Outnumbered U.S. troops watched weapons-site looting

dude, bush is COMMANDER IN CHIEF. he RUNS the army, navy, marines, air force, coast guard, and national guard. he calls the shots.
as a result, the troops are spread too thin, thus only a dozen troops guarding a
munitions depot. how is that not bush's fault?

if you are a manager of a huge retail outlet, and decide to hire a couple of kids on black friday to run the place alone and then walk out and take the day off...who's fault is it when the store goes to shit? the 2 kids? or is it your fault?

he was the one who went to war knowing he didnt have the manpower.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
you guys are spitting out crap right now.

It's not Bush's fault that the weapons got stolen, it's the guy who Bush left in charge of military operations in Iraq. Bush put his faith in a member of his team, and his teammate failed so you're directly putting blame on him.

"BUSH BASICALLY ARMED THE ENEMY"

that's a pretty damn far stretch right there. Did the US military break into their own cache and start handing out weapons? No. The compound was over-run by tons of Iraqis. The enemy "basically" armed themselves.

The United States didn't put Saddam Hussein in power either. The United States promoted the Ba'ath Party and through his own actions...Saddam rose to the top of the ranks and became ruler of Iraq. You make it sound like the US handed him the keys and said "now go have fun"

I agree he lied to the nation, he's a terrible president, and he's proved time and time again that he'll do anything to make the moves that he wants to make...but you guys are just overdoing this.

Have you ever noticed that the barrels of chemicals that they took from Iraq when UN inspectors first went in had labels on the side of them that read something like this: "WARNING HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS". (something to that effect.) My point is this however: If those chemicals had been produced in Asia or Russia or Korea, the warning labels wouldn't have been in ENGLISH. It may not have been Bush Jr., but it was the US without a doubt.

Also, when the Exxon Tanker Valdez spilt all that oil, who got blamed? The Captain of the ship. There are monumental screw ups all the way up the line, but Bush is at the helm of this ship.

Lastly, you are correct. The US did not put Hussein in power. He did that himself. But we paved the road he walked down to accomplish it. He took a pot shot at Bush's old man, and sonny boy was pissed.(Hussein attempted to assassinate Bush Sr. a few years back.) And you would be remiss to think George Bush Sr. isn't helping to run this country.

Do you know what the Commander in Chief does?

Bush isn't responsible for the positioning of American troops, he's in charge of the decision to go to war, and other SERIOUS military decisions. He's not the one who decides how many soldiers guard which weapons depot's and what not.

What's the point of a military Hierarchy and the purpose of Generals if Bush is the one who makes all the decisions?

Who is General Tommy Franks and what role did he have in the war if Bush was the one who was making all of the decisions?

Your analogy of a retail outlet is crap. Bush isn't the equivalent of an outlet MANAGER, he's the equivalent of the outlet store OWNER. Bush doesn't need to make the day to day decisions, he doesn't even need to come to work every day. All Bush is responsible for is the future goal of the organization. The day to day stuff is run by his MANAGERS also known as Generals in the military.

Now if you're the owner of a store, and you hire a Manager to manage operations....and the manager understaffs or is ill prepared to handle the business day. Then you have problems with management....and it's them to blame. Not the owner himself

Originally posted by Linkalicious
Now if you're the owner of a store, and you hire a Manager to manage operations....and the manager understaffs or is ill prepared to handle the business day. Then you have problems with management....and it's them to blame. Not the owner himself

I know you're only making an example with this, but in this country, the people are supposed to own the President, not the other way around.

Originally posted by PVS

our troops were outnumbered, the explosives were looted, bush withheld this news to avoid proving kerry right.

