George Bush declares himself to be a war president, even though no war has been declared and he had to declare his own war to call himself that, and he declared war against a country the size of California, with no air force, no navy and whose army gave up and ran at the first opportunity, and whose unsuccessful war against a country with no army has lasted longer than World War ll.
Given that display of incompetence, we must consider what would happen if Bush were to be responsible for defending the United States against a real military organization, fully equipped and supplied with all the material for war and led by competent military tacticians.
During World War ll, Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, was able to provide an army of a million soldiers with the hundreds of thousands of planes, ships, tanks, trucks, artillery, ammunition, supplies and reinforcements needed to win the war against the formidable military might of Germany and Japan. The Europeans were astonished at the enormous stockpiles of equipment and supplies in the hundreds of acres of supply depots scattered over Europe. The most astute German generals realized their war was lost when they saw the abundance of supplies available for use against them.
Now, here's the kicker. If it came to the crunch, this is what is most revealing. George Bush is unable to provide his army of about 150,000 troops with something as simple and inexpensive as personal body armor.
What would he do if he had to provide a full blown army with the equipment that Roosevelt provided his troops? What if the survival of the United States depended on him doing that? The families of Bush's soldiers had to buy body armor to send their ill-equipped family members in Iraq. How many families could provide their soldiers with a tank, or a fighter plane?
What would happen if the United States had to depend on the Bush administraation for the people with the expertise in logistics, strategy and tactics to win a real war? Bush has stuffed his administration with loyal Republican Bushies whose only expertise and only priority is in how to be a Republican. What are they gonna do if a military force attacks the United States? Lie, spin, deceive and obfuscate them to death? Hope they'll lay down their arms when they explain how they're against gay marriage?
The United States entered World War ll, won it and hung the war criminals at Nuremberg because Hitler waged unprovoked, aggressive war on other nations. George Bush has waged unprovoked, aggressive war on Iraq. So, it's not outside the realm of possibility, if not probability, that some other country today could see the parallels and take the same action against a war-mongering tyrant that the United States did against another war-mongering tyrant.
George Bush has proved that he is hopelessly incompetent to command a military fighting a real war. He has reduced the military to an arm of the Republican Party to show how brilliant it is to go to war with nothing but the armor of Republican ideology. He has failed miserably and the thing that should scare the crap out of us is that he has left the United States vulnerable to the delusions of any other war-mongering tyrant like himself. We can only hope that we've got the only one and that other, more sensible nations will restrain themselves until such time as we can get Bush convicted for his war crimes.