Bush Shifts Blame for War Failure away from Himself, Rummy onto Gen. Tommy Franks

Tommy's not going to like this...

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/07/13/bush-blames-war-failure-on-gen-tommy-franks/

Bush Shifts Blame for War Failure away from Himself, Rummy onto Gen. Tommy Franks
Posted by Jon Ponder | Jul. 13, 2007, 7:42 am

One of Pres. George W. Bush’s latest delusions is that history will view him more kindly than he is seen today, just as Pres. Harry Truman has become a beloved figure over the course of the five decades since his presidency. But it was Truman, a Democrat, who once famously said that the “buck” stopped with him — that he was ultimately responsible for all the decisions made by his administration.

At a news conference yesterday, Bush casually shifted blame for the early failure of his war in Iraq away from himself and his Sec. of Def. Donald Rumsfeld onto a subordinate, Gen. Tommy Franks, proving, once and for all, that he is no Harry Truman, and never will be:

Thank you, sir. You have spoken passionately about the consequences of failure in Iraq. Your critics say you failed to send enough troops there at the start, failed to keep al Qaeda from stepping into the void created by the collapse of Saddam’s army, failed to put enough pressure on Iraq’s government to make the political reconciliation necessary to keep the sectarian violence the country is suffering from now from occurring. So why should the American people feel you have the vision for victory in Iraq, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Those are all legitimate questions that I’m sure historians will analyze. I mean, one of the questions is, should we have sent more in the beginning? Well, I asked that question, do you need more, to General Tommy Franks. In the first phase of this operation, General Franks was obviously in charge, and during our discussions in the run up to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein after he ignored the Security Council resolutions. My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes.

Now, history is going to look back to determine whether or not there might have been a different decision made. But at the time, the only thing I can tell you, Wendell, is that I relied upon our military commander to make the proper decision about troop strength. And I can remember a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, who said, we’ve reviewed the plan. I remember — and seemed satisfied with it. I remember sitting in the PEOC, or the Situation Room, downstairs here at the White House, and I went to commander and commander that were all responsible of different aspects of the operation to remove Saddam. I said to each one of them, do you have what it takes? Are you satisfied with the strategy? And the answer was, yes.

more...

a****hole

of crappy decisions and infringments on Liberties...try again, George.

:shrug:

Very little courage, demonstrated by very few ... I've seen as of late. :(

the pooch is screwn and you did it. It is already cemented in the stones of history. Wishful thinking (or lies in your case) ain't gonna change it. For what it's worth, Rummy can share some of the blame.

ITMFsA!

No need for hearings or investigations. The truth is already out!

All of their lies and deceit have been recorded, revealed and unraveled on videotape.

ITMFsA!

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24608

Why We Need More Investigations Like Cheney Needs More Power
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-07-12 19:51. Evidence | Impeachment

Their crimes stand open on the table before us. Their lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and they continue to make them to this day. Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies. Their threats to Iran are on videotape. Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape. Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on videotape. A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony. The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions unconstitutional. Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements. Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded to break those laws. For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because no better evidence is even conceivable. And rather than taking three months, the impeachment of Cheney or Bush could be completed in a day.

But the investigations that Congress has pursued at its glacial pace over the past six months, while thousands upon thousands died, have produced another impeachable offense, the refusal to comply with subpoenas. That is what President Richard Nixon did; and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and removal from office."

Bush and Cheney are claiming executive privilege. Nixon also tried that one. It didn't work then; and it won't work now. Condoleezza Rice is claiming, with more frankness, that she's just not inclined to comply. Even Nancy Pelosi ought to understand by now that the removal of the threat of impeachment is what empowers the White House to ignore subpoenas, and that the threat of impeaching the White House for its stonewalling would break down the wall even before we reached impeachment.

Somebody would have followed up with

A. Are you blaming the Generals?
B. Why was General Shinseki ignored (and then fired) when he said it would take several hundred thousand troops?

never forget who they're TRULY working for. :scared:

by this time he will be leaving office because the new prez will be taking over...

WASHINGTON, DC—Departing from his usual hopeful rhetoric during a question-and-answer session with reporters in the White House Rose Garden, President Bush suggested Tuesday that the war in Iraq has not been successful because the nation's armed forces are "just not very good."

"When the decision was made to liberate Iraq, I was going on what my advisers were telling me and what everyone has said for nearly a century—that the U.S. military is the best in the world," Bush said. "But if that were the case, and we did have the most powerful army, navy, marines, and air force on the globe, we would be winning, right?"

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_maybe_u_s_military_just_not


HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Remember, the fired US Attorney Generals didn't speak up until their integrity was smeared. We all know that the generals in the field wanted and NEEDED more troops. We all know that the Rumsfeld peppered them with questions until they would answer "yes" to a question which implied that more troops may not be needed. If Franks opens up on Bush, if he joins that group of esteemed retired generals who are criticizing this administration, Bush will have yet another hole in his Iraq dike.

mess on Franks. Damn frat boy never did a wrong thing in his life. Just ask him or his mama. Poor George would have everything working great if it weren't for the fool generals. That same day he talked about how the congress needs to just fund the troops and let him get on with his commandin/decidin. Explain to me again why he shouldn't be impeached.

claims he's letting the military/generals/Petraeus make the decisions on the surge in Sept. They're nuts if they don't.

I've felt from the start that Tommy Franks should be in Den Haag's docket along with the rest of them. Franks was derelict in his duty in Afghanistan and criminally complicit in the illegal invasion of Iraq.