So the troops were outnumber? I guess that's another reason to send more troops so that they won't be outnumber next time there is a looting of weapons.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
Your analogy of a retail outlet is crap....Now if you're the owner of a store, and you hire a Manager to manage operations....and the manager understaffs or is ill prepared to handle the business day. Then you have problems with management....and it's them to blame. Not the owner himself

...except the board of trustees (THE PEOPLE) will then inquire as to why you hired such an incopetant manager. there is no way to legitamatly avoid responsability...sorry.

its all math really. bush may not have known that the end of the equation would lead to a dozen troops guarding the depot, but the overall numbers did not lie. he knows and KNEW we were understaffed and lacking in resourses.
there was not a dozen troops guarding those munitions due to an incopitent general...there just wasnt enough troops to guard all that shit...bottom line.

bush isnt responsible? then wtf is his job? what WOULD BE his fault?

but with that aside, why the cover up?

it was an analogy...

Obviously Bush doesn't "own" the military, but my point is, he isn't responsible for the placement of troops nor is he responsible for the day to day activities of each ensemble of troops. Those responsibilities are left up to high ranking officers in the military.

It may be Bush's responsibility to decide which radical cleric to focus on, but it's not his responsibility to decide how to act out against said cleric. That would be a military officers decision.

Originally posted by PVS

ush isnt responsible? then wtf is his job? what WOULD BE his fault?

but with that aside, why the cover up?

The war in general is his fault. The decision to go to war when we did, the decision to not wait for a diplomatic solution, the decision to lie to the rest of the country.

All his fault.

Having an understaffed crew of military personel gaurding the depot?

Not his fault.

Our troops being outnumbered isn't his fault either. When he went to war against the Iraqi's NO ONE thought that the amount of miliitia resistance would be this strong, and those numbers grow daily. We greatly outnumbered the amount of Iraqi military personel, but no one anticipated the huge volume of Iraqi insurgents to rise so quickly.

Having only 12 people guarding that depot was the General's fault. He should have emphasized the importance of maintaining peace at that depot by having more troops positioned there instead of out in Falluja mounting assaults.

"Having an understaffed crew of military personel gaurding the depot?

Not his fault."

no no no, you miss my point.
the WHOLE COUNTRY is understaffed. thus, the lack of troops at the depot is a product of that understaffing.

and it IS bush's fault in that he convinced congress and the american people that our troops would be "welcomed as liberators". thats partly why we supported it right? this message that it would be relatively easy convinced people. bush pretended that he could predict a war. who's fault is that?

how can this not be his fault.

(i can see you dislike bush but want to avoid pushing blame where it does not belong...but it DOES belong on bush)

Like I said. The war is his fault, the individual actions in that war....are not his fault.

That's like saying the Abu-Gharib prison scandal was Bush's fault. When it wasn't....it was some irresponsible troops who are in jail for their crimes.

no...bush declaired that he had the right to judge prisoners as 'enemy combatants' and NOT P.O.W.s, who are protected by the geneva convention against torture and trial without representation.

thus, guards were given the green light to abuse those prisoners as they pleased. also, bush and rumsfeld hinted on many occasions that it was justifiable to torture terror (islamic) suspects. the logic being that by withholding information on an impending attack, they are still in the process of attacking, and thus should have zero rights, same as on the battle field.

when was this declaration made?

shit, like the second we invaded afghanistan

edited cause of tripple post 🙂

😮‍💨

He is commander in chief and the armed forces really did underestimate the situation so in that he is responsible as commander in chief. Now during wartime actions communication and intell aint allways dependable and can effect the knowledge of Bush had.. Even so he did try to hide the fact about the looting though

I agree he lied, and that's a terrible thing....but put yourself in his position.

If you're running for re-election. Would you want that to get out before or after the elections?

He's just doing what's best for number one, so in that regard i'm not MAD at him, but I'm disappointed that he withheld the information in general.

no he didnt try to hide it...he did.

most likely, he used the pentagon to force the AP into withholding the story
for reasons of "national security".

now that he's elected, why should he give a shit?
we have already been screwed.

If you're running for re-election. Would you want that to get out before or after the elections?

yes, bush never asked himself "what would jesus do?"