“The first step to fighting terrorism is getting some decent leadership in place…” I agree. The unwillingness or inability by the Bush administration to hold anyone accountable has been infuriating. We can begin by replacing Rumsfeld. The Democrats are spot on here. They can follow this up by actually suggesting a replacement for Rumsfeld. I would suggest either Senator Lindsay Graham or General Eric Shinseki. More effort should be expended by both parties in trying to find actual solutions rather than trying to simply affix blame or avoid taking responsibilty.

When the Democrats take the House, as they likely will. They can began by securing the borders and calling for massive increases in the size and capability of the Army. They will be in a better position to oversee the Bush administration than they are now. They should over see things to make sure their policies are implemented. As I stated previously, impeachment is probably warranted based on the complete failure to secure the borders and to increase the size of the military, however, at this time impeachment hearings would be a huge distraction. Those resources would be better spent providing over sight of the President and the Exeuctive branch and fighting the GWOT.

So you’re proposing that Bush stay in the office of President for the rest of his life?

Just kidding. But what is it about Bush’s leadership in the GWOT that makes you feel that he is the one essential man? Personally I can’t see anything good about Bush’s efforts in his so-called “war on terrorism.”

The first step in defeating terrorism is getting some decent leadershiop in place. And in order to do that Bush has to be removed. 5 years of horribly managed and unrelenting disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan should be enough for anyone.

You are right. It comes with living in the White House. The failure of this administration to hold people, especially Donald Rumsfeld accountable is infuriating. I’m sick of this Administration.

You write: “I mean have we ever had an administration who has spent so much time talking about who gets what blame?…” I’m not sure. This President has done a lousy job explaining his case. He has essentially allowed his critics to define the playing field pretty much unopposed.

In the article you link to the Katrina response and uncontrolled spending are discussed. In these areas, it is overly sinplistic to pin all of the blame on the President. The President does deserve a great deal of the blame for these things but to pin all the blame on the White House is oversimplistic and it obscures what we do face.

Frankly the Republicans and this President deserve to lose their majorities in the House and Senate. I fully expect the Democrats to gain control of the House and probably the Senate. When they do gain control, I hope the first order of business will be border security, increasing the size and strength of the military, and cutting spending, in that order.

If they must engage in impeachment hearings, I would respectfully request that they wait until after the GWOT is won. While impeachment of the president is probably warranted based on his gross negligence regarding border security and his presiding over uncontrolled spending, we don’t need the destraction right now. This would only divert resources that are needed to win the GWOT.

It comes with living in the White House, B. Poster. And trying to evade that part of the job description has only made him appear even more ridiculous.

I mean, have we ever had an administration who has spent so much time talking about who gets what blame? Kinda pussy if you think about it.

Great article from the WaPo by Joe Scarborough. He is correct. There is no way to cut taxes, increase spending, and fight a war all at the same time, however, it is overly simplistic to pin all of the blame on Bush. I hope we can get a real conservative as president when Bush’s term expires. Personally I’m sick of him.

By pulling back to Kurdish areas and monitoring the situation from there we can do this with fewer troops and we can monitor the situation to ensure terrorists don’t set up bases. We need to get back to the basics of defending America. Reforming the middle east, while a worthy and possibly necessary goal, is simply more than Americans are prepared to do right now.

If we are unable to devote the resources to Iraq, then we should pull back to Kurdish areas and monitor the civil war from there. We can intervene to ensure that Islamic terrorists don’t set up bases in the areas we abandon. Then we can work on increasing the size and strength of the military. Even if they are not used in Afghanistan or Iraq, they will be needed elsewhere. Right now a draft or substantial increase in the size of the military would be unpopular. Both Democrats and Republicans should lay out the stakes and call for an increase in the size and strength of hte military. If this means a draft, it means a draft.

The only problem with Kristol and Lowry’s recommendation is that it is premised on an illusion: In fact, there are no more troops to send to Iraq.

That is the unmistakable message of an Army briefing making the rounds in Washington. According to in-house assessments, fully two-thirds of the Army’s operating force, both active and reserve, is now reporting in as “unready”—that is, they lack the equipment, people, or training they need to execute their assigned missions. Not a single one of the Army’s Brigade Combat Teams—its core fighting units—currently in the United States is ready to deploy. In short, the Army has no strategic reserve to speak of. The other key U.S. fighting force in Iraq, the Marine Corps, is also hurting, with much of its equipment badly in need of repair or replacement.
No troops to send