COL Gene COL Gene

Is George W. a stong leader?

▼

Is George W. a stong leader?

Does he inspire unity and cooperation?

from JoeUser Forums
When the voter during the second debate asked President Bush to name three mistakes he made as president, George W. displayed one of his greatest short commings - his inability to recognize flaws in himself, even when they are obvious.

In the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. pledged to restore more civility to American politics. Surely one of the mistakes that President Bush should have acknowledged to the voters question was that he had failed to achieve this pledge. In fact, he has made the rancor and political unrest much worse than at any time in modern times. Not since the American Civil War has there been more political unrest in America.

His failure to accomplish this is a clear indication of his inability to be an effective leader. His approach has done the very same thing with many people throught the world. Look at the reception he received when is addressed the U N last month - Dead Silence. The only applause came when he was about to leave the podium. It was as if their applause was to reflect his departure not at what he had to say.

The left in America hold George W. in distain. Most Democrats, if they are honest with themselves, will be voting aginst Bush more then for Senator Kerry. Their feelings are not because George W. is a Republican but because of his attitude and his total rejection of any positions that do not fit with the wishes of the conservatives. The right is just as bad or worse. People like Rush Limbaugh spew out their narrow minded positions at every opportunity. The conservatives can not complete a sentenence without blasting the Libs. They have only slightly less distain for the moderate Republicans, like myself. If you do not support the conservative ideas you are stupid according to profit, Rush! He claims that he ties half his brain behind his back to make it fair to the Libs. The truth is that if Rush had a brain twice its size, he could not complete a rational thought.

President Bush's answer to the question, name three mistakes you have made should surely have included his inability to bring cooperation and civility to American Politics. George Bush is strong but he is NOT a leader. A leader is one who has the ability to get people to go to a place they would not go by themselves. That is not George W. Bush. For that reason alone, America needs a change. We do not need another four years of devisiveness. We need a true leader that can unite America and enhance cooperation with the other nations of this world.
politics
17,198 views 54 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

I have documented every fact I have used in my Blogs in my book. You are the one that claims these facts are "anti-bush". Thus it is you not me that is anti-bush.

If you favor killing our young American men and women in a war that did not have to be and that is not making us more safe - vote Bush.

If you want millions of new workers to roam the streets without a job - vote Bush.

If you want to go deeper into debt every day - vote Bush.

If you want to continue to pay high prices for oil and prescription drugs - vote Bush.

If you want to continue to see American jobs go to other countries - vote Bush.

If you want to see a larger share of the tax burden shifted from the wealthy to the middle income Americans - vote Bush

If you want to continue to ignore the impending financial problems with Social Security and Medicare - vote Bush.

EVERY ONE OF THE ABOVE IS FACTUAL. YOU JUDGE IF THEY ARE PRO OR ANTI- BUSH! Facts are Facts You judge how they reflect of George W. They are the results of his policies!
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply to cartoon by apdelong31

GREAT Cartoon!!!!!!!! That fits Bush to a Tee!
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #26 By: COL Gene - 10/13/2004 6:44:58 AM
drmiler

I have documented every fact I have used in my Blogs in my book. You are the one that claims these facts are "anti-bush". Thus it is you not me that is anti-bush


That is the BIGGEST load of BS I've ever heard!
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #26 By: COL Gene - 10/13/2004 6:44:58 AM
drmiler

I have documented every fact I have used in my Blogs in my book. You are the one that claims these facts are "anti-bush". Thus it is you not me that is anti-bush.

If you favor killing our young American men and women in a war that did not have to be and that is not making us more safe - vote Bush.

If you want millions of new workers to roam the streets without a job - vote Bush.

If you want to go deeper into debt every day - vote Bush.

If you want to continue to pay high prices for oil and prescription drugs - vote Bush.

If you want to continue to see American jobs go to other countries - vote Bush.

If you want to see a larger share of the tax burden shifted from the wealthy to the middle income Americans - vote Bush

If you want to continue to ignore the impending financial problems with Social Security and Medicare - vote Bush.

