Did a flip-flopper win our last election ?
Role In Going To War: Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was “wildly off the mark.” [Washington Post, 12/8/05; Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]
2007-11-26 02:01:16 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
booman...so rumsfeld was the BOSS of bush ?
2007-11-26 02:15:04 · update #1
honeybeejim...i'm glad you agree with the USN in regard to Sen. Kerry's service
2007-11-26 02:16:27 · update #2
Leah ... the chairman of the joint chiefs asked for MORE troops BEFORE the invasion but bush said no
2007-11-26 02:18:09 · update #3
Your right, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, with the advice of the Pres. and V. Pres. went in with too few troops to win the peace. Clearly peace was not their goal. Now I feel it is just a prop.
2007-11-26 02:16:25 · answer #1 · answered by Waas up 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because he doesn't have a plan or a clue. He plays everything by ear, looking into people's eyes, trying to read their body language, and coming up wrong most of the time.
To the other people who deny that Bush was against the surge; not only did he go with the smaller lighter army concept of Rumsfeld, but he drew down the troops to around 125,000 before increasing them in January 2007 for this "surge".
2007-11-26 10:22:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You mean like he opposed the 9/11 commission before he he was for it, or opposed nation-building before he was for it, or supported the Dubai ports deal before he was against it, or said he would deal harshly with any Administration official involved in the Plame leak before he decided not to...
or any number of other countless flip-flops by President "Sure, I may always be wrong, but it's ok because at least you know where I stand"?
2007-11-26 10:22:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
He could be either a flip flopper or he could simply go with what his handlers tell him. He may say one thing and they come back and say "George that is not right..You gotta change your position".
2007-11-26 10:48:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He wasn't. He wanted more troops form the beginning. Rumsfeld was against the larger deployment and the number of troops available curtailed the initial deployment.
2007-11-26 10:05:20 · answer #5 · answered by booman17 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Is that like saying the US didn't want to invade Normandy in 1939, but did in WWII? The US flip flopped on invading France?
Response will change as conditions change.
2007-11-26 10:06:36 · answer #6 · answered by iooioiioo 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I think your thinking of John Kerry the war hero
2007-11-26 10:05:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I never heard he was against it. But it could be that he was responding to his current information and when the situation changed, so did his views on what needed to be done.
2007-11-26 10:06:26 · answer #8 · answered by Leah 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
You made this lie up and should be ashamed. But wait! You are a liberal and have no shame!
2007-11-26 11:19:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have never heard of Bush being against the surge
2007-11-26 10:04:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 7⤋