doesnt really make sense (but then again, neither does the united states anymore.)
2007-01-12 07:50:51 · 15 answers · asked by dude s 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
...and, please, no more comparing bush to abe lincoln -- there are NO comparisons even though it is clear that the govt controlled media is being baited to discuss lincoln/shrub comparisons
2007-01-12 08:05:17 · update #1
He listens to no one other than the voices in his head, which he thinks is god...
2007-01-12 07:53:15 · answer #1 · answered by kberto 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Ditto what was said about Lincoln and Grant.
Also consider that Bush has been in office for six years and that the typical military career is only 20-30 years long. The numbers alone imply that 1/5 to 1/3 of the generals need to be replaced and this does not consider the fact that generals, like other soldiers, need to be rotated out of the extreme stress of a battle zone every once in a while. That factor would account for another half (at minimum) of replacement which leaves very few to be replaced for incompitence or poor/disagreeable politics.
In addition to all this, when he listens to his generals there is no guarantee that his generals will all share the same opinions and assessments. He has to filter all the info he listens to and try to come up with the best plan he can -- which almost certainly means ignoring the advice of at least some of the generals he listened to. When he does that, there have been generals that basically went ballistic and openly expressed their anger to the media, which is a violation of military rules and ethics and justify the replacement of the mad general.
Finally we come to the fact that generals are not expected to be normal people -- greatness should be expected. Genius is to be hoped for. A wise commander in chief should periodically replace generals until he finds a military genius who can come up with an effective stategy for the war being fought. I haven't heard of such a general in my generation, but I hope Bush finds one.
Regards.
2007-01-12 16:08:37 · answer #2 · answered by Poetic 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Funny how you say that, when the Chief of the JCS just said the other day that they and the commanders and the general staff support this and think it is the right thing to do.
You were aware, weren't you, that there are well over 100 generals in the US Army? And not all of them are going to agree, so why do you take the word of 1 over the word of others? Are you not able to comprehend that at this time, there is no knowing which will be proven correct, and that Bush, who doesn't delude himself he's a military genius like Genghis Khan Kerry does, trusts in the counsel and decision-making ability of the JCS and staff.
I don't understand your inability to understand that when deciding policy, Bush has many counsellors with much experience and knowledge and they don't all have one opinion. Bush is the "decider" because, when it comes down to it, it is his responsibility. You won't see him blaming subordinates, like Clinton blamed Reno for the Waco slaughter.
Because, the fact is, nobody really knows if it will work or not. We all should hope, for the sake of America and Iraq, that it DOES work, and that it does make Iraq safer. I don't see the bitterness and cynicism and open hatred of Bush as supporting our soldiers or their mission.
2007-01-12 16:06:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He keeps trying replacements until he can get someone who will spin the same story as the Dumbya fantasy world.
2007-01-12 15:58:05 · answer #4 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Lincoln had to replace almost all of his general before he finally found Grant, so you're statement doesn't make any sense
2007-01-12 15:54:07 · answer #5 · answered by kapute2 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There has never been an American war where the generals have not been replaced.
2007-01-12 16:11:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Looks like his understanding of "listening" is letting the ears receive some sound waves. Whereas, we the gullible citizens believe he is really "listening" as we understand.
2007-01-12 15:55:55 · answer #7 · answered by ramshi 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Some opt for retirement and some are replaced for strategical reasons..or experience...It has always happened and always will
2007-01-12 15:54:15 · answer #8 · answered by PoliticallyIncorrect 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The "generals" work for him, not the other way around.
2007-01-12 15:55:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who disagrees with him are no longer beside him. Instead--only those who drink the Kool-aid are allowed. Sickening to say the least. 79 unanimously derived conclusions must be wrong!!!
2007-01-12 15:56:01 · answer #10 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
He listens to his generals, and if they disagree with him, he replaces them.
2007-01-12 15:59:39 · answer #11 · answered by Sailinlove 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