What’s behind the attacks against Rumsfeld?
A very interesting read in The Wall Street Journal
So when did Generals cease to be responsible for outcomes in war? We ask that question amid the latest calls by certain retired senior military officers for Donald Rumsfeld to resign over U.S. difficulties in Iraq.
Major General Charles H. Swannack Jr., for one, was quoted last week as saying the Defense Secretary’s “absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq” mean he is not “the right person” to continue leading the Pentagon. Mr. Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne in Iraq, joins other ex-uniformed Iraq War critics such as former Centcom Commander Anthony Zinni and retired Army Major General John Batiste. But there’s far more behind this firefight than Mr. Rumsfeld’s performance.
Mr. Zinni in particular neither fought the Iraq War nor supported it in the first place. He is a longtime advocate of “realism” in the Middle East, which is fancy-speak for leaving Arab dictators alone in the name of “stability.” What Mr. Zinni really opposes is President Bush’s “forward strategy of freedom,” not the means by which the Administration has waged the Iraq campaign.
As for those who’ve raised the issue of competence, we’d be more persuaded if they weren’t so impossibly vague. If their critique is that Mr. Rumsfeld underestimated the Sunni insurgency, well, so did the CIA and military intelligence. Retired General Tommy Franks, who led and planned the campaign that toppled Saddam Hussein, took a victory lap after the invasion even as the insurgency gathered strength.
If their complaint is that Mr. Rumsfeld has since fought the insurgents with too few troops, well, what about current Centcom Commander John Abizaid? He is by far the most forceful advocate of the “small footprint” strategy–the idea that fewer U.S. troops mean less Iraqi resentment of occupation.Our point here isn’t to join the generals, real or armchair, in pointing fingers of blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq. Mistakes are made in every war; there’s a reason the word “snafu” began as a military acronym whose meaning we can’t reprint in a family newspaper. But if we’re going to start assigning blame, then the generals themselves are going to have to assume much of it.
A recent article by former Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor for the Center for Defense Information details how the U.S. advance on Baghdad in March and April 2003 was slowed against Mr. Rumsfeld’s wishes by overcautious commanders on the scene. That may have allowed Saddam and many of his supporters to escape to fight the insurgency. General Abizaid also resisted the first assault on Fallujah, in April 2004, which sent a signal of U.S. political weakness. We don’t agree with all of Mr. Macgregor’s points, but it is likely that these Rumsfeld critics are trying to write their own first, rough draft of historic blame shifting.
Our own view is that the worst mistakes in Iraq have been more political than military, especially in not establishing a provisional Iraqi government from the very start. Instead, the U.S. allowed itself to be portrayed as occupiers, a fact that the insurgency exploited. But the blame for that goes well beyond Mr. Rumsfeld–and would extend to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and to Mr. Bush himself.
Mr. Rumsfeld’s largest mistake may have been giving L. Paul Bremer too free a hand to govern like a viceroy in 2003 and 2004 when a more rapid turnover of political power to Iraqis, and more rapid training of Iraqi forces, might have made a big difference. More than anything else, that unnecessary delay in Iraq’s political and self-defense evolution has contributed to the current instability.
Related links:
A General Misunderstanding
Generals defend Rumsfeld but cite ’severe’ errors
Putting 6 Retired Generals into Perspective
April 17, 2006 - 11:53 PM on April 17th, 2006
Just curious… how much military battlefield experience does Rumsfeld have, as opposed to the Generals calling for his ousting? Right, that’s what I thought.
April 17, 2006 - 11:53 PM on April 17th, 2006
Last I heard, officers could still be recalled (myself excepted, they lost some of my paperwork when I got out) and are to be considered on inactive reserve for at least 6 years after retiring from the military. As such, these generals should be damn glad I’m not the Commander in Chief. I would make a few calls, have them activated and assigned as Rummy’s lapdogs. I’d then give them the choice of resigning for the good of the service or face general courts martial for conduct unbecoming an officer, insubordination, and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. That last one is the universal, you’ve p’od the wrong person charge. It covers damn near any action or comment that could be misconstrued as adversely effecting morale or unit discipline. I doubt it would take much to argue that claiming that the Sec. of Defense is incompetent in the press would be considered detrimental to morale.
I can honestly tell you that to become a General requires a few things, and a good sense for politics can be a big boost in that regards. With the Clintons’ well known antipathy for the military, I am certain that while many generals got their stars through competence, I am equally certain that many got theirs through political astuteness rather than military prowess. I personally know one officer who’s connections got him assigned to command a high profile unit after another officer had received orders to command that unit. There is definitely an old boy network that can really be a pain.
