Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (507351)	9/10/2012 1:41:12 PM
From: i-node	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) of 793845

When I referred to the "surge", I was really talking about the entire strategic shift that occurred coincidentally with it; while I don't agree totally with your characterization, it clearly was more than just a change in the number of troops in Iraq. At any rate it was successful in curtailing the violence to a tolerable level. I don't agree with your characterization of Bush at all. I think they initially underestimated what they were up against, but in the end solved the problem. Yes, the administration built the case for the war. As it should have been; he was the president at the time and the decision was made -- which was correct IMO -- that it was necessary to go to war. So, it was incumbent on the administration to get the support of the American people as well as the Congress. Where I suspect we disagree is I don't believe anyone was misled about it; the intelligence was available to a lot of people with adverse interests and most of them drew the same conclusions. So, I don't buy into the "Bush Lied" mantra. I just think wars are highly unpredictable. In the end, Bush did what had to be done to solve the problem and hand his successor a stable situation in Iraq.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next