It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Politicians VS Generals

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 09:47 PM
While we have politicians telling us that the we are winning the war on terror, here come the Generals to tell us that it may not be so.

The politicians say we're winning. The generals aren't so sure. How Bush hopes to persuade a wary nation to stay the course.

How can President Bush win the harts of the American people again with so many contradictions.

Who do you trust the Politicians in their comfortable air conditioned offices in Washington to tell how the war is going or the Generals in Iraq that are facing the results of the war.

Tell me who do you trust.

President George W. Bush holds a regularly scheduled video teleconference with Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq.

Then why the lies, and not the truth. Then you have Cheney with his own version of life in the front lines, "The insugerncy is in his last throes"

I think the president has lost his credibility and the ability to convince the American public.

Can he fix the problem?

[edit on 29-6-2005 by marg6043]

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:14 PM
Please give us a link.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 05:38 AM
Very intresting topic. A military leaders job is to serve his/her country when the poltical process fails and ensure success.
Should military leaders speake out againgst there political masters when they feel the polticans are failing them? The answer would appear to be yes however it would come at the expense of the leaders career.

Of course the most famouse example of general vs politican is Truman firing Macarthur.

The destruction of these bridges would have made it very difficult for the Chinese to have crossed the river in substantial numbers. As it was, the bridges were not destroyed and the Chinese were able to pour into the Korean peninsula vast amounts of men and supplies. When MacArthur protested about the failure to give the order the destroy the bridges, he was relieved of his command and replaced by General Matthew Ridgeway.

Weather or not Macarthur was right is beyond the scope of this thread.
The politican who ignores military sense is a danger to his country and global sercuity.
The best way for a military leader to influence events is to run for office Ike spend two terms in the oval office and became the puppert master rather then the puppert on lose strings.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:47 PM
In the run-up to the Iraq invasion those Generals who spoke the truth were marginalized, discredited and drummed out. That goes for CIA analysts as well.

The Bush administration has no credibility.

Backing for Bush on Iraq is gone, local veterans say
Published June 29, 2005

HOLLYWOOD · The televisions at VFW Post 2500 in Hollywood were tuned to President Bush on Tuesday, but his words weren't getting rapt attention.

About 30 people were around the bar drinking, chatting, smoking as the president talked. "Does it have to be so loud?" asked Barbara Flint as she sat next to Jerry Giblock, a visiting Vietnam veteran.

"He's running scared," said Giblock, 63, a former Post 2500 member who lives in Anchorage, Ala. "His poll numbers are so low, he's got to say something, but the support is gone. It's gone. I don't think there's anybody in here who's behind him."

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 05:08 PM
I remember at the beginning of the invasion that the Generals were asking for more troops after the successful invasion, to control the populace.

Rumsfeld felt that it was not necessary I wonder if they knew more that he did, then and that is why we have the results we have not.

Still Mr. Bush said in his latest speech that more troops was not necessary.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 05:41 PM
Yes. The Generals did say that. Nobody was listening.

In the run-up to the invasion, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld refused to listen to experienced combat veterans retired Gen. Anthony Zinni and Gen. Eric Shinseki, who warned we would need a much larger invasion force. Shinseki testified before Congress that at least 200,000 troops would be needed to establish security.

In direct contrast, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz – who never served in the military a day in his life – testified that to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, only 48,000 troops would be needed. To use his own words (criticizing Shinseki's view), Wolfowitz's estimate has proven to be "wildly off the mark."

And to think I was mad at them for lowballing the numbers.

[edit on 7/1/05 by EastCoastKid]

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 06:26 PM
I wonder if that would have made a difference, having more troops in the beginning and having martial law and control of borders and looters.

I always said that the country was allowed to go the hell from the beginning with not control.

By the time somebody realized that it was not right it was beyond control.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 07:00 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
By the time somebody realized that it was not right it was beyond control.

That's the thing. The point of the above quote was to illustrate that there were people out there advising against Rumsfeld's strategy. They were just marginalized and pushed off the stage in favor of those who would parrot Rumsfeld's views.

If we had gone into Iraq under say the Powell Doctrine, or a similar plan, security would have been established from the beginning. If not immediately, then relatively sooner. But they chose to ignore that wisdom, to our troops' and Iraq's detriment.

Rumsfeld's head (and every one of his sycophantic henchmen's heads) should be on a platter right now for his/their piss poor planning.

[edit on 7/1/05 by EastCoastKid]

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:14 PM
Rumsfeld will never see a Congressional hearing in his life, for the mistakes in the Iraqi war that has caused the death of our troops and civilians.

Our President already said so, that nobody in his administration is to held accountable for any mistakes from this war.

And again where is the people, that was against Rumsfeld and his leadership when it come to the war?

No where to be found.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:24 PM
The rats have left the ship.

These people should face a war crims tribunal. And I'm sayin that as someone who was formerly against signing any kind of treaty with the world court.

Unfortunately, our government has proven to me that even the United States of America needs to be held accountable.

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:13 AM
EastCoastKid and marg while I am no fan of Rumsfeld the American people voted againgst accountablity at the ballet box mind you some of those people would rather blame the media rather then having to think about the Iraq issue.

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:19 PM
Which is a shame indeed.

Every man and/or women should be accountable for their actions both in an International and National court. This would help stop people from doing such things as "Proxy" wars and the like. While they can't be placed under arrest or investigation for their actions they are free to get away with murder and lying to the people. Which is something that I think is wrong.

It is about time those who think they're above the law find out they are not. The law is there to protect the people, both Nationally and Internationally and while people can get away with Proxy Wars, Assassinations and the like there is no true Justice within Society.

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:17 PM

Originally posted by xpert11
EastCoastKid and marg while I am no fan of Rumsfeld the American people voted againgst accountablity at the ballet box

That's a flawed argument.

Exhibit One: Nixon resigns!

No election will ever smite accountability.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:43 AM

That's a flawed argument.

Exhibit One: Nixon resigns!

No election will ever smite accountability.

Correct me if Im wrong but didnt the Watergate scandal break after Nixon was relected?
The Bush admin imcomptance was public knowdgle before Bush was relected.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:56 AM
Without the media's complete complacency, and the GOP owning all those electronic voting machines, BushCo. would have been out on their butts before the election ever came around.

Here's a good Watergate timeline...

Watergate Chronology
The story of Watergate has an intriguing historical and political background, arising out of political events of the 1960s such as Vietnam, and the publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1970.
But the chronology of the scandal really begins during 1972, following the break-in at the Watergate Hotel.

By 1973, Nixon had been re-elected, but the storm clouds were building. By early 1974, the nation was consumed by Watergate. In August, Nixon resigned.

Brief Chronology

1971 - 1972



1997 - 25th Anniversary of the Watergate Break-In

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:02 PM

Correct me if Im wrong but didnt the Watergate scandal break after Nixon was relected?
The Bush admin imcomptance was public knowdgle before Bush was relected.

The burglary June 17, 1972, of Democratic national headquarters in the Watergate apartment complex in Washington, was reported widely in the media. The "scandal" began about 1 day after that.

In November, Nixon was elected by the American people, who by then should have known better.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:37 AM
Thanks for the corrections concerning the Watergate scandal. I think the way the media delt with or didnt deal with the Iraq fisco is disgracefull.

top topics


log in