He has appointed people to important positions with NO experience just to pay them back them for helping him get elected.

I am sure he invented this concept to. At least he kept his pistol in his pants while doing it.

If you would, for just one second, look at another point of view. Digest it. Swish it around in your mouth a bit and then say something intelligent.

HE IS A SWAGERING LITTLE RICH BOY THAT HAS ACCOMPLISHED VERY LITTLE THAT BEBEFITS AMERICA AND A GREAT DEAL THAT HAS HARMED AMERICA.

This is the very first time (I've read) you have actually read what was written and used it sort of correctly. The only part you got wrong was that, YOU THINK he is a swagering...

Your opinion of what is right for this country, our country, is your opinion. I happen to think he has done some really great things but that's just MY opinion.

Um, I still like his swagger.

Your opinion of what is right for this country, our country, is your opinion. I happen to think he has done some really great things but that's just MY opinion.

I like yours better. maybe because it is saner?

About 2/3 of Americans feel Bush is wrong and is inept. His results are the true test of how he has failed his respinsibilities. He has not solved or improved any of the major issues facing this country.

No not my opinion but that of the Army CoS, Gen Franks and just about all the other senior generals admit the force levels were far too small.

Please provide a link to where Gen Franks and all the other senior Generals admitted the force levels were far too small. Because all the interviews that I have seen with General Franks and his book "American Soldier" has him saying the exact opposite. The ONLY general that has said troop levels was too low is General Shinseki.

Another charge made against the administration is that political appointees failed to give the generals enough troops in either Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, Franks writes, it was his own choice to employ limited forces in order to avoid getting bogged down. Instead of relying on sheer size, he thought surprise and speed were the keys to victory -- a judgment largely vindicated by events. Link

The lack of Body Armor and armored equipment is another example.

You fail to note that the only Army budget that Bush resided over before the start of the invasion was the FY02 and half of the FY03. In the FY02 budget Bush doubled the Army's inventory of ballistics vests and in the FY03 more vests was purchase then in the nine years before his presidency combined. Blame Bush all you want, but it takes longer then 18 months to refit an Army from flak to ballistics vests. You should know that, you claim to have been an Army reserve officer once.

About 2/3 of Americans feel Bush is wrong and is inept

Where do these people live? Everyone I know or hear discussing politics around here isn't anti-bush.

No way its 2/3rds.

Where do these people live? Everyone I know or hear discussing politics around here isn't anti-bush. No way its 2/3rds.

He suffers from delusions of self importance. You have to forgive him. he sees Bush behind every poll.

Just as a note... notice the author of the thread never came back.

Me thinks our latest Foaming-At-The-Mouth Extremist is just trying to stir up shit and get their blog lots of points with minimal effort.

he sees Bush behind every poll.

Gen Franks prepared Op Plan 1003 which was the invasion of Iraq. That plan is described in, "Plan of Attack" and on page 96 " Phase Four - stabilizing an occupied Iraq. During that phase the remander of the force would arrive taking it to about 300,000"

In addition the CoS of the Army Gen Shinseki told Bush it would require several hundred thousand "Boots on the Ground". Since then other four star generals have stated the occupation phase did not have the manpower required to secure the borders and Amo Dumps. they did not have the man power to occupy terrorists areas after the military cleaned out a pocket of them and they rerturned. That required return attacks by US forces to battle the same terrorists two and three times. Force levels in the first Gulf war were just short of 500,000 and we did not have to occupy a unfriendly country full of terrorists.

I hate what this administartion has done to our country.

And we hate the fact that you keep right on talking ignorant sh*t!

Gen Franks prepared Op Plan 1003 which was the invasion of Iraq. That plan is described in, "Plan of Attack" and on page 96 " Phase Four - stabilizing an occupied Iraq. During that phase the remander of the force would arrive taking it to about 300,000"

Again, Link please

or

Who wrote the book?

Gen Franks prepared Op Plan 1003 which was the invasion of Iraq. That plan is described in, "Plan of Attack" and on page 96 " Phase Four - stabilizing an occupied Iraq. During that phase the remander of the force would arrive taking it to about 300,000"

I have not read the book yet, but I highly suspect of your claim already. I have read the reviews and commentary on the book by 60 minutes, CBS News, NPR, and Newsweek. Of all those news agencies, not one has said one word about Franks asking for more troops. Strange that this evidence has not made front page headlines by all these Axe grinding publications.

But two articles do sight repeated request from Bush to Franks and his staff if they needed anything else. Which the answer was no. CBS even states "Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam - and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check." The words blank check does not sound like Franks would have been refused anything (just as everybody that was in the war planning has verified).

Within the next few days I'll go to one of the big book stores that may have the book and read it there. But since Op Orders are atleast classified information and not generally released, I am suspecting that the plan Woodward has, may not be authentic. If it is authentic, I would like to see your outrage over Woodward’s publishing it and the leaker who gave it to him too. But I with not hold my breath over that.

Until I see other wise, I will take the word of General Franks himself.

Sadaam was snubbing his nose at the U.N. The UN was slowly showing the world its impotence. As part of the UN we were looking weak and wishy washy.

the us has been snubbing its nose at the un for quite some time. the un looks weak and wishy-washy in no small part because its largest member doesn't live up to its treaty obligations as well as clearly indicating it doesn't feel it need respect the un's authority.

why should smaller member-states do any differently?

Sorry, a Hollywood star has no credit with me.

I agree; I gave no credit to Reagan, too.

Impeachment is out of the question: there's no blue dress. Besides, the embarrassment of an incompetent Congress in approving the war is just as impeachable, except it has not, as well as the President, taken the NCLB competency test, proving their failings.