his neo-con draft dodgers)-now neo -cons are saying -oh he really did not repace them..er it was their time to go anyways......

Answer 1

Well, tell me then Admiral, how long had they been at their assignments are how long do commanders normally stay at those assignments?

Answer 2

Politics is the reason. The successors to the two top generals will do almost the same thing their predecessors did (with some minor changes). The Dems own Congress now and want change in Iraq. Results aren't required, just change. That's how politics works. The President is bowing to the will of the voters who stated unequivocally that they wanted something, anything to change. So, he has shaken up his entire staff from top to bottom and brought in fresh perspectives. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Either way the perception is that they are doing SOMETHING. So, keep your Bush hating to yourself. Try to say something constructive instead of the incessant railing against Bush.

Answer 3

You need to get your facts straight. Gen. Shinseki retired for a number of reasons. But President Bush was not one of them.

If your view of history is this partisan - you lose a lot of credibility.

Answer 4

yes, his entire administration has been characterized by this ... the reason is, all his moves were plotted a couple of years before he received his guaranteed by money and power presidential election.

There is no debate in his camp. He makes everything into a loyalty issue. Like many foolish usurpers of centuries past.

Answer 5

Yup.

No discussions with The Decider.