2007-02-17 13:22:05 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Susi: That's Mr. Dude to you. Bush has already admitted that mistakes have been made in Iraq. Where have you been? Are you still reading " My Pet Goat "?
2007-02-17 13:29:20 · update #1
If, if, if....he had a chance to be a military officer back in Vietnam, but he chose instead to get his rich powerful daddy to wangle him a place in a cushy National Guard unit.....and then he went AWOL from that.
2007-02-17 13:46:06 · answer #1 · answered by catrionn 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Okay, clueless one, have a seat. We'll see if we can find a clue-socket on you - 'cause right now you're evidently lacking a place to PUT a clue.
1: No one is perfect. Especially in military matters. If you want to find mistakes, examine the conduct of the officers of any military in WWII, they are legion. Eisenhower, Bradley, Montgomery, Patton, they all made HUGE errors in judgement. Check out Black Jack Pershing's mistakes in WWI. It's called being human. These generals went out and won anyway.
2: The apparent upset that leftists have with the conduct of the war is that we are winning (Yes, we are - Check out Bill Roggio, Michael Yon or any Milblog and stop reading the crap that comes out of the AP, CNN, et. al.). They want us to lose. That much is quite clear and is a perfect explanation for the support they receive from al Queda, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and every other enemy we're fighting. You guys aren't anti-war, you're just on the other side.
3: There have been NO crimes commited by President Bush under the UCMJ, not even a demonstration of anything that would warrant an investigation of his command skills. He's done fairly well in fighting an assymetric conflict and has made some skillful choices in commanders and troop deployments. He surely sucks politically at garnering support from lefties, but I'm not sure anyone can do that. Two of the initial victories were historic - The rapid defeats of the Taliban and the Iraqi Army. These were done with a speed and lack of casualties unheard of in the history of warfare.
4: Lots of room for improvement in the post-major-combat phase, yes - Just as there was in the conduct of other wartime presidents. Johnson should have been arrested. Truman made more errors than you can count. Roosevelt's conduct at Yalta was clearly criminal by your standards. Wilson? C'MON. He probably should've been executed under your little scenario.
5: What ARE you going to do when Bush isn't president any more? Or will you simply be so unable to face life without your security-blame-blanket that you'll continue to blame him?
Orion
2007-02-17 21:51:07 · answer #2 · answered by Orion 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The man is guilty of war crimes, invading a country without cause or provocation and causing thousands of deaths (on both sides) in the process.
No noe has the guts to hold Mr. Bush accountable in this world, but he will get his in the next one.
2007-02-18 12:02:08 · answer #3 · answered by frenchy62 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes of course.Even now as a civilian he should be convicted for his crimes (not mistakes) in Iraq.
2007-02-18 03:18:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes!
2007-02-18 18:25:45 · answer #5 · answered by Siri 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He would have never made it to being a military commander.
2007-02-17 21:40:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He is a chickenhawk and should be brought up in international court and tried for war crimes. Cheney too.
2007-02-17 21:25:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
what mistakes? How can you ask a question like this w/o giving the facts, dude!?
2007-02-17 21:27:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
And, based on Gitmo, shouldn't he be held to account for "war crimes"?
2007-02-17 21:26:05 · answer #9 · answered by Rick J 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That is like comparing apples to oranges...you just can't do it.
2007-02-17 21:30:06 · answer #10 · answered by miztiffany 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