It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The politicians say we're winning. The generals aren't so sure. How Bush hopes to persuade a wary nation to stay the course.
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.
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."
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."
Originally posted by marg6043
By the time somebody realized that it was not right it was beyond control.
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.
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.
1971 - 1972
1997 - 25th Anniversary of the Watergate Break-In
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.