EVERY ONE OF THE ABOVE IS FACTUAL. YOU JUDGE IF THEY ARE PRO OR ANTI- BUSH! Facts are Facts You judge how they reflect of George W. They are the results of his policies!


There is no judgement to this! You say something bad is happening and that if you want it to continue that way to vote for Bush. If that isn't anti-Bush I don't know what is. BTW just an FYI I WILL BE voting FOR Bush!
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

Every section on my book states the source. The information is correct. Some of the more important references I used are:

OMB (Office of Management and Budget)

CBO (Congressional Budget5 Office)

Dept of the Treasury, bureau of public debt

Hoover Institute

Brookings Institute

The Army War College

Former Tres Sec O'Neil and the Current Fed Chairman

Former Army CoS and several other 4 Star Generals

I have sited at least 28 unimpeachable sources.

Like it or not, my date is factual even though you believe it is not flattering to George W.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #30 By: COL Gene - 10/13/2004 4:05:10 PM
drmiler

Every section on my book states the source. The information is correct. Some of the more important references I used are:

OMB (Office of Management and Budget)

CBO (Congressional Budget5 Office)

Dept of the Treasury, bureau of public debt

Hoover Institute

Brookings Institute

The Army War College

Former Tres Sec O'Neil and the Current Fed Chairman

Former Army CoS and several other 4 Star Generals

I have sited at least 28 unimpeachable sources.

Like it or not, my date is factual even though you believe it is not flattering to George W.


Excuse me but I never said anything about your data. It's ALL in how you put it out there.

Former Army CoS and several other 4 Star Generals
BTW retired "General Tommy Franks" is on the campaign trail now *for* Bush.
Reply #32 from PolMach Forums Top
Is President Bush a strong leader?

I guess that depends on what you mean by strong. He has gotten his way in this country, over the past four years, and that implies strength. Of course, war time presidents are normally followed, and his administration has certainly felt the need to return time and again to the existence of this war, in order to cement his power -- which implies weakness. Kind of hard to imagine any past wartime president repeatedly reminding the public of the need to be fearful.

If you look at the world, he has had a much tougher time getting his way, and, by all accounts, our nation's prestige has fallen. So it depends on whether you are counting that in your scoring.

Myself, I think the word "strong" may or may not not include what I see as the most important part of my judgment of him as a leader. The fact that he allowed his administration to seek legal loopholes on matters such as the humane treatment of prisoners set a tone of leadership, and, although the cause and effect are not totally clear, Americans have performed acts in this area that are sharply at odds with what I see as American values.

So, in my book, the president has led us into such fear that we are willing to abandon our own ideals, lacking the sense that we can both win and follow our traditional beliefs. I don't see this as strength.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gen Franks told Bush it took 300,000-400,000 troops and Bush did not take the advice of the top general planning the War. The inability to control the terrorism in Iraq is because of the choice Bush made and no one else. The Buck Stops at Bush!
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #33 By: COL Gene - 10/13/2004 7:06:58 PM
Gen Franks told Bush it took 300,000-400,000 troops and Bush did not take the advice of the top general planning the War. The inability to control the terrorism in Iraq is because of the choice Bush made and no one else. The Buck Stops at Bush!


Then WHY is Gen. Franks campaigning for Bush? If he's so bad you would think the Gen. would distance himself from the campaign.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

i apologize; i guess i got a little carried away

W has not killed a LOT of people, like joseph stalin and adoph hitler - only a few;
and i don't think he killed anyone directly/puposefully; i mean he's such a nice guy

i think his legacy will depend on the outcome of his Iraq Inc. acquisition.
There IS a small chance that Iraq will change the world for the better,
but the odds are against it; only time will tell

pete
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do not know why Franks support Bush but he did tell the Pres that we neded 300,000-400,000 troops. Most of the 4 star military do not support Bush and the way he conducted the war or his refusal to enlarge the size of the Army. In the 2000 campaign Bush said the Army as at leat 40,000 too small and when he got into office did nothing to correct the problem he identified. Some Commander-in-Chief!
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #36 By: COL Gene - 10/14/2004 4:30:45 PM
I do not know why Franks support Bush but he did tell the Pres that we neded 300,000-400,000 troops. Most of the 4 star military do not support Bush and the way he conducted the war or his refusal to enlarge the size of the Army. In the 2000 campaign Bush said the Army as at leat 40,000 too small and when he got into office did nothing to correct the problem he identified. Some Commander-in-Chief!


