Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (8541)	9/10/2007 1:06:31 PM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

I wonder what percent believe the report without knowing anything about it at all. Even before it's released.

To: Bill who wrote (8541)	9/10/2007 1:27:25 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Well... it certainly could be argued that he's a bit of a 'political General' (as the old saying goes....) Insofar as he wrote a personal op-ed piece before the last election, endorsing Bush, and has backed the 'surge' concept all along. (And, Bush has chewed-through QUITE a few other Generals in the course of this war, who either spoke out against his wishes or had the nerve to suggest 'politically incorrect' things --- like that he was was not committing near enough troops to successfully occupy a country the size of Iraq, with 30 million inhabitants... or that the expenses would be much higher then the public was being told... and he did shit-can the very FIRST US administrator in Iraq [after just one month on the job] when he opposed the disbanding of the Iraqi military.) I suppose the argument could be made that Bush has gone 'General shopping'... retiring of firing or otherwise moving out any Generals who disagreed with what Bush wanted people to believe... until he finally wound up with one who would 'toe the line'....