Quote:
Originally Posted by tstew
Ferd, I've gotta run, but let me just say that the administration developed a reputation for shutting out all the people who did not agree with their judgement, assesments, and intel. Even people as respected and visible as Colin Powell had their dissenting opinions shunned. I am not convinced that this was the right thing to do and that everyone was on board. You just had an administration that bulldozed itself into what they thought was a good move.
As far as losing a war as a matter of policy, I really believe that we that we have been fighting an unwinnable war as a part of policy.
|
Jackson didnt really take to the opposition view. neither did FDR.
as far as that is concerned LBJ wasnt exactly friendly with those who opposed him.
William Jefferson Clinton didnt exactly change his mind and chart a new course when someone opposed him... in fact he set out to crush them and distroy their reputations. kind of a Sun Su approach if memory serves.
why is it that GWB is seen as some kind of meglamanic for acting in a way that keeps those who agree with him in power and sidelines the decent?
I dont get that execpt is makes for good political fodder for the democrats.
I never said everyone was on board but I am saying that the intel of every nation I listed agreed that Iran had WMDs it appears that everyone was wrong.
The fact is, George Bush isnt running for president. if he were his judgement would be up for debate and past performance would be the thing we would need to review.
John McCain is running and we are already IN Iraq.
so debating wheither or not we should have gotten into Iraq is a debate that is 4 years too late.
what matters now is that we are there, one man has provided a path to victory and we have seen progress in that direction based on his recomendation.
the other man advocates capitulation.
I dont like losers..... at least not the ones who like losing and who commit to losing as a matter of foreign policy.
Linear Mode
