Posted by
Jason on Friday, July 20, 2007 1:59:26 PM
Disclaimer: I'm just an average guy...
Here's what I think anyway... "Bush is stubborn and he doesn't listen to his generals on the ground in Iraq." It's a criticism we heard (ad nauseum) all throughout John Kerry's failed bid for the Presidency, and the Democrats continue to revive it from time to time whenever they want to get a sound bite on TV.
Personally, I've never really bought that argument, nor the one about Bush simply replacing the commanders with whom he disagrees. Now the President has certainly replaced generals, but that actually quite common for a Commander-in-Chief to do during a war that's not going too well (i.e. Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War... good guys won that one, by the way).
But now Democrats are calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, despite pleas from commanders on the ground that the battle against al Qaeda is turning and that they need more time to finish the job started under General Petraeus (whom the Senate unanimously confirmed to the post back in January). Yet the Dems continue unabated in their crusade for a precipitous departure, which would be an embarrassing defeat for the U.S., not to mention great recruiting propaganda for our enemies.
So who's really listening to the commanders in Iraq? And who's just too invested in our defeat to hear what they're actually saying?
Articles to Reference:
1. "General Pleads for Time to Secure Iraq"
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QGD12O0&show_article=1
2. "John Kerry Urges Bush: Listen to Your Generals, Change Course in Iraq"
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5614
3. "General Petraeus Confirmed 81-0 in the Senate"
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92901