Maybe so. But I can tell you why Franks supports him. Because he thinks Bush is doing a good job otherwise he would not support him. I really could care less what the other 4 stars think. since Gen Franks was the man in charge.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
The results tell the story. We do not have control in Iraq and Americans have died because we did not have the troops needed to maintain control. That is because Bush did not lsiten to the people who knew what was required including Gen Franks.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #38 By: COL Gene - 10/14/2004 7:06:52 PM
The results tell the story. We do not have control in Iraq and Americans have died because we did not have the troops needed to maintain control. That is because Bush did not lsiten to the people who knew what was required including Gen Franks.


You *still* don't get it do you? If Bush is so bad Franks would not back his play. End of sentence. Obviously he's doing *something* right.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Franks is one person and the events in Iraq are many. Tell the famlies of the dead and injured that we have control in Iraq. We allowed terrorists to come into Iraq from other countries because we could not control the borders. We did not stop terrorists from using the explosives in the Amo dumps. We did not control the areas that opposed the war and the 400,000 former Saddam military. All that took place because we did not have the level of forces needed and George W. was told that from the planning stage through the occupation. Paul Bremer pleaded for more troops when it was clear we were loosing control. Bush did nothing. The result - More dead and injured Americans; delay in rebuilding Iraq and the people look at us as the new BAD GUYS. That is a lot more important than one General who does not agree with almost all the other Generals and civilian leaders. He might use the same lodgic as you use for all I know!
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

Here is why Franks supports Bush:

Franks told Bush it required 300,000- 400,000 troops to fight the Iraq War. He must have at some time caved into Bush given the fact he fought the war with less then half the troops he needed. Rather than stand his ground like the Army CoS, he compermised what he knew was needed. Now we have a mess. If he now says, Bush was wrong, then the question of why did you agree to this? To agree to something that will not work is asking for just what we got! All trhis does not change the most basic issue, Bush screwed up and Americans are being killed because of that error! Some Commander -in- Chief! Bush does not even understand he made an error.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
if mistakes of bush are being discussed, here is my 2 cents worth. Here goes; first, appointing an ideologue like wolfowitz to the unders sec for defence. He is not interested in political settlement anywhere. The greatest americn president teddy rosevelt SAId talk softly, but carry a big stick. IT appears now tjhat only clusterbombs do the talking not diplomats and politicians. second, letting go on al Qaeda and attacking IRAQ. tHIRD, NOT allowing the political process to take rooti inIraq and piggy backing on allawi who is just considered a QUISLING IN iraq and commans no respect. as a consequence of these and other failures,using dispropotionate force in civillians areas of fallujah and samara.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler, "To say that he is bad and shouldn't be in office is one thing. But to compare him to Stalin or Hitler (both of who killed a LOT of people) is BEYOND comprehension."

The last time I checked there were over 1,000 U.S. troops, I don't know how many allied troops, and over 11,000 iraqi civilians dead because of G.W.'s antics in Iraq. Not to mention the more than 7,000 wounded Americans soldiers (I know the wounded No.# is way up there but I don't know the latest figures off of the top of my head.) So, while it is not fair to say that Bush had the same "evil" intentions as Stalin or Hitler, I think the point being made here is that all 3 are/were strong leaders but none of them used that strength WISELY.