April 18, 2006 - 12:21 AM on April 18th, 2006
And in counter, FrmrArtyOffcr, Rummy has NO stars. The military personel view, as they should, him as a civilian.
April 18, 2006 - 06:50 AM on April 18th, 2006
It doesn’t take a retired general to see that Secretary Rumsfeld has made “thousands of mistakes”in Iraq.
April 18, 2006 - 06:55 AM on April 18th, 2006
3-actually toasted, they answer to him.
April 18, 2006 - 08:37 AM on April 18th, 2006
Hindsight is always 20/20, and no Monday-morning quarterback has ever won a agame.
FAO, technically, once a Commissioned Officer, always a CO. Even though you resigned your commission (I resigned my commission in 1998, throughly disgusted with Klinton as CIC) you are always subject to recall by the CIC. It would have to be an almost unimaginable scenario for that to happen, but technically, we both could be recalled to active duty by the President.
April 18, 2006 - 09:54 AM on April 18th, 2006
Isn’t there something “un-American”about suggesting that a retired officer can’t speak out against the government? How about free speech?
Shouldn’t the same criticism apply to Robert if he says something bad about President Clinton?
April 18, 2006 - 10:02 AM on April 18th, 2006
Who here has suggested that?
April 18, 2006 - 12:13 PM on April 18th, 2006
WHY OH WHY do some conservatives choose to attack the messengers and not the message?
Why are you talking about the generals and not talking about Rumsfelds performance as Sec. of Defense?
IMAGINE FOR ONE MOMENT, the roles reversed and a democratic president and administration making the mistakes in Iraq, not your Dear Leader.
You people would be tearing at your clothes and gnashing your teeth like in the old testament, HOWLING for the head on a spike of the Democratic Sec. of Defense.
right?
April 18, 2006 - 12:24 PM on April 18th, 2006
San Fran….one of the generals (Zinni) signed off on the USS Cole porting in Aden for refueling. Because of decreased military funding (Clinton) ships had to pull into port rather than refueling at sea. Obviously, when you have a “message” like that it does sink in.
As for the roles being reversed, it just wouldn’t happen. Why? Because democrats WON’T fight.
April 18, 2006 - 12:27 PM on April 18th, 2006
10.
Well, the evidence does tend to back that up…
Practitioners of the “religion of peace” attacked the US in
1993 WTC
1996 Saudi arabia
1997 Kenya
1997 Tanzania
2000 USS cole
and the democratic pres and secdef did………nothing.
April 18, 2006 - 12:41 PM on April 18th, 2006
“one of the generals (Zinni) signed off on the USS Cole porting in Aden for refueling. Because of decreased military funding (Clinton) ships had to pull into port rather than refueling at sea.”
That has nothing to do with the Iraq Failure. And, if I may, it is very unbecoming of you to blame the victim. (!)
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton…it’s like a disease some of you people have. A obsessive compulsive disorder of sorts. Blame Clinton. People, Clinton had NOTHING to do with the Iraq Failure. That’s all you guys.
“As for the roles being reversed, it just wouldn’t happen. Why? Because democrats WON’T fight.”
Please. A democrat president helped save tens of thousands of Europeans in the 1990’s. His leadership on Bosnia helped win a war, and with ZERO American casualties.
Seriously, just TRY to imagine a complete role reversal here. Imagine if, say, Clinton – your arch enemy apparently – started a war that went disastrously wrong, thousands of US lives lost…and the administration ADMITS it has made “thousands of tactical errors” in the war…
WHAT WOULD YOU DO/SAY?
Guys…”My country, right or wrong”….is crap. When your country is wrong, you have a DUTY to let them know and to make sure it NEVER happens again.
April 18, 2006 - 12:51 PM on April 18th, 2006
It seems that about the only person in America who thinks Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a good job is President Bush. Rather than discuss the real issue (Secretary Rumsfeld) it’s easier to discuss a non-issue like retired Generals right to free speech.
April 18, 2006 - 12:53 PM on April 18th, 2006
“1993 WTC
1996 Saudi arabia
1997 Kenya
1997 Tanzania
2000 USS cole
and the democratic pres and secdef did:::nothing”
Nothing??? The planners and in some cases the actual attackers in most of those listed above were caught by law enforcement, put on trial and sent to jail. Especially the WTC `93 attackers…Ramsey Youseff or something…IN JAIL. Thank you Clinton – D of J. (!)
