From the October 11th edition of the Los Angeles Times:
Does this prove that Bush is lying like a dog when he talks about being a stronge leader in the War on Terror™? Is giving preference to his own re-election chances over fighting insurgents and stabilizing Iraq a smart move, or just a self-serving one? Is Bush ultimately endangering the troops by giving the enemy what’s essentially a three-week break to rest and recuperate?
Holy hell. Is that really true? Since when does any sane commander give the enemy time to rest? And he is doing this to help his re-election bid? Damn right he is endangering the troops. They can resupply, get more ammo and take more territory while GW is out stumping. Is he that blind and incompetent?
You know, I guess it is a statement of how low my opinion of this Administration is that I can’t even get particularly worked up about this. I mean, is it really a surprise? Did you expect better from them?
God, I hate to have become so cynical…But, let’s face it, I haven’t yet been burned by underestimating the veracity and morality of this administration.
I just read in today’s paper (no cite) that our troops are stepping up the fight right now in anticipation of Ramadan (which starts Friday, 10/15). That made me wonder – I mean, do they actually think they can put the hostilities on hold during Ramadan? The insurgents won’t!
I don’t understand how people believe the US Army, etc. really have the best interests of the troops in their hearts? When they refer to you as GI (government issue), they mean you’re expendible! Even the Pres will do whatever it takes with no compassion for the men on the front lines. Hasn’t the history of recent wars proven this to you?
The Gulf War syndrome? There’s no Gulf War syndrome!
Agent Orange? Neah…coudn’t be!
But, don’t you know? The ends justify the means, so it’s ok, right?
That’s leadership. Do you really expect to hear the truth from the Top Dogs?
Because the decision to deply/not deploy our forces in that way apparently was governed by considerations of electoral rather than military strategy; and said decision is, therefore, unlikely to be the optimal approach to achieve the forces’ presumed military objectives, and might even make things worse in the long run in terms of U.S. body count, dollar costs, etc.