COL Gene, I think your article is very insightful and I agree with every word of it. I am a Democrat, which some of you may or may not already know. Some bloggers here like to lable me as a "screaming" or "extreme left" "liberal" and while I concede that I do have opinions that some would NOT characterize as "conservative" I resent all these lables from people who have never met me and don't know a whole lot about me. In most of my articles, I support Kerry...although I do not always agree with his positions and you can damn well believe that if he wins I will be all over him if I think he's out of line. I also criticize Bush and his policies because I think they are a total disaster, however, I am equally critical of Prime Minister Blair's involvement in Iraq who happens to be the leader of the "screaming liberal" labor Party in the U.K. How ironic? I have not posted articles to my blog site that are critical of PM Blair only because we are close to the election and I try to make my articles current and relative to the major events in the U.S. and I have only been blogging here for about a week. I will concede that I have been partisan in my support of Kerry in my articles because this is an election and I want my party to win but the majority of my critiques have been directed at bad policy and those advocating them.

COL Gene, I wish there were more Republicans like you...I know they are out there but they seem to either be a dying breed or too afraid of the extreme right to admit to it. I have seen how the extreme-right has gone after moderate Republicans with targeted campaigns to unseat them. Just look at what they tried to do to Senator Arlen Spector (R-Pa), what they try and do to John McCain, and what they did to Sen. Jeffords...who got so fed up with it, he became an Independent. I admire Republican Senators like Chuck Hagle. Now I know some people here will bring up Zell Miller (D-GA) as an example of a Dem. who more or less defected to Bush....but let me tell you Zell Miller is about 2 fries short of a "Happy Meal" so that is not exactly a good example to use. I've had this opinion of Zell looooonnnggg before G.W. Bush and the GOP leadership put him front and center at the GOP convention for nothing more than political expediency, which I think speaks for itself. Zell Miller is one of those fruitcakes that proposed a bill that says the Surpreme Court would no longer be the final arbitor of the U.S. Constitution and delegate that job to the executive branch who would apply Biblical law. Not only would this DESTROY the separation of powers (checks and balances) between the judiciary and the executive branch which the Founding Fathers went to great pains to establish, it would also destroy just about everything else our Constitution stands for. Secondly, I'd like to see how they would enforce "coveting your neighbors wife" without the accused "bearing false witness." Yeah, that would make good "Court TV" but it wouldn't do much for our democracy. Am I the only one who sees how stupid and dangerous this is? Is criticizing this or any other hair-brained policy "extremist" or "liberal?" And THIS is the nutjob the GOP leadership and Bush put front and center at their convention? I hope you moderates can win back the Republican congressional leadership positions...because the ones that are there now are just as bad as rooty-tooty Zell Miller. Oh, and one final remark about dear good 'ole boy Zell...if he is so proud of co-sponosoring the bill I mention above, why doesn't he list it on his official Senate website like he does all of his other sponsored and co-sponsored bills? Almost all of the other sponsors/co-sponsors to this bill were Republican and It's these types of secretive, back-door trompings of the Constitution that really gets me pissed about the right. I know the left isn't perfect either...but I don't see them pulling crap as extreme as this. If they are, let me know about it.


Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #41 By: COL Gene - 10/15/2004 7:03:37 AM
drmiler

Here is why Franks supports Bush:

Franks told Bush it required 300,000- 400,000 troops to fight the Iraq War. He must have at some time caved into Bush given the fact he fought the war with less then half the troops he needed. Rather than stand his ground like the Army CoS, he compermised what he knew was needed. Now we have a mess. If he now says, Bush was wrong, then the question of why did you agree to this?


Good arguement but you premise is wrong. He was in the military at the time. And we both were also in. Do you remember the oath you took when you joined? He was sworn to obey his C in C (Bush)
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #43 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/15/2004 9:03:23 AM
drmiler, "To say that he is bad and shouldn't be in office is one thing. But to compare him to Stalin or Hitler (both of who killed a LOT of people) is BEYOND comprehension."

