Bush Era Characters & Syria War Opinions - WTF

Help me here. I keep seeing the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, Cheney, Bolton, and the rest of the discredited cast of characters showing up in the media with their opinions and of course criticisms of the current administration's approach to Syria. Hum?

Does anyone ask Mitt Romney how to win a presidential election these days? Does anyone really consult with Michael Brown about disaster response? Does anyone seek out Mark Sanford for marriage counseling advice? The answer is Hell NO!

The reason we don't is because of a track record of proven failure on their parts. In all these interviews, you almost never hear the words, "Iraq War" before, during, or after the segment. They simply ignore the only pertinent question anyone should ask of them. "What shouldn't we do?" That is about all these people are qualified to comment on with any degree of credibility. Period!

Anyone care to support their opinions? Seriously?

 

I'm not so certain you're getting the point of their opinions. They're not criticizing Obama's decision to go to war as they are criticizing Obama's approach for going to war.

Rumsfeld is pointing out, and rightfully so, the ineptitude of our current not-ready-for-prime-time president for not being clear with Congress, international allies and the public concerning the objectives of a war on Syria.

Rumsfeld said, "The way you get unity of purpose is with clarity and a vision, and the White House has not provided that, which is the reason you see the confusion in the Congress and the lack of a coalition." If you can point out where that's not true, I'd like to see it.

Say whatever you want about Bush, but he was anything but indecisive which is in stark contrast to Obama as Karl Rove has pointed out.

You mentioned George Bush criticizing Obama, but I haven't seen where that's true at all. Bush has said that Obama has "a tough choice to make". Please point out where Bush has criticized Obama.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the actions these men took regarding Iraq. I didn't want us to go into Iraq, I didn't want us to go into Libya and I don't want us to go into Syria. But, these men aren't being critical of the president's decision to go to war. They're being critical of his approach to going to war. Big difference.

 

So in conclusion, it's not enough he's with the right in wanting to go to war....he's going about it all wrong?! Bloody amazing. I wonder, if according to the right, he takes a crap correctly.

 

Former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld isn’t pulling any punches when it comes to President Obama’s notion to launch airstrikes on Syria without following up with ground troops or additional military presence: That type of “minimalist” strategy doesn’t work.
Rather, it’s “feckless and ineffective,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, as Politico reported.
“[The] president is not, in my view, providing the kind of leadership that I think almost any president in my adult lifetime would be providing,” he said during a Tuesday event at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum in Grand Rapids, Mich., as reported by Politico.


Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/4/donald-rumsfeld-obama-hes-feckless-syria/#ixzz2eEYaPnG1

Rumsfeld is criticizing more than the approach here, he is criticizing the magnitude of the response that has not even happened as of yet. The president has said that he will not put boots on the ground in Syria. Apparently that will be an unsuccessful approach according to Rummy but if you take a look at Iraq, one of the longest U.S. wars in history with boots on the ground, how successful was that?? It's like saying the approach I took didn't work but it is the only approach to take in this situation regardless of how it turned out last time in a very similar country right next door.

I just think that we should all thank Mr. Rumsfeld for his opinion and move along. I just don't think anyone is going to take what he thinks into consideration and rightfully so.

 

"Bloody". What an appropriate choice of words. There are certain protocols that must be followed even if we're talking about something as basic as declaring war and killing people. Like it or not, with Iraq, Bush went about it the proper way. So far, Obama is also going about it the proper way. However, it seems he is likely to go to war even without Congressional approval. If that is the case (and, as yet, remains to be seen), then we may as well just have a dictator in office and take a match to the Constitution.

No, he doesn't take a crap correctly either. He leans to the left when he takes a crap.

 

You mean like dropping a nuke on Damascus would be the same as using a BB gum to shot out Assad's palace window? But you feel necessary to ask if one is right and one is wrong? I think I will let you answer that.

 

Well, he would know, wouldn't he? It was HIS idea to go into Afghanistan and Iraq with minimal force, thinking those engagements didn't require more than that.

Of course, we needed ten...twenty....thirty times that eventually, and even then failed in the mission, unless the mission was to @#$%-up two countries and kill hundreds of thousands of people, including thousands of our own people.

Yeah, Rumsfeld has decent hind-sight, for a total @#$%ing idiot.