News flash: Rummy is doing a heckuva job. And if you experienced military leaders have a problem with that, well too bad.
“I’m the decider and I decide what’s best,” Bush told reporters in the Rose Garden as he announced several White House staff changes. “And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.”
George, honey, “decider” is not a word. Then again, neither is “nukular”, but that won’t stop you from bombing Iran, will it?
Decider-in-Chief …
i don’t think anyone could possibly summarize his presidency any better than he does in the first half of that quote. “i’m the boss; what i say goes; i’m a real dumba**.”
The phrase “I decide what’s best” so smacked of yuppie parents being sweetly reasonable with their children that it gave me chills. Next he’ll be talking about how the Iranians “chose their consequences.”
Is “decider” the same as king?
Dang! Kathy calling DUBYA “honey”??? Some of those killer bees must have gotten after her bosom.
Don, I meant it in the worst possible way.
Kathy, of course I knew what you meant, but if Bush can be a dumbass I can be a smartass, or can I?
Absolutely, and I always say it’s better to be a smartass than a dumbass.
Why did no one care when the military, I mean 90% of the military disapproved of Clinton?
When a five year old says “I’m the decider”, it’s kind of cute. When the president says it, it sounds stupid and is really worrisome.
Bottom Line, no former generals called for any resignations under Clinton, that I can recall. Oh, and Clinton bombed Slobodan back to the twelfth century, but he didn’t lose 2500 us troops doing it.
That said, I do think Bushco learned from the Clintons how to take advantage of the incredibly short attention span of the American Public and its MSM. Rummy is unfortunately right that calls for his resignation “will pass,” as I said, like a kidney stone, just as soon as the next American Idol is named.
My greatest fear is that we have the decider we deserve.
From what I recall, the military disapproved of Clinton because he was honest about his opposition to the Vietnam war, rather than pretending to be a hawk while using Daddy’s connections to get into the Air National Guard. They also disapproved because he wanted to end the ban on gays in the military.
Those two things don’t seem equivalent to starting a war in Iraq while ignoring advice from experienced military commanders on how to best pursue it.
Honest about his opposition to the Vietnam war? He used family connections to get into Oxford and bypassed the normal route used by Rhodes scholars. Also he stated the he loathed the military while a young man. Also he didn’t even lift the ban on gays in the military like he promised. He did that for the same reason he does everything else, for his own selfish reasons and to get votes, but when the pressure was applied, he buckled and gave up his promises. You should have seen all the emails and letters flying around the military about how you can’t talk bad about the commander in chief. This was because the majority of the military knew Clinton would gut the military. Which is exactly what he did. Questions?
By the way, I am so glad Bush is the “Decider” and not Kerry or Gore. God save us if either of those to wackos ever get elected.
How exactly did Clinton gut the military? Given Bush’s refusal to supply decent body armor, billing of injured troops for hospital meals and destroyed equipment, cuts in funding for vets (while accusing anyone who opposes the war of opposing the troops), that sounds a bit disingenuous to me. Details, please?
And why do you think Kerry is a wacko? He volunteered to go to Vietnam and earned a number of medals. The Swift Boaters may not like that, but it’s pretty well documented.
And you’re right, Clinton did use connections to avoid military service, just like many others who had that option, but he was up front about his opposition to the war. Bush was not; he was happy to use his connections to avoid the draft so he could pretend to serve while working on a political campaign in Alabama.
Let me tell you how Clinton gutted the military. First he cut the army by three divisions and then cut funding to training and equipment repair parts. He also stagnated any raises for military members, until the last year of his presidency when he finally gave a descent pay raise. Then he used the military in numerous places around the world and then put ridiculous rules of engagement upon commanders or restricted deployed forces to force packages that did not have the right numbers or composition to do the mission they were supposed to do (Somalia is an excellent example of this, and yes I know Bush Sr. sent the initial forces into Somalia, but Clinton changed the force composition to a vulnerable package). I could go on and on and continue with the cuts to the Navy and Air Force, but I think you get the picture. Now on to the second point.
Your accusations about body armor and charging troops for destroyed equipment are completely misinformed. First, the body armor and humvee issues was mainly due to the fact that the military industrial complex was not ready to produce those numbers. Orders for body armor were placed during the first battles in Afghanistan but the company was not prepared to make the large number required hence the initial delay. Furthermore, the Army is also to blame. Some logistics centers and commanders failed to properly organize or get bdy armor that was available in theatre. Also it is not uncommon for soldiers to pay for equipment they destroy as a result of negligence. I am willing to bet the examples that you cited were equipment losses due to gross negligence and not combat losses. Feel free to ask me more on this if you want, I would love to clear up many of the issues the MSM media has blamed on Bush for the shortcomings you cited.
Actually, here is one story about a lieutenant who was billed for body armor that was cut off after he was severely injured in combat. I doubt it is the only example.
