Bush blaming Gen. Casey-wants him out Quick

[rodeodance]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/01/01/military-officials-bush-_n_37576.html

Military Officials: Bush Speeding Gen. Casey's Transfer From Iraq Over Policy Disagreements...

The New York Times | DAVID E. SANGER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and JOHN F. BURNS | Posted January 1, 2007 10:40 PM
READ MORE: George W. Bush, Iraq
caseyout1.jpg

AP

Over the past 12 months, as optimism collided with reality, Mr. Bush increasingly found himself uneasy with General Casey's strategy. And now, as the image of Saddam Hussein at the gallows recedes, Mr. Bush seems all but certain not only to reverse the strategy that General Casey championed, but also to accelerate the general's departure from Iraq, according to senior military officials.

General Casey repeatedly argued that his plan offered the best prospect for reducing the perception that the United States remained an occupier -- and it was a path he thought matched Mr. Bush's wishes. Earlier in the year, it had.

Read the entire article here.

[Faygo Kid]

1. I thought W. always listened to the generals? Guess not.

Of course, he listens to no one. Except the creepy little voice in his head. In years past, he listened to Rove (did his bidding) and Cheney (did his bidding). Now he listens to no one. He is a danger to the nation and the world. Impeach him.

[Swede]

2. Here is the disaster in a nutshell

"Mr. Jaafari insisted that he had a plan, which involved closing the Sunni television stations in the country, though as the violence grew he belatedly imposed a curfew that evening. It was the beginning of a debilitating pattern. The Shiite-dominated government did too little to protect Sunni citizens. Shiite militias took matters into their own hands. And the American military struggled to hold the city together with overstretched units.

It was clear that the retaliation was highly organized"

[IndianaGreen]

3. We will replace General Westmoreland with General Abrams

Bush is no Lincoln. His generals are not guilty of not prosecuting the war, but of doing what Bush wanted them to do.

Bush's plan for Iraq is to sack his generals and blame the Iraqis. It is anyone's fault but Bush's.

[BearSquirrel2]

4. In 2007

In 2007 the problems in Iraq may be cause to impeach Bush. The bottom line to the equation is that Bush is STILL commander in chief. Democrats have very little capability to change the direction in the campaign despite what they are proposing publicly. The Iraq War Resolution is signed and Bush has the authority to conduct this war until Bush HIMSELF signs a bill de-authorizing his own authority.

In order to stop the Iraq mess before the 2008 election, Bush will need to be impeached.

[IndianaGreen]

5. You can't impeach Bush without impeaching Cheney

Impeaching both at the same time would be a Constitutional coup, which must be followed by a purge of the entire Bush cabinet. I don't think this is practical, it is too time consuming and we don't have the votes in Congress to impeach.

A more practical approach is for Congress to pass an End of Iraq War Resolution, and back it up by cutting off all funds for the war except those necessary to redeploy all the troops out of Iraq.

[BearSquirrel2]

8. Not enough votes ...

Well, in both cases you don't have enough votes. The difference is that if you threaten to cut off all support, it will be impeached and you will be accused of abandoning the troops in the field. Impeachment is an attack against the president, not against the troops.

Another approach to deal with this would be to start attaching riders to curtail the presidents spending authority to Iraq funding bills. If the Republican Senate impeaches them, then we can accuse the Republicans of starving the troops. If the president vetoes them, then the like accusation can be made against him.

The investigations on fiduciary mismanagement should yield some pretty fodder. I doubt it will provide enough ammunition to take down the president before the next election. But it might be useful for shaming some of the Republican contenders. McCain has been pretty chummy with Bush for quite some time now. Lets not forget where the President was while New Orleans was drowning. Anything that casts a negative light on Bush taints anyone who has been standing by behind him.

Just remember that Congress is NOT the chief excutive. Also remember that with a one vote majority in the Senate, Democrats cannot unilateraly pass any legislation in that body. Expect to see a LOT of grandstanding in the Senate from BOTH parties in the next two years.

[newyawker99]

6. Hi BearSquirrel2!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[gratuitous]

7. "A path (Casey) thought matched Mr. Bush's wishes"

Okay class, how many things wrong are there with just those eight little words?

1. Casey wasn't acting in what he thought was the best military strategy.

2. Casey ceded his military acumen to the judgment of a man who never served in combat.

3. Casey advocated a plan not for its military value, but because he thought it was what Bush wanted to hear.

4. How many casualties did we have during the last half of 2006? Casualties directly attributable to a strategy designed to please Mr. Bush rather than a strategy designed with military objectives in mind?

Others?