Former Reagan Official: "Bush is like Hi tler"

“Bush is like Hitler. He blames defeats on his military commanders, not on his own insane policy. Like Hitler, he protects himself from reality with delusion. In his last hours, Hitler was ordering non-existent German armies to drive the Russians from Berlin.

- Paul Craig Roberts http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070105_surge.htm”

“Tsk Tsk, V. You know you can't use His name withit incurring the Geek Patrol Wrath to proclaim "You Lose"!”

“Bush's policies are insane.”

“I love how some people claim Bush is nuts and then jump on the real nutty bandwagon to show how they feel.

That damned FDR he got us into a war that nutcase, and while we're at it let's compare the founding fathers, Polk, Lincoln, Mckinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton to Hitler too.

"He blames defeats on his military commanders, not on his own insane policy."

hmmm... I wonder if McClellan and MacArthur feel the same way you do.
last edited: 1/10/07 1:02:23 PM”

“If you read the opinion piece, you'll see that he is comparing Bush to Hitler, not for starting a war, but for escalating it against the advice and consent of his military commanders.”

“When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: Ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.

Bush talks frequently of his disdain for micromanaging the war effort and for second-guessing his commanders. "It's important to trust the judgment of the military when they're making military plans," Bush told The Washington Post in an interview last month. "I'm a strict adherer to the command structure."

But over the past two months, as the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated and U.S. public support for the war has dropped, Bush has pushed back against his top military advisers and the commanders in Iraq: He has fashioned a plan that adds up to 20,000 troops to the 132,000 U.S. service members already on the ground. As Bush plans it, the military will soon be "surging" in Iraq two months after an election many Democrats interpreted as a mandate to begin withdrawing troops.

Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.

Bush's decision appears to mark the first major disagreement between the White House and key elements of the Pentagon over the Iraq war since Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the occupation force, which he regarded as too small.

It may also be a sign of increasing assertiveness from a commander in chief described by former aides as relatively passive about questioning the advice of his military advisers. In going for more troops, Bush is picking an option that seems to have little favor beyond the White House and a handful of hawks on Capitol Hill and in think tanks who have been promoting the idea almost since the time of the invasion.

"It seems clear to me that the president has taken more positive control of this strategy," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of those pushing for more troops. "He understands that the safety of the nation and his legacy is all on the line here."

Others familiar with Bush's thinking said he had not been happy with the military's advice. "The president wasn't satisfied with the recommendations he was getting, and he thought we need a strategy that was more purposeful and likely to succeed if the Iraqis could make that possible," said Philip D. Zelikow, who recently stepped down as State Department counselor after being involved with Iraqi policy the past two years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16532977/from/RS.2/”

“Didn't you guys just spend the last few decades telling us that we lost Vietnam because the politicians took control of the war and mucked it all up?”

“He should have escalated it a long time ago. In this case loyalty may have been an issue, I think he wanted to give the Generals time, and he gave them too much. They should have been replaced long ago.

As to Vietnam, yes that's true, and yes it's also true that this isn't Vietnam and this isn't the 60s/70s, it's Iraq and it's 2007.
last edited: 1/10/07 1:13:18 PM”

“It does my heart good to see Violin quoting republicans in support of his views. LOL!”

“Comparing Bush to Hitler is divisive and aggravates the insulting rhetoric that adds so little value to our national dialogue. It is perfect fodder for fuego and trolls.”

““Comparing Bush to Hitler is divisive and aggravates the insulting rhetoric that adds so little value to our national dialogue. It is perfect fodder for fuego and trolls.”

You did notice it was Violin that posted that, right? LOL!”

“Is this another discussion of that baby crib factory that builds coffins at night?”

“From Wikipedia: Paul Craig Roberts is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. [...] He is considered to be a Reagan conservative.

[...]He was Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. He was a former Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. From 1982 through 1993, he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During 1981-82 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy." From 1975 to 1978, Dr. Roberts served on the congressional staff where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.[...]
last edited: 1/10/07 1:21:30 PM”

“Oh no, he's started in on the Wiki cites. A long rant followed by a link to the Inquirer can't be too far off. LOL!”

“Good gravy....”

“wiki's good for basic facts. Gotta watch out for vandalism. I saw someone added some color to David Dukes Bio. #&%!$ing hilarious:

"David Duke was a douchebag born in Tulsa, Oklahoma..."

LOL!”

“David Duke! Wow... now there is a name I haven't heard in a while... since I left Louisiana.”

“"wiki's good for basic facts."

I've actually seen "Wiki Wars" were the pages would change a lot, replaced with some pretty bad (and funny) stuff.”

“So when did the President blame defeats on military commanders? When was the last time we had a defeat?”

“Its difficult to have a "defeat" in a war that cannot be "won" in the conventional sense.

When the "enemy" is everywhere and nowhere at once it is the kind of war that can drag on for generations and should not be entered into.

This kind of war tries to change the native population's views or political choices and not drive out an invader, to which the natives will be grateful.

As the years drag on the young children of the population can and will become your "enemy" as they grow up resenting the outside intervention.

Its a formula for disaster.”

“Everybody needs to look up a chart of U.S. troop levels in Iraq on a month-to-month basis.

