Okay, I'll amend my initial statement to reflect that Rumsfeld shived him, and he spent the remainder of his time neutered.

You want to play at that level then you need to understand the rules

I'm not arguing that. The line of discussion is the assertion that somehow Bush was hamstrung by trying to appease the peacenicks and that is why we didn't have enough troops to win the occupation.

My only point is that one can't have it both ways. Bush was in control 100%, and Iraq was done precisely as they intended.

And just how was the Bush administration any different than previous one? Hardly surprising that administrations want appointees to toe the line. You want to play at that level then you need to understand the rules

In what alternate universe?

So now you are stealing my lines? At least try to be cool bit...

So, you’re admiting the continuous and nonsensical resistance being put up by the left had no effect at all?

The majority of Americans oppose the war. Guess Bit is admitting that "the left" constitutes the majority and that Bush is badly out of the mainstream...

Please tell us how the makeup of Congress in 2003 forced Bush to appoint Bremer, who would go on to compound the screwups Bush already had in place.

Or are you just engaging in a rant & run?

Please. We all want to hear how this works.

Actually, to claim that even the new Democratic majority in Congress is able to force Bush to do anything is kind of a joke

I suspect those in office are balanced between what their own left (As in, you, for example) wants, and wat the reality of the situation requires.

So even if you throw in a time machine, Bit's position is a laughable...

Considering that Cheney recently said in an interview that what the american people think isn’t going to allow him to be “blown off course”, it’s pretty clear that you’d have to be a clown of inordinate magnitude to believe the crap you’re shoveling

.

So, you're admiting the continuous and nonsensical resistance being put up by the left had no effect at all?

An interesting admission, if a little too convieinient.

Given the makeup of Congress, that’s kinda hard to avoid.

So given the fact the GOP had complete control of congress when Bremer was appointed and the massive post-Saddam screw ups in Iraq took place, Bush had no choice but to defer to the left.... ahhhhh, OK.

Run along bit... arguing with my 10 year old nephew would be far more difficult and interesting...

So, “We were too quick to get the military face off the war, and turn it over to civilians” in mid 2003 because of the Democratic congress and it is us living in a fantasy world?
Do you think before you type?

Yes.
There is no other conclusion to draw, if you're being honest.

Of course, I don't expect that from Democrats, so don't worry about it.

Yes, I keep hearing y'all say that, but reports at the time indicate he was undercut by Rumsfeld in 2002:

In April 2002, 14 months before Shinseki was due to retire, The Washington Post reported, quoting "Pentagon officials", that his replacement had already been selected. "In another unusual move, Rumsfeld has tapped Army Gen. Jack Keane, the No. 2 officer in the Army, to succeed the current chief of that service, Gen. Eric Shinseki, whose term runs out next year. Selecting a successor for the current chief so far in advance is highly unusual."[9] This reported departure from precedent somewhat undercut Shinseki's authority within the Army.

Something even Tom Maguire believes was shiv in Shinseki's back by Rumsfeld.

I'm sure there's enough plausible deniability here to make any statement you want, but what's pretty clear is that when the President's economic advisor, Lawrence Lindsey, said the cost of the Iraq war was going to be around 200 billion dollars, he was fired for speaking this.

The pattern is clear and consistent. Anyone who said that Iraq was going to take a whole lot more resources than Rumsfeld, et. al., wanted to hear were shived, let go or rerouted.

WWII was not a choice for US vs Japan nor against Germany. Hitler chose to formally declare war on US. Of course we could have chosen to sue for peace rather than insist on Unconditional Surrendor.

Hal, again Shinseki was neither fired nor dismissed. He served his entire term as Army Chief of Staff.

Further, it's quite clear from - oh, I don't know - the architects of the Iraq war, themselves, that going in with the number of troops that they did had nothing to do with satisfying peacenicks, rather it was an explicit strategy to show that we can topple governments without even breaking a sweat - something that we surely accomplished beyond any doubt. It's pretty well known that democracies don't like long wars, and it really has nothing to do with peacenicks.

It's rather odd that from Shinseki on down, anyone who pointed out we'd need far more troops than we were sending were dismissed and/or fired. Considering that Senator Byrd, one of those "peacenicks" in Congress who you say prevented teh Bush from doing the right thing, described in great detail that vastly more troops would be necessary to accomplish the stated goals.

Considering that Cheney recently said in an interview that what the american people think isn't going to allow him to be "blown off course", it's pretty clear that you'd have to be a clown of inordinate magnitude to believe the crap you're shoveling.

Really, Bithead. Give us even a tiny shred of evidence - from the actual time period in question, not some bizarro theory where by the Congress of 2008 wields an iron fist in 2003 - that supports your theory. I'm sure you'll entertain us with your wild gyrations and rather comical stylings in the attempt to do so. I mean, I've heard some doozy of explanations as to why Iraq failed, but yours really wins the booby prize hands down.