Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Spanky --
Riddle me this. If the key decision-makers with regard to Iraq really had and have all the information they need to do the rigth thing, how did it get so fucked up? What does that say about the performance of Bush and his senior staff, under your theory?
S_A_M
|
You are assuming that what happened in Iraq was completely up to the administratoin. It could be possible that Bush did all the right things and things still turned out the way it did. Sometimes events are beyond your control. The only criticism I can see that could be valid is that we should have had more occupation troops. That is the only criticism that I have heard that if implemented, in my mind, could have made a difference. But having said that, from what I have read and heard, the Generals on the ground have gotten the troops they asked for. They were asked if they wanted more troops and they turned them down. In addition, I don't even know if the troops levels needed were ever politcally possible?
But this Iraq study group is a bunch of hot air. Nothing that they recommend, if implemented earlier, would have changed things. Of course that is just my lay opinion, but is there something besides higher troop levels that would have made things any different today?
