Well, that partly was Bush's strategy, though. Of course it was Petraeus' plan (along with a host of other staff guys he had assembled), but in the end, Bush did not stay the course like many in the Pentagon wanted. That's partly why Rumsfeld was booted, along with the midterm elections. Bush went the opposite direction by listening to and promoting/installing Petraeus. I don't mean to be a bore with a bunch of military jargon, but for my first tour in 2003-2004, Petraeus was the 101st ABN DIV CDR, Odierno the 4th INF DIV CDR - both two-star billets, both peers. Now look where they are today. As another example, GEN McKiernan was a superior of Petraeus in 2003 in Iraq. Yet, in 2009, Petraeus was McKiernan's superior and essentially relieved him. McKiernan, although a great American who served his country and the men he commanded well, was a stay the course guy. I can't say I agreed with everything Bush did while in office. But he had a difficult choice to make: keep doing what we've been doing for the past 4 years, essentially what Rumsfeld and the Pentagon jockies wanted (and pissing off a whole lot GOs in the process), or take a different approach, what Petraeus advocated. He rightly chose the latter, and went against the Pentagon brass. People are free to say and think whatever they want about Pres. Bush. I have my own reasons to respect the man. In one instance, a Soldier of mine was killed in 2005 and buried in Arlington. He invited his family to Air Force 1 and delayed his scheduled departure. They got to spend about an hour with him. No cameras, no media, no photo ops. He did this many times over for other families, none of which had any media attention whatsoever. The guy earned my respect.
Pretty good assessment. But I do not dislike Bush, in fact, I think he is one of the most likeable Presidents of the modern era (I'd rank them 1 Clinton - 2 Truman - 3 Bush). I'd like to go fishing with him. I do not disrespect him either. I have never questioned his sincerity in what he believed, his resolve, or his morality, only his grasp of the situation and his judgement. I simply think that he was a poor President by being the instrument of influential ideologues. He didn't learn to lead until his last year, which was too late. The guy that's taking the heat needs to be the one making the policy. Bush finally got tired of being held responsible for Cheney/Rumsfeld ideology, as you describe. If he had a broader input and was making his own policy from the start, he would likely have had more plusses and fewer minuses.
I think so, too, especially in regards to Rumsfeld. He was definitely not a likeable guy and not very well-respected within the ranks, many of the Pentagon brass, as well. Those of us down at ground level always kind of felt like Rumsfeld didn't look out for our best interest, just what was more expedient at the time. Most of the time, hardly anyone at the company or battalion level gives a damn what the SecDef does or says about combat operations, so the fact we had so little respect for him probably speaks volumes about his style. He was good for one thing, though, and that was focusing bean counters on what was important in the beginning of his term. After that it was downhill.
You would think that he wouldn't have hired everyone that was in Daddy's administration, considering Bush Sr.'s presidency was a failure also. Sorry but to me the worst one out of them all was Ashcroft. That dude needs some concrete shoes.
There's a$$clowns one can pick out of any administration, depending on a point of view, this one included. Concrete shoes may be a little rough, though.
Bringing home military troops is isolationism.. :insane: That argument is so weak you should be ashamed for even trying it.
No its not. Isolationism is refusing to send troops overseas to fight and letting our allies fend for themselves. We have not practised this since the 19th century and we did it very poorly then.
