couldn't find the best home for this, so feel free to merge...

this pretty much sums up how i feel right now:

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny- ... -headlines

Bush should fire his top advisers on the Iraq war
James Klurfeld
March 24, 2006

Too little, too late. President George W. Bush is going to the nation to bolster his plummeting credibility because the war in Iraq is going badly. He's even admitting the original war plans weren't so great and that it won't be on his watch that troops can be withdrawn. Out of desperation, he's trying candor or a limited version of it. It's not enough.

There is one thing Bush has thus far refused to do, and it's crucial: Fire the people who made the key decisions about whether and how to fight this war. I'm talking about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Along with Vice President Dick Cheney, they brought on this foreign policy disaster. Cheney ought to get the boot, too, but he was elected with Bush.

I thought I had a pretty good appreciation of how poorly these people had prepared for the war and its consequences. But recently I've been reading excerpts from a new book, "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq," by Michael Gordon, the New York Times military correspondent, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine lieutenant general and former Times military correspondent.

The lack of preparation for the postwar period was even more appalling than I had believed. And those early failures haunt us every day. The book reveals that military commanders on the ground warned the Pentagon early on that an insurgency was quickly developing, and different tactics and many more troops would be needed.

They were ignored by the general in charge, Tommy Franks, who had sold his soul to Rumsfeld. And Rumsfeld's response to cries from the field and criticism was to bully the generals, ignore their advice and threaten reprisals to those who continued to speak out.

Yes, Rumsfeld is tough, intelligent and dedicated. But how Bush could keep him on the job after things have gone so wrong in Iraq is beyond understanding. At the very least, he should have been asked to retire after the first term.

Rice, very popular now in opinion polls and a close confidante of the president, was national security adviser during the first term. It was her job to coordinate information about the war and make sure the president had all the facts. If some officials were skewing intelligence to support their position for an invasion, it was her job to make sure the information reaching the White House was as accurate and objective as possible.

We also now know that the State Department had serious misgivings about the postwar planning and had developed a set of plans itself, including the need to prevent looting in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. That information was wholly ignored by Rumsfeld, and it was Rice's job to make sure that did not happen.

Some officials I know who have watched and worked for the National Security Council over many years believe Rice was the weakest, most ineffective adviser in the council's history. But she was promoted to secretary of State for her work.

Hadley, self-effacing, quiet-spoken and highly regarded in the national security community, was Rice's deputy. What she didn't do, he should have. He didn't. And now he is the head person himself.

When asked what happened to all that political capital he was ready to spend after his re-election, Bush, almost wistfully, noted that it was all going to Iraq. Hasn't he ever asked why and who is responsible? He has got almost three years left in his term. We can't fire him, and, indeed, he was re-elected. But he's not only running out of capital, he's losing all credibility. That's not good for any of us. If he wants a second wind for the second term, he must fire the first-term national security team. They're proven failures.

------------------------------------------------------------------

a man can only be so loyal.

I think, if anything, firing these people would only embolden Bush's critics to say he screwed up. And we know how tough it is for Bush to admit a mistake, right?

Bush could be the most stubborn man I have ever seen. I don't expect much to change anytime soon.

Oh, is this an example of that unbias media in America?

This quote is an example of blaming something else to distract attention away from a real problem in this country. The more we blame things like the media, abortion, religion, tv, radio, commentators...etc, the less we will be able to do with real problems like war, oppression, famine and corruption.

Yeah, because abortion isn't a real problem in this country

It's all full circle.

The argument over abortion is more troubling than the actual issue in my opinion.

well that's the problem.

people sit here and say 'oh look at how good condy rice is, bush gave her a bump up in the white house, she's making her way'

well, BUSH bumped her, they don't realize, and she should have been fired if it were a respectable president in office.

Forgive my ignorance of the US executive branch, but does it really matter for him, considering he's not going to get a go at a third term anyway?

I think the only way he'll give Rummy the sack is if Rummy conspired to get Jeb and Neil to have sex with Jenna and Barbara.

basically the only one we have to blame is Bush as i see it... He could propell our country in the future but he insists on keeping us in the dark ages, doing the same things man has been doing for centuries

You did notice the word Opinion in the link? This is from the Editorial page and they do have an equally "unbiased" conservitive writer there.

"I believe it said 'Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US' or something like that" Condi Rice

*snickers*

Alright. I insist you enlighten me. I've heard you complain a lot, but I've never heard your solution.

could we please keep this thread on-topic? there are plenty of abortion threads (which i do enjoy reading and occassionally posting in myself)

on-topic, i'd think that at this point bush would have nothing to lose by getting rid of all these advisors. when a corporation does as poorly (using stock price and profits instead of opinion polls and major dilemmas like iraq) as this administration, it almost always cleans house.

in my opinion, any new advisors couldn't do any worse than the current ones (especially rumsfeld).

and here's another thing:

would bush be better served now to fire these advisors? well first, it'd be admitting 'yes, we did fuck up'

but, sometimes admitting faults is better for you and by cleaning house and bringing in new people, it's possible his approval ratings go way up.

When Politicians are ignoring important issues isnt it the media responsiblity to bring them into the light?

Yes

I don't see how anyone can say that the Iraq Operation is going so badly. I mean for bush and the republicans. They keep winning elections. they keep raising the debt ceiling . And most importantly , this has energized their cronyism and nepotism for the next 40 years with wealth beyond belief. Where are the Bush Twins And that mexican George P. Bush ? They know they got it made. How is that " going bad" for them. oh! i forgot , the infringement on civil liberties.
This war seems to be going just fine for them.

given the left's view of the intelligence of the American people, wouldn't that be a good thing?