Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I think over the years it's become evident that Bush's leadership hasn't been effective. For whatever reason, Bush has stuck with not using enough troops to get Iraq under control. He's been the gift that keeps on giving for creating more terrorist & more dead troops.

Bush is still in charge btw, so for those that take terrorist propaganda to heart Bush still has two more years till somebody from either party comes in to start cleaning up his mess.



Bush stuck to not using more troops because he trusted Rumsfeld's plan to use a minimal force of 150,000. But Rumsfeld is gone now.
I agree that the Bush/Rumsfeld 150,000 troop occupation strategy has not been effective in Iraq. And that more troops should have been sent in at any number of points in the last 3 and 1/2 years.
But now only McCain is pushing for more troops to do the job right, so it probably won't happen.

I've largely lost faith in Bush, on many fronts beyond the Iraq war.:
  • Afghanistan seems to be experiencing the same resurgency of the enemy, as is occurring in Iraq.
  • The Harriet Myers nomination.
  • The failure of Bush's social security restructuring proposal.
  • The tax cuts that began simultaneous with beginning a war, accelerating the deficit.
  • Bush's allowing domestic spending to rise by a larger amount than even the war on terror.
  • And on Bush's amnesty proposal for aliens.


And while Bush will be in office for another two years, he will be a lame-duck president, with whom Congress can cut off spending and force a withdrawal from Iraq at some point. That's what the al Qaida praise for Democrat victory on November 7 reflects.
The one issue to Bush's credit: he is steadfast about keeping our forces in Iraq until the mission is completed. But a Democrat Congress can force troops to be withdrawn prematurely. And the entire Islamic world is cheering, because they know that.

The insurgency in Iraq only has to wait out the next two years, and then they can watch U.S. troops withdraw, if not sooner.