You just want to bomb, smash, and destroy…that’s not the correct way to stop the cycle of violence.
Catch `em, and put `em in jail where they belong – with the other criminals.
But to say the Clinton Admin did “nothing” is HIGHLY incorrect and overlooks the historical evidence…
guys, terrorism is a fact of life. It has been around since the begining of time, and it will ALWAYS be here. You can’t defeat it with the military, that’s for damn sure.
April 18, 2006 - 12:58 PM on April 18th, 2006
SF Dope Head, it was because Jaime Gorelick didn’t allow US Intelligence to see what DoJ had on Al Qaeda from the 93 bombing enabled Bin Laden to try again without having to dodge bombs and US Troops.
Clinton is a doofus when it came to terror.
April 18, 2006 - 01:01 PM on April 18th, 2006
That’s not true Zelda. There are alot of generals, etc. who think Rumsfield is doing a great job.
As for Clinton doing nothing. Yes, that’s exactly what I said and I believe it from the bottom of my heart. Clinton did nothing to catch terrorists and as for law enforcement, fighting terrorism is NOT a law enforcement problem.
Jamie Gorelick (CLINTON’s appointee) erected a wall of information sharing between intelligence agencies and the list goes on and on.
April 18, 2006 - 01:04 PM on April 18th, 2006
“There are alot of generals, etc. who think Rumsfield is doing a great job.”
Are you referring to the Generals below him who still want to keep their job?
April 18, 2006 - 01:12 PM on April 18th, 2006
Yes Zelda, I am
April 18, 2006 - 01:23 PM on April 18th, 2006
Wasn’t Shinseki a Clinton appointee hold over? People like SF Dope Head forget all the Clintonistas Bush left in place when he took office. Many of the Clintonistas have done partisan damage to the Country.
April 18, 2006 - 02:25 PM on April 18th, 2006
A little Zinni history: Source
But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region,” adding, “Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months.”
April 18, 2006 - 03:26 PM on April 18th, 2006
“…it was because Jaime Gorelick didn’t allow US Intelligence to see what DoJ had on Al Qaeda from the 93 bombing enabled Bin Laden to try again without having to dodge bombs and US Troops.”
Ummm…yeah, it was all the fault of one person. Oh, two, if you include the EVIL Pres. Clinton. Please.
Are there any republicans whose boots you WON’T lick?
“Clinton is a doofus when it came to terror.”
Ok, maybe…but be fair and admit that Bush is a moron when it comes to terror. He invaded the wrong country, and he diverted valuable resources from the hunt for Osama Bin Ladin…internationally the past 5 years under Bush we have seen increase in terror attacks and legions of NEW terrorists. But, since Bush is a Republican, PCD continues to lick his boots. Shame.
“As for Clinton doing nothing. Yes, that’s exactly what I said and I believe it from the bottom of my heart.”
Feel free to believe what you want, but that doesn’t make it true.
“Clinton did nothing to catch terrorists and as for law enforcement, fighting terrorism is NOT a law enforcement problem.”
The Clinton D of J caught, prosecuted and sent to jail numerous terrorists, including the planners and perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attack. Those terrorist scumbags are STILL in jail and are a threat to no one anymore.
So, I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about on that one. Except, of course, when it concerns how you “feel”.
As far as evidence supporting my theory that military intervention on a large scale does nothing to stop terrorism, look no further than Iraq. Has three years of US military might made a dent in the bombings there? Nope.
Globally, have terror attacks INCREASED in the three years since Iraq was invaded? Yes.
“Wasn’t Shinseki a Clinton appointee hold over? People like SF Dope Head forget all the Clintonistas Bush left in place when he took office. Many of the Clintonistas have done partisan damage to the Country.”
Ummm…yeah. Leftover Clinton appointees have done more damage to America than an unnecessary, unpopular war against a nation that didn’t threaten us, resulting in damaged national prestige and thousands of American dead and wounded.
April 18, 2006 - 03:34 PM on April 18th, 2006
“But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region,”adding, “Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions : Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months.”"
So what? We already know that nearly EVERYONE was fooled into thinking Iraq still was a threat. Repubs and Dem’s both were wrong. Our government has admitted as much.
The only ones who were right on all this, were the ones calling for patience, calm, and more time for weapons inspections.
What makes a REAL man or woman, is the ability to look back and say “I was wrong and I want to do what I can to rectify my mistake”.