Sounds like neither Clinton nor Bush is particularly qualified to lead the military. We can go back and forth with examples, but retired generals are coming out of the woodwork to say that the civilian leadership screwed up royally in Iraq. I know you’re serving in the military, and you don’t want to think your Commander-in-Chief is incompetent, but evidence is growing that he is just that.
I’d like to see Bush support our troops by bringing them safely home to their families and friends, but I fear they may be pulled out of Iraq only to go to Iran or Syria. If the neo-cons in the White House have their way, that is next on the agenda.
John Kerry is a wacko? For serving his country and being wounded?
It’s amazing to me that people like Bottom Line think the way they do, really. It would be amusing if it wasn’t concerning such a tragic topic.
The body armour issue isn’t misinformed, no matter what any Bush supporter wants to try and spin about the issue. There are numerous families who have had to buy armour for the sons and daughters. To argue otherwise just because of blind faith to an incompetant fool is ridiculous. I have lost a family member this week in Iraq. A young man with his first child on the way who had weeks to go on his second deployment to that hell in the sand. A young mother to be will soon give birth to her first born son that will be raised without a father, a young hero who had to lose his life because he was a patriot who loved his country and his military. Love of a military that is being run by power hungry assholes, a commander in chief who was a rich spoiled drunk who got out of service and wouldn’t have the courage to serve himself. So when anyone wants to tell me or my cousin who is in such shock right now, that this war was warranted, I tell you to cut the political bull and trying to hold up the failing dictator Bush and his cronies and shut the hell up. If Bush and the rest of those power hungry men had one ounce of intelligence that out weighed their pride, they would suck it up and bring those troops home where they belong. Instead our men and women will continue to lose life and limb in the hopeless mess that is Iraq.
Anna-
I am sorry for your family’s loss. Having served in Iraq I know the dangers and was proud to serve for a cause I believe was warranted.
You can argue the body armor point all you want and the issue about the LT that had to pay for it. But I seriously doubt Bush was standing there with his hand out making the LT pay for the body armor. That is a company or battalion level commander decision to make someone pay for it (the link didn’t work so I could read the story) and is probably a wrong decision. As for people buying their own body armor, they can get reinbursed. My experience was that the initial shortage of body armor was due to low output by the company making the plates (I didn’t have plates when I crossed the berm) but we did get some later. Ours were turned in at Kuwait on our departure while I met several units saying they couldn’t get it as they were ready to go into Iraq. I took one unit commander by the hand and showed him exactly where to get the plates we just turned in. There were piles and piles of them, but commanders were ill informed on how to find them. Sure there were people without body armor right away, but after about 6 months when the system was running better, the body armor was flowing into Iraq. If troops don’t have body armor now, it is the fault of their unit. As I said before it was mainly a problem of industry and the Army, not a Bush problem. So yes the main arguments about the shortage of body armor was misinformed.
Second the war is not hopeless in Iraq. Although the MSM loves to protray it that way, they are not giving the full story. Now that the Iraqis are getting a head of steam and their government is starting to stand up, our numbers will go down. If I were a betting man, I would be happy to bet that our numbers will be alot lower this time next year.
Again, I am sorry for your loss and hope you realize that other soldiers and fellow Americans and forever in debt for your cousin’s sacrifice.
This has been an interesting debate for this old military retiree to read. I think, that like most issues, there are two sides to it and that both sides have valid points.
One thing that I didn’t see mentioned is that while the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the military, and the buck ultimately stops at his desk, the military is a vast and complicated organization with numerous levels of command and responsibility and no one human could possibly keep his finger on every aspect of it. That’s why we have the DOD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc., etc., ad infinitum. So, while in theory anything that goes wrong at any level can be blamed on the CIC, the actual culprit is almost always someone far removed from the Oval Office.
I believe Bottom Line is correct, from all I can remember hearing and reading, about the military falling into a state of ill- or un-preparedness under the Clinton administration, but whether that was caused directly by the actions of Clinton, the DOD, or those further down the chain of command, I am in no position to say.
Other than a flame about 3 feet high, one thing that really burns my ass is the way politicians on all sides pretend to cater to members of the military (trolling for votes, what else?) but use them to their own ends, instead.
EXAMPLE: For years recruits were told that if they made a career of military service then for the rest of their lives they would receive free medical care for themselves and their dependents. It was during the Clinton years that it began being more and more difficult for retirees to obtain adequate care at military medical facilities. Bush, in both campaigns, said he would give active duty and retired military members everything they had earned and deserved, but didn’t until Democrat members of Congress forced the issue (for their own perceived political advantage, no doubt) until the Republican members and Bush finally had to relent and institute the Tricare For Life program for retirees, which is much closer to being what they were promised for their service. For me, that saves me thousands of dollars yearly that I was having to pay for medical insurance.