Shields and Brooks both get it wrong on the Harry Reid/Peter Pace manufactured controversy...factually and pundaciously (made up word to describe pundit's inane attempts to turn spin into CW)
Too bad for Pace but you would be hard pressed to find a military person not constrained by current employment willing to describe him as a strong leader that ultimately had his troop's best interest at heart.
He executed policy dictated by the WH and Sec/Def without regard to the escalation's likely failure and detriment to the US military. I call that opportunism at it's very worst. I'm sure he believed that he could gain additional support to implement some of that strategy successfully....but why would he think that was attainable? He's short by a few hundred thou troops and everyone including himself knew it.
Getting back to the Mark Shields and David Brooks attempt to smack down Harry for making comments about Pace....
Harry Reid recalled his expressed disappointment with Pace on a conference call with some bloggers and described how he in fact had told Pace directly in a meeting that performance was incompetent. Is there an argument here? Is there some competence in Iraq that we are somehow unaware of?
Tony Snow is saying that it hurts morale to criticize Pace...huh? You would be hard pressed to find any war in history that the main line troops don't believe the leadership to be incompetent. When you have people running a war who have never served in the military, it is very hard to stomach them telling us what the "troops" think.
The Admin describes bloody violence as "progress" so I'm pretty damn sure that if there was any fucking "competence" to be seen, we'd have seen it..ad nausem.
God I hate these republican assholes...Can someone tell me again how pointing out a flat tire to the driver of a car is dangerous to the passengers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment