Web Letters: Bush Blames the Troops

Scheer makes good sense and this observance is a slight twist to the phrase "standing behind the troops," but sadly it will make no difference.

I am convinced that just as much as Mr. Bush will be the first to blame his military officers if they don't pull off something that can be pronounced a victory in Iraq, he also has a palace guard that will protect him and isolate him from any opinion such as this.

Mr. Bush set in place from the get-go a protect the legacy operation in Iraq. First sign was the admission of faulty intelligence. Second sign was when the coallition of the willing fell apart or failed to materialize we had all that "old Europe" talk and "American Fries"...it was never considered that we had a bad argument--just chicken-hearted allies who hadn't expressed gratitude for WWII.

Now if Prateus fails he will "have been given all the resources possible" or, better yet, "The Demoncratic party, playing pure politics with American lives, failed to provide timely funding for the troops so they ran out of ammo and were sitting ducks".

Why else is this strawdog of "I'll veto" put forth now? It is just one more step in the pattern that we all see and the effect of which the White House paints with a different brush.

Harold D. House

Westhampton, NY