This is ridiculous. What would you of had him do, Angel? Completely ignore his generals? Wasn't that the liberal side a few weeks ago? That there were generals telling him he needed more troops, and he ignored them? Now he's saying the generals told him they had plenty of troops, and you are
Leaving aside the generals issue,I agree with the sentiment of the
article, in that Bush's inability to answer that question reflected
pretty poorly on him, and his handlers. I mean, he had to know that
that question would come up. Hell, it comes up in darn near every
interview. It's essentially
interview!!!
(My favorite answer to the one weakness question by the way is: I sometimes have a problem being on time for work.*pause*.i'm usually early)
- Original Message -
From: Deanna Schneider
To: CF-Community
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: Bush's telling
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is ridiculous. What would you of had him do, Angel? Completely ignore
his generals?
The we just do what the Generals tell us to is misleading.The
civilians in the Pentagon and Whitehouse set policy and the military
Generals execute on it.
just a quibble, but Shinseki wasn't fired. He retired on schedule
after his appointment wasn't renewed.
larry
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:44:01 -0500, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is ridiculous. What would you of had him do, Angel?
Gruss,
Please visit factcheck.orgYou are just repeating incorrect Kerry statements.
Shineski announced his retirement long before the war:
Kerry claimed, as he had in the first debate, that the Army's Chief of Staff,
Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, was forced to retire for saying before the invasion of
Andy wrote:
Shineski announced his retirement long before the war.
I don't need to check any of those sources - I heard it from Gen
Shinseki.Obviously you would agree, based on that logic, that
General Wesley Clark retired rather than having been fired?
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
Gruss,
Just looked at your photo. It's how I pictured you.
Your a pisser, stand tall and take no shit :)
http://www.houseoffusion.com/users/view.cfm/recordid=392
--- Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The we just do what the Generals tell us to is
misleading.The
civilians in the Pentagon
I think that sort of thing is not called for. Lay off the personal insults.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:52:46 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gruss,
Just looked at your photo. It's how I pictured you.
Your a pisser, stand tall and take no shit :)
Maybe I read it wrong but I took this as a sort of wry compliment? I
mean... have you looked at the picture?
Dana
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:37:43 -0400, Larry C. Lyons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that sort of thing is not called for. Lay off the personal insults.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004
Actually, that was funny if in fact Gruss posted that picture on the HOF site.
(Much less so if someone else posted it for him)
Jerry Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/12/04 02:37PM
I think that sort of thing is not called for. Lay off the personal insults.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:52:46 -0700
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:39 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Bush's telling Non Answer.
Andy wrote:
Shineski announced his retirement long before the war.
I don't need to check any of those sources - I heard it from Gen
Shinseki.Obviously you would agree, based
I think he posted it in the course of the discussion of French vs
English WC's when Marlon got back from England.
Dana
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:47:34 -0400, Jerry Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, that was funny if in fact Gruss posted that picture on the HOF
site.
(Much less so if
Larry,
I took this as a complement.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:38 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Bush's telling Non Answer.
I think that sort of thing is not called for. Lay off the personal insults.
On Tue
I didn't put the photo there, I was just making a joke
about it.
--- Larry C. Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that sort of thing is not called for. Lay
off the personal insults.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:52:46 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gruss,
Just looked
I think Gruss did
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't put the photo there, I was just making a joke
about it.
--- Larry C. Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that sort of thing is not called for. Lay
off the personal insults.
HmmmI thought it was a pretty funny joke.I don't think it was
intended as an attack.
Another case of over-sensitivity, IMO.
Ray
At 03:03 PM 10/12/2004, you wrote:
I think Gruss did
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't put the photo
dana wrote:
Maybe I read it wrong but I took this as a sort of wry compliment?
Me too - I got a laugh anyway.Good reminder by Larry though.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
Andy wrote:
I am totally confused by your logic.
Heh, who isn't?
For example, in a corporation nobody above VP gets fired; they leave
to pursue other opportunities.In the military, Generals retire.
I was contrasting the Shinseki retired with the General Clark was
fired argument many neo-cons
lol.
No problem with this logic, now explained.But this probably doesn't have
anything to do with the specific manpower question on Iraq and more to do with
overall approach to the military.Bush's team brought a new perspective that
Shineski didn't agree with and at his age decided he didn't care
Andy wrote:
or it was recommended that he either climb aboard or grab another train.
It was that.
Mr. Bush relied on Douglas Feith, Deputy Secretary of Defense Policy,
who, interestingly, Gen Franks described as, ''the f---ing stupidest
guy on the face of the earth'.
Gen Shinseki agreed.
21 matches
Mail list logo