The last time I checked there were over 1,000 U.S. troops,


Sorry but GW is only resposible for the 1000 Americans dead not the rest. And even if he was, it *still* falls FAR short of the millions that Hitler and Stalin killed.


before G.W. Bush and the GOP leadership put him front and center at the GOP convention for nothing more than political expediency, which I think speaks for itself. Zell Miller is one of those fruitcakes that proposed a bill that says the Surpreme Court would no longer be the final arbitor of the U.S. Constitution.

As far as I remember the supreme court is not *supposed* to be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. They are there to interpret the *law*!
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler:

Is that the same oath Lt George W. Bush took when he was in the Air National Guard?

Gen Franks could have retired if he wanted to stick to his guns. That does not change the fact the error Bush made about the troop levels have allowed the termoil in Iraq and has resulted in American Deaths that would not have happened if we had controlled the situation in Iraq properly with the forces required. Even if you buy into going into Iraq, no one could accept the situation we allowed to take place after Saddam was removed from power.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler,
Yes, the Supreme Court IS supposed to be the final "arbiter" of the Constitution.

ARBITER: "Persons who have the power to decide what will be done OR accepted." --Oxford American Dictonary.

Within the context of the supreme court, arbiter, means that THEY are the branch of government who determines what will be done or accepted regarding the Constitution by interpreting what the constitution says and by looking at the Founders intent if the actual language of the constitution is vague or ambiguous. The checks and balances on the Court are that the Justices are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, who in turn are both elected by the people. That being said, it is not the role of the Executive to be the final arbiter of the Constitution nor is there any place in our democratic system of government for applying Biblical law. For god's sake....if we are going to start doing that...our government will be no different than the Mullas in Saudi Arabia prescribing Islamic law. Again, Zell Miller and others are advocating, via legislation, that we do just that. He's a nut job and so is anyone else who sponsored or co-sponsored this bill. I find it amazing that this extremist nut case was put front and center at the GOP convention. What I find even more baffling is that no one called them on it. Now, I don't like to use the words "extremist" or "nut case" but honest to god, in Zell Miller's case...it's really applicable...NOT because he has certain religious beliefs, but because he thinks he has the right to impose them on everyone else by virtue of his position of power in the U.S. Senate when he advocates having the executive branch overruling the Supreme Court and suggesting that the executive branch use the Bible to overrule it's decisions. I'm sorry, but that's about as nutty as can be because it underscores Miller's (and the others who signed onto this bill) extremist views and his/their lack of understanding of our democratic form of government. Alternatively, if he/they DO(ES) understand our democratic form of government, then he/they are blatantly trying to destroy our democracy and consciously trying to replace it with a theocracy. Either way, he/they are dangerous, extremist, nut jobs.

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #47 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/16/2004 12:37:02 AM
Drmiler,
Yes, the Supreme Court IS supposed to be the final "arbiter" of the Constitution.

ARBITER: "Persons who have the power to decide what will be done OR accepted." --Oxford American Dictonary.

Within the context of the supreme court, arbiter, means that THEY are the branch of government who determines what will be done or accepted regarding the Constitution by interpreting what the constitution says and by looking at the Founders intent if the actual language of the constitution is vague or ambiguous. The checks and balances on the Court are that the Justices are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, who in turn are both elected by the people. That being said, it is not the role of the Executive to be the final arbiter of the Constitution nor is there any place in our democratic system of government for applying Biblical law. For god's sake....if we are going to start doing that...our government will be no different than the Mullas in Saudi Arabia prescribing Islamic law. Again, Zell Miller and others are advocating, via legislation, that we do just that. He's a nut job and so is anyone else who sponsored or co-sponsored this bill. I find it amazing that this extremist nut case was put front and center at the GOP convention. What I find even more baffling is that no one called them on it. Now, I don't like to use the words "extremist" or "nut case" but honest to god, in Zell Miller's case...it's really applicable...NOT because he has certain religious beliefs, but because he thinks he has the right to impose them on everyone else by virtue of his position of power in the U.S. Senate when he advocates having the executive branch overruling the Supreme Court and suggesting that the executive branch use the Bible to overrule it's decisions. I'm sorry, but that's about as nutty as can be because it underscores Miller's (and the others who signed onto this bill) extremist views and his/their lack of understanding of our democratic form of government. Alternatively, if he/they DO(ES) understand our democratic form of government, then he/they are blatantly trying to destroy our democracy and consciously trying to replace it with a theocracy. Either way, he/they are dangerous, extremist, nut jobs.


