Or rather, Rove did. It was a sign of desperation.
I'll bet Stripes received several negative responses to it as well as to the Abu Ghraib tortures on Rummy's watch. Bush's puppet-masters are beginning to lose their voice as a result.
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=23520Bush’s leadership weak
President Bush has disappointed conservatives and military members by betraying the very values that he swore to uphold when he campaigned for the White House. His appointment of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has led to weakening the resources of the military and spreading them too thinly around the globe. The plans that this administration has for cutting personnel, closing bases and reducing our presence in Europe will deeply diminish U.S. military prestige and power.
Under Rumsfeld, there has been increased dissension between uniformed leadership and the White House on numerous issues. Everyone in Washington knows that this has been occurring since before the Iraq war. Threatening about-to-retire military leadership that their lucrative lobbying jobs with defense industries won’t be there if they speak out against flawed administration policies is standard procedure. Even when generals and intelligence agencies warned against actions and timing that put soldiers at risk, the administration followed its own ambitions that disregarded these respected advisers.
It has become clear that Bush is led and managed by Vice President Dick Cheney and his network of neo-conservative, starry-eyed defense advisers.
It is also widely acknowledged that Bush has failed to take basic steps to protect the United States against future terrorist attacks.
Cutting veterans’ benefits and scaling back the services so that additional private, expensive contractors can be hired do not serve the institution of the military. It makes it less attractive as a professional choice.
This is not strong leadership, but rather the abdication of it.
Because of this weak leadership, the safety of soldiers and ordinary citizens is more compromised, and the prestige and respect for the U.S. military has been damaged.
Robert Van Burkleo
Seattle
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=23587What protection?
I have read that President Bush, by invading Iraq, has protected the United States and our freedoms.
How has he done that?
Iraq was already a defanged, toothless tiger. From Operation Desert Fox in 1998 to the start of the war in 2003, our air forces and those of the United Kingdom flew more than 40,000 sorties against Iraq, dropping tens of thousands of munitions. In over four years, the Iraqi anti-aircraft crews did not shoot down one aircraft.
In March 2003, Bush decided that he had enough of U.N. inspections and we went to war against a country that was not involved in 9/11 and was not a threat to us. None of the 19 hijackers were Iraqi. The invasion was justified on the basis of weapons of mass destruction. Hardly a word was said about bringing democracy to Iraq.
In Baghdad, we had enough troops to guard the oil ministry, but none for the museum. Some of our prison guards disgraced their uniforms and their country. On June 28, we installed — in a bunker — a puppet government. In the United States, governors have said that with so many Guard and reserve personnel in Iraq, they don’t have enough people to deploy if disasters occur in their states.
Now we read that Iran, not Iraq, may have given the 9/11 terrorists help. We’re bogged down in a bloody occupation, costing over 900 American dead and well over $100 billion so far, with the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel not in sight. We have received no appreciable help from either NATO or the United Nations. Most of the members of the United Nations think, but dare not say, “I told you so.” U.S. prestige, as a result of all of this, is at an all-time low.
So, how have we been protected by this folly?
Gene Seiler
Kiedrich, Germany