What do you think of our current President?

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Love, Hate, lukewarm?

And this poll, by the way, can still be relevant after 2008 when we get a new President.

Sorry Brits, I can't say Prime Minister in the poll too. But everybody is welcome to vote for the President of the USA.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well lets put it this way.

I dont like the current president or his cronies. The reason I dont like him is because of his handling of the Iraq war. Bush and mostly Rumsfeld did not allow the Commanders on the ground to get the job done. In fact they hindered it.

At the same time I respect Bush for being the only man in the world (along with Tony Blair) who had the balls to stand up and do something about Iraq and other spots in the Middle East and the rest of the world.

Therefore I am lukewarm about the man. I dont like him but at the same time I have respect for him.

I just hope it does not get worse in 2008...

[FLYBOYJ]

Well said Chris....

[drgondog]

I think he has made serious mistakes in personal loyalty - both with respect to Rumsfeld, in the planning for post hostilities and the execution of post hostility actions in Iraq. The whole thing about Gonzales is a tempest in a teapot but I wish he had kept Ashcroft.

Bush has been terrible in the way he has turned the other cheek to the constant attacks from the left. He could have fed them Clinton, Albright, Kennedy, Kerry quotes about WMD and Iraq, fought a lot harder on the 9/11 commission constituency that kept pre Bush administration policies from seeing the light of day, taken crap about Ashcroft when he had Reno as a poster child for idiocy about national security... etc, etc. He doesn't fight dirty enough against dirty fighters.

Having taken shots at Rumsfeld for Iraq, I think he has done one helluvs job in turning 'the way we used to fight wars in the past' to a more nimble and responsive war fighter capability. I grew up observing turf wars between USA,USN and USAF with USMC getting the scraps - but developing the model I respect for today - namely the MEF as a self contained unit of fighters, and one helluva lot more SpecWar capability - integrated and working together (not always but a lot more).

Mark my words, we have just passed a high water mark for national strength - militarily and economically. The Dems will rpobably run the table and if you think 1992-1998 was a lowmark for defense spending and capability you will be astounded if either of the front three win - particularly Hillary.

I have met the man (Bush) when he owned the Rangers before he was Guv - he is not o good public speaker but he is a smart man and great one on one - and he has an unwavering compass for what he believes is right or wrong - a death knell for the Repubs in 2008 as Carter was for Dems in 1980. Nobody in the Dem candidate list is 'inflexible' shall we say?

We will not 'win' in Iraq. The Iraqi's may prevail if they get the will and we can somehow intimidate Iran from further interference.. The Dems will get to reap what they sow after 2008 - maybe they have a plan - but the plan must not depend on American will for sacrifice or it will fail.

CBW is available with $$$. Small weapons of Mass Destruction used cleverly can bring any economy down and we can not survive 'much', much less Europe.

IMHO, prepare your thinking for the asymetrical world of the future... disconnected Islamic fundamentalist cells with no objective other than chaos and anarchy so they can build in a vacuum. .. while the bigger and funded extensions position the random hammers on our way of life.

I think he should be among the greater Presidents for what he did with an economy that was going down after the ".com" bust and what he did to bring the country back to calm after 9/11 and for having a vision of a democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Time will tell. I have been wrong in fearless predictions before.

Regards,

Bill

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You see I disagree with you on Rumsfeld. I flew our Division Commander in Iraq when he was with Rumsfeld and I heard him ask for more troops and Rumsfeld told him he did not need any more troops...

...And then later tell the Press that his Commanders never asked for more troops.

Rumsfeld bungled the war because he had no clue how to do it and should have let his commanders fight the war instead of polotics.

[syscom3]

I wouldnt say I "hate" the guy (hate is a strong word)..... But I think his positions on quite a few issues PLUS his performance makes him a failure.

I'd still sit down and drink a beer with him though.

[cougar32d]

i'm not much for politics but here's my 2 cents worth. as far as the war in iraq is concerned i've been there...for 3 years, and i can say 1 thing wars and the military should be run by the military not civilians

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree Couger...

Where and when you in Iraq.

I was in Tikrit from Jan 2004 to Mar 2005, flew all over Iraq though playing the Combat Air Taxi role and many air assaults.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by cougar32d

i'm not much for politics but here's my 2 cents worth. as far as the war in iraq is concerned i've been there...for 3 years, and i can say 1 thing wars and the military should be run by the military not civilians

Its way to dangerous to let the military have an uncontrolled hand in any military conflict.

And its also recipe for for disaster for any democracy (I know we are a republic so dont mention it) to not have civilian control over the military.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

You see I disagree with you on Rumsfeld. I flew our Division Commander in Iraq when he was with Rumsfeld and I heard him ask for more troops and Rumsfeld told him he did not need any more troops...

...And then later tell the Press that his Commanders never asked for more troops.

Rumsfeld bungled the war because he had no clue how to do it and should have let his commanders fight the war instead of polotics.

I suspect you missed my opening comments regarding my personal belief he mishandled the planning and execution of the Post war phase? We are in complete agreement on this point - and had Bush asked him to to resign before the election rather than afterward we would not be suffering Reid'itis'..

[cougar32d]

if you dont know how the military works you cant use them, civilians dont know how they work....the generals do

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by cougar32d

if you dont know how the military works you cant use them, civilians dont know how they work....the generals do

Historically, generals have had a habit of consolidating control over civilians.

Better to have uninformed civilians controlling the military than informed generals taking control of civilians.

[cougar32d]

not in combat

[Graeme]

On this side of the world Bush is nearly always 'depicted' as a fool by the media. We are regularly shown footage of his 'gaffs' in public speaking and the ongoing Iraq affair is regarded as 'Bush's War'. Since John Howard (Australia's current Prime Minister) joined the coalition in this unpopular war, and is seen as Bush's 'lackey', it is more than likely that he will lose the upcoming Federal Election. A big issue in this country recently, has been the 'treatment' of David Hicks, a recently released detainee from Guantanamo Bay. His release is seen as the result of the Australian Governments intervention in an 'unjust' American legal system. The press portray that the only reason the Government became involved is because it is an election year.

This from a country whose media believes that what Paris Hilton ate for breakfast on her first day of incarceration is national headlines.

Please tell me it wasn't big news in the USA.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Graeme

.....

This from a country whose media believes that what Paris Hilton ate for breakfast on her first day of incarceration is national headlines.

Please tell me it wasn't big news in the USA.

Its true.