[QUOTE]Abizaid also publicly said for the first time that the American position in Iraq had been undermined by the Bush administration's decision not to deploy a larger force to stabilize the country in 2003. That decision came after General Eric Shinseki, the army chief of staff at the time, told Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed. His testimony at the time was derided by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the general was ostracized at the Pentagon before his retirement a few months later.
"General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations," Abizaid said. "I think you can look back and say that more American troops would have been advisable in the early stages of May, June, July."[/QUOTE]
When Shinseki testified to the need for more troops to stabilize Iraq he was ridiculed by the neo-Cons especially Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in public testimony. He was basically isolated in the Pentagon and some say he was in affect fired.
Kerry in the 2004 campaign continuously mentioned this as evidence of how the administration failed to properly carry out the operation and he was ridiculed for this also. Bush always said that he sent the amount of troops that the Generals wanted. Well obviously that is not true.
So now it turns out that our head of operations on the ground in Iraq says that Shinseki was right.
So what exactly has our administration been right about in Iraq? What exactly has it's critics been wrong about?
[QUOTE=bitonti]sorry bro thinking for oneself is unpatriotic
if you aren't willing to accept the word of the President and give him carte blanche you should just move to mexico... commie.[/QUOTE]
Of course you only support those outspoken people who you agree with. Anyone who happens to agree with the President is automatically branded by you as a sheep.