Actually no they aren't! Check the link:Link I'll post a short section to back up my position.:

The Supreme Court has two fundamental functions. On the one hand, it must interpret and expound all congressional enactments brought before it in proper cases; in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution.

Now I may not be the smartest person in the world, but no where in here do I find anything like what your espousing.
Reply #49 from PolMach Forums Top
First of all a strong leader makes unpopular decisions, I don't think it can be debated that President Bush has made unpopular decisions. Secondly, the whole cooperation, "we should have waited longer" position is just a Democrat anti-war talking point. Give it a rest. What are the facts?

The War in Iraq started on January 17, 1991 (not debatable)

Iraq accepted a cease-fire agreement on March 3 , 1991 (not debatable)

Congress overwhelmingly passed a new Iraq War Resolution on October 10, 2002 (after 11 years and a multitude of resolutions) stating that restoring peace and security in the Persian Gulf region was a National Security issue, Congress agrees to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations, Iraq is in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq, Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. (not debatable) Kerry VOTED FOR this, which is not debatable.

The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq under Saddam. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. (not debatable)

The Duelfer Report detailed disclosure and documentation of how far France, Russia, and China had benefited from the United Nation’s corrupt Oil-for-Food program. The three countries most supportive of Iraq on the U.N. Security Council. U.N. sanctions were not doing the job of denying him weapons. Through the 1990s, Saddam amassed an estimated $11 billion in revenue outside U.N.- approved methods. Saddam bought support, particularly among French, Russian, and Chinese officials to whom he would donate oil “vouchers” that could be resold for large profits. One recipient was Benon Sevan, former U.N. official in charge of humanitarian relief and the Oil-for-Food program itself. (read the report info)

The Coalition troops (both in Iraq and Kuwait): US-140,000, UK-11,400, Italy-2,700, Poland-2,400, Ukraine-1700, Nehterlands-1,400, Australia-850, Romania-700, South Korea-600 (planned expansion to 3,600), Japan-550, Denmark-496, Bulgaria-485 also El Salvador, Hungary, Mongolia, Portugal, Lithuania....11 more countries with troops around 100 or less.

There are certainly many valid reasons to be anti-war, if you are, just state it as such. We should have waited longer is another weak position against the war. Waited another 10 years? How many more resolutions? Waited for the corrupt government of France? Waited for thousands more Iraqis to die because of the corrupt "oil for food" debacle through the UN? Waiting or more diplomacy as a reason against the deployment doesn't pass the laugh test. Comparisons to the Vietnam war are also absurd, thousands a month returned in body bags, 58,000 US troops were killed, 306,000 wounded - this is no Vietnam. In 19 months, the total approximate coalition fatality count is around 1300 (each one tragic-no doubt). Bottom line is there is a pretty compelling argument for the War if you are willing to look at facts, which is why Kerry voted for it. President Bush made what WAS a relatively popular decision at the time (Gallup 73% in favor 3-2003) and has stuck by it even when it became less popular (Gallup 53% in favor now). In April 2003 76% (Gallup) thought is was worth going to Iraq, now 44% (Gallup). A leader stands by decisions, popular or not, and does not change convictions when the polls turn against it.
Reply #50 from PolMach Forums Top
Gen Franks could have retired if he wanted to stick to his guns.


Why do you presume to talk for this man; I am certain you do him no justice. He changed his mind because he agreed with Bush's plan. The fact that your whole arguement is based on this man leads me to believe that you think noone supported George Bush's plan. Seeing as you are a reasonable person, I think you can understand that Bush didnt just sit down one afternoon and come up with a plan all by himself, he had the help of his generals and advisors. Just because one man didn't agree with Bush's decision doesnt mean there weren't others who did.