[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dilligras Wrong. The President does not have to know how to do everything, in order to get anything done. Such an approach is more the method of people like Saddam, whose ego led him to think he was a great military strategist. The successful manager knows that he must delegate authority to those who DO know, and then get out of their way, so they can get it done.

Sure, but the person who delegates that authority must assume responsibility for that person's actions. Bush is the man and the policy has been a failure. And since it didn't happen overnight, BUSH was the one who kept repeating "stay the course". You say he has no responsibility in this?

The premise that a President must be an authority on the intricacies of military endeavor before deploying his forces, is ludicrous on the face of it.

Yes it is, which is why I never SAID that.

Does Hillary Clinton have the slightest knowledge of these matters? Does Barbara Boxer? Nancy Pelosi? Not friggin' likely.

You just defended Bush for not knowing everything and condemn these Democrats for the same thing. This is a lack of consistency that you might not have noticed.

But, somehow I suspect that the first occasion of one of them chosing to "put our people there" will not be met with a similar skepticism from the portside of the aisle, but perhaps that is my natural skepticism surfacing.

Of course, since they didn't start it. If they had started this war they would have been just like the Republicans are NOW! That's not natural skepticism, that's bias.

Your question appears to assume that it need have been one or the other.......this is obviously not proven, so your question is therefore nonsensical.

Not at all. If nothing is proven then you cannot assume ANYTHING is nonsensical.
And it WAS one or the other. If Bush listened to his generals then they are partly responsible for this mess. If Bush DIDN'T listen to them your statement about delegating authority is false. And if you apply the same conditions to NEW generals the outcome is the same.

It always amazes me when folks feign ignorance or a lack of imagination when analyzing possible scenarios involving topics in which they have an emotional investment in the outcome of the analysis.

That sure was a mouthful of nothing. What is it that makes you think you have a CLUE as to what "emotional investment" I have in this matter.

I cannot believe that you cannot concieve of the possibility that the increase might be a reaction to current realities on the ground in Iraq, which might have nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons for an earlier reduction in troop levels there,

I go with what I see over what I might like to see. On one side I see a situation, while worsening, is essentially the SAME as a year ago. I hear people who know more that you or I saying they would need MASSIVE amounts of troops and they could have used them a year, or even three years ago. Then I see Bush commit a relatively small number of troops to handle the same thing as before and I see an extension of the same failed plan

especially in light of your acknowledgement below, that leadership must be flexible enough to react to changes.

And I also said Bush and Rumsfeld were NOT doing that properly. I agree with concept and not your favorites.

In what world? I respectfully submit that your going to the ballot was the occasion upon which you delegated the authority for such decisions to be made for you, being part of a representative government instead of a democratic one, in which every citizen would vote on each and every issue being considered. So your impression of a 'need' for more information before bestowing your sainted approval is a bit misguided and self-serving.

Wrong again. I said these questions must be answered before WE can debate the point. WE, meaning you and I. And your misinterpretation of any "approval" I might "bestow" is a bit stupid and foolish.

And I really can't debate anything with people who either can't read what I plainly say, can't comprehend it or put just words in my mouth.
I had thought you had gotten better with that. I was mistaken.