Here's one from the Brookings Institution:
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
It's on P.20.

U.S. troop levels have varied on a month-to-month basis since 2003 from a low of 115,000 in early 2004 to the 150,000s and 160,000s in Oct/Nov/Dec. of 2005.

During much of 2006, U.S. troop levels actually decreased from 160,000 to 126,000.

This is normal ebb and flow of troop levels caused by rotations in and out of Iraq.

So, the question is: What impact would 20,000 or 30,000 extra troops have in Iraq?

Well, we have historical evidence in Iraq that can tell us. We have had normal variations that are as large and larger than Bush's proposed troop increase.

Has anything gotten better during those times of increased troop levels?

The answer is clearly "No."

We really need someone to stand up and tell the American public that we need to double or triple our force levels in Iraq. That way we could actually win the war.

Deciding to increase troop levels by 20,000 is deciding to lose.”

“BTW, the proper Democrat response is not to oppose this troop level increase.

The proper response is to say nothing and let Bush have his last-ditch 3 month plan.

Then hold hearings in 3 months to see how the plan is working.”

“The Democrats have already decided we lost.”

“No deciding necessary. The situation is what it is.”

“We really need someone to stand up and tell the American public that we need to double or triple our force levels in Iraq. That way we could actually win the war.

reformed lurker
3:39:36 PM
1/10/07

I agree. Overwhelm them and flatten anyone that gets in our way. We need to revamp the rules of engagement as well, so that the soldiers and Marines over there can do their job without having to jump through flaming hoops.”

“No deciding necessary. The situation is what it is.
reformed lurker
7:27:46 PM
1/10/07

This is the my fundamental beef with Democrats. They can't make a decision. They always say they would do things differently, but they never say what that would be.”

“IT is so cool when the libbies find a Conservative to speak bad...the blast him all over the headlines...but when a libbie says Liberalisim sucks....the crickets chirp.

It is not that you guys hate America it is that we have different views of America. Most conservatives see America as a land of opportunity, take your shot sometimes you win sometimes you lose. When you lose you suck it up and take another shot.

Libbies look for an America of NO RESPONSIBILITY. Regardless if you take the shot, or just want to hang out and party for life they FEEEEEEL America should support them.

Destruction of the military is not about the troops it is all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ if they can say the military is incompetent...they can defund more and more of it and move that to the FAILED Government Sponsored Slavery Program called Entitlements.”

“I'm not sure Congress should be meddling with troop levels. It's kind of a wishy-washy thing to do. Congress voted for the war. Can they "unvote" the war?

In any case, can someone tell me how its the "libbies" fault that "we" have not won this war yet? I mean the war outside the one Bush said we won?”

“LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
Vile uses Hitler.
What a shocker.”

“I agree Bearmag. Congress should not be getting into the business of trying to play war games. It's Bush's war to run for better or worse. this is the way the system was set up and we don't want a government that is operated on a simple majority vote.”

“dance puppets dance!”

“The Democrats have already decided we lost.

bacpac
4:40:40 PM
1/10/07

yeah. they heard it from the military. you know, the ones fighting the war”

“LOL in the 1980's there was a great line that came out of a operational discussion with some of the leadership in Washington and some of the SF boys. Apparently one SUIT wanted to send a team in to a certain Central American Nation to take care of business with a person of interest.
In the conversation the Colonel he was discussing it with explained we had the men who could and would do it. Then the SUIT mentioned communications so they could terminate the mission if necessary.
The Colonel made the reply, "Sir that is a BAD idea. These men are trained to KILL their target. If you set them loose, and send them to kill something...THEY WILL KILL SOMETHING...you pull them out, screuw them over...there is a possibility they will come looking for you."

Its like the libby politicians who want Cops who "enforce the laws...but do it nicely" That ain't possible. If you want a war, then you need to understand there will be lots of bodies either theirs or our...given a choice...I vote THEIRS.”

“"this is the way the system was set up and we don't want a government that is operated on a simple majority vote."

If I'm not mistaken, our history has past events where Congress became very frugal with the purse strings. This is one the check's our founders put into place.

That is why it is so important for both the executive and legislative branches to co-operate during these situations. However, once that trust is tainted, the situation could become much more complicated than was needed.


"Overwhelm them and flatten anyone that gets in our way."

IMHO, I would be more open to a "do-over, re-invasion" than I am about the current version of the Bush plan. While a re-invasion might come with a little egg on the face, at this point I don't see how we are going to avoid that outcome any way.

Also, and I don't claim to be a well-versed military man, but why is it that we cannot rotate some of our other standing forces from other countries into this theater? Are we so spread out that we can't shake out another 150,000 troops from other nations to use? What about the force that was/is only in place to get over-runned in S. Korea (that was something like 50,000-70,000 troops or so)?”

“If I'm not mistaken, our history has past events where Congress became very frugal with the purse strings. This is one the check's our founders put into place.

That is why it is so important for both the executive and legislative branches to co-operate during these situations. However, once that trust is tainted, the situation could become much more complicated than was needed.

Oh yes our system of checks and balances is what makes our system great. I'm speaking of the Ted Kennedy types who want nothing more than a vote in Congress on weather to not allow the extra troops.”

“"I'm speaking of the Ted Kennedy types who want nothing more than a vote in Congress on weather to not allow the extra troops."

Gotcha.”

“That vote really has nothing to do with the actual fighting of the war.

That vote is meant to put Republicans on record so that when this current Bush plan fails, they can be tied to it.

It's all about posturing for the withdrawal.

BTW, the Bush plan is also an attempt to fix blame. Bush will try to pin the failure of his plan on the Iraqi government. See, we gave you troops and money. But now it's your own damned fault.

Both parties are posturing for the defeat. NO ONE has a serious plan to win.”

“That's really waht I got from his speech last night RL. The guy who was elected on a personal responsibility platform is looking to blame the Iraqi government.”

“Dubya and personal responsibility are contradictions.”

“IMHO, I would be more open to a "do-over, re-invasion" than I am about the current version of the Bush plan. While a re-invasion might come with a little egg on the face, at this point I don't see how we are going to avoid that outcome any way.
laqtis

I agree, I would love to see the General on the ground approach the leaders of the Shia the Sunnis and explain they have 90 days to straighten it out or we cut our boys loose.

You know I heard someone at lunch mention she wished that Bush would have shown more emotion...LOL...I am sure she meant like his predecessor...unfortunatly Bush is being responsible not looking for someone to blame.”

“Responsibility? Last night I thought I heard George say,' Mon, Dad ,I got my report card today, but before I show it to you I must tell my teachers are so dumb they have forgotten the first three letters of the alphabet'.”

“I don't know how ANYONE can take this "plan" seriously.

It is possible that when those 20,000 troops get to Iraq that we'll have fewer troops in Iraq than we had there in 2004 and 2005.

We also pledged an impossibly small amount of money for rebuilding.

And the time frame for this "plan" is three months. We don't have an ability to keep higher troop levels beyond the next half year.

This is just a little bit of media razzle dazzle. They want to buy some time.”

“this says it best.....

Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America.

Now, he says it is vital for America.

He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.

He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.

He has told us the war is necessary...Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.

He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government. He short-changed Iraqi training.

He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.

He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.

Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.

Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.

We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".

He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.

We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers.

As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course'.

The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists.

The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.

And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the vast majority of the American people.”

“It is time to affix blame.”

“Bush's plan sounds too much like Brooks' Mythical Man Month: extra personnel dumped into a project in a last ditch effort is invariably futile.

More troops might have made a difference... in 2003. The thing is, we can't send troops we don't have.”

“substitute President Bush for Field Marshal Hague in the folowing and you will see the light

GENERAL: Now, Field Marshal Hague has formulated a brilliant new tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field.

CAPTAIN BLACKADDER: Ah, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking very slowly towards the enemy, sir?

CAPTAIN DARLING: How could you possibly know that Blackadder, it's classified information?

CAPTAIN BLACKADDER: It's the same plan that we used last time, and the seventeen times before that.

GENERAL: Ex... ex... ex... actly! And that is what is so brilliant about it! It will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard. Doing precisely what we've done eighteen times before is exactly the last thing they'll expect us to do this time!

There is, however, one small problem.

CAPTAIN BLACKADDER: That everyone always gets slaughtered in the first ten seconds?

GENERAL: That's right. And Field Marshal Hague is worried that this may be depressing the men a tad. So, he's looking to find a way to cheer them up.

CAPTAIN BLACKADDER: Well, his resignation and suicide would seem the obvious.”

“I heard a bit of the Bush interview. He showed some class. He said clearly that he didn't want people blaming the military for problems in Iraq, that it was his decisions that should be blamed. He said everyone should avoid the temptation to scapegoat the troops.

I think his presidency is a disaster, but I think the Hitler analogy would be ridiculous even if he scapegoated the troops.”

“Actually, its too bad the article had to include such silly heyperbole. It made a point that I've been wondering about since I heard the surge plan: Going after the Shiite militias is asking for trouble. I remember how much trouble the US had with Sadr's Mahdi army a while back.

The reason the US has not been driven out of Iraq is that the majority Shi’ites have not been part of the insurgency. The Shi’ites are attacking the Sunnis, who are forced to fight a two-front war against US troops and Shi’ite militias and death squads. The US owes its presence in Iraq, just as the colonial powers always owed their presence in the Middle East, to the disunity of Arabs. Western domination of the Muslim world succeeded by not picking a fight with all of the disunited Arabs at the same time.

Attacking the Shi’ite militias while fighting a Sunni insurgency would violate this rule. If Bush ignores US military commanders and expert opinion and accepts the surge option advanced by the delusional neocon allies of Israel’s right-wing Likud Party, US troops will be engulfed in general insurgency. This is why General John Abizaid resigned on January 5. He wants no part of the Republican Party’s sacrifice of US soldiers to sectarian conflict.”

“Michael Yon is saying that we need to grit our teeth and go ahead and take out al Sadr. He says it will be bloody, but it needs to be done. According to him al Sadr does not have the best interests of Iraq in mind, but is only interested in killing more Sunnis.”

“omg, its true!
”