April 18, 2006 - 03:47 PM on April 18th, 2006
I guess SF Liberal hasn’t heard of the Army intelligence program that identified Mohammed Atta and wanted to turn the intel over to the DOJ but was prevented by attorneys for the Klinton Administration because of the policy (the wall) formalized by Jamie Gorelick. 911 would have likely been prevented had that wall of separation not been put in place. And that single fact just takes everything about Klinton regarding what he did, that you posted, and renders it meaningless. The “wall” was formally put into place even as the terror threat was rising. And if Klinton was so effective at rounding up terrorists, how come he couldn’t catch Bin Laden?
Klinton inherited a rising economy, and left a falling economy. Inherited cheap, plentiful energy form Bush Sr., and did absolutely nothing suring his tenure to ensure that America’s economy would have the energy it needs. He left expensive, uncertain supplies.
Let’s face it, SF Liberal. Bush has had more challenges in his time in office than any other President in the last 50 years, and much of it has to do with the pile of crap the Klintons left as they glibly snuck out of the White House (while trying to steal $250,000 worth of furnishings.
When you are faced with difficult situations, you make choices and take chances. Nobody is perfect. But at least he is acting, rather than pretending the threat doesn’t exist while indulging in continual self-gratification.
Remember: Clero masturbated while America’s security burned.
And while Bush has been in office there have been NO terror attacks on the U.S. NO more 911s. Although I am sure that the Left is very disappointed; as evidenced by their attempt to stop the FBI from wiretapping calls made from out of the country to suspects here. And the Left would no doubt just love to release the Guests at Club Gitmo so they can go out and rejoin their comrades fighting Americans or strap bombs on themselves and go blow up some soft targets.
How do I feel about the Gitmo “detainees”? I would have fed them to the sharks two years ago.
April 18, 2006 - 03:49 PM on April 18th, 2006
-But they were not wrong and the evidence is pointing to that..And why are you defending Zinni? How is his mistake any worse than Runsfeld? Who, btw, has been a great SOD…
April 18, 2006 - 09:32 PM on April 18th, 2006
read san fran he is dead on with this one.
ops:
April 18, 2006 - 11:54 PM on April 18th, 2006
I don’t know Robert, but I’m betting you and I could probably run the war. I’d pretty much bet the libs wouldn’t like it much but the terrorism in IRAQ would come to a screeching halt within a couple of months. Of course I would be acting under the auspices of the Geneva Conventions so international law wouldn’t come into play. Unfortunately, the liberal sensitivities would be highly offended. First thing I’d do would be to hold the Geneva Convention mandated military tribunals for the internees at Gitmo, followed by the Geneva Convention mandated executions. Meals for internees would be brought to the level of US troops in combat training on a cca meal cycle. Two MREs and a meal of boiled chicken thighs, rice, canned corn, white bread and BAD coffee. Hey it’s good enough for our troops, it’s good enough for them. We are NOT required to provide three hot culturally acceptable meals a day.
I would then have the Iraqi Army close the entire border with Syria and Iran. That way if the Terrorists try to make a run for the border from either side, they won’t make it. You then do a hammer and anvil sweep through each town forcing the terrorists to run from the towns directly into a blocking force that will shoot anyone not surrendering immediately. Anyone captured would be turned over to the Iraqi Army for debriefing and the appropriate treatment under Iraqi law. Seeing as many will undoubtedly choose to not cooperate, what the Iraqis do to them wouldn’t be our problem.
Liberals will never be able to run a war. They simply are too unrealistic in their thought processes to be able to make the tough decisions necessary to fight and win a war. As for Clinton saving thousands of lives in Europe, hardly the NATO military did that. But even if he did save the Balkans, what is his excuse for ignoring the genocide in Rwanda?
April 19, 2006 - 06:53 AM on April 19th, 2006
Agreed, FAO. Liberal thought and doctrine is incapable of waging and winning war. Never has, never will, throughout history. It simply is impossible to win a war, especially against an unprincipled and thoroughly ruthless, determined enemy if you worry about what others will think of you. You do what you need to do to win, period.
Now I am sure the Left will jump all over what I just said and bring up some absurd hyperbolic arguments, but fact is fact. The Leftists in America will never even acknowledge that the only reason they can exist, that there is a place where they have the latitude to be what they are, is because of the service and sacrifice of those who understand this reality. Perhaps the Leftists (like Ramsey Clark and other baldfaced traitors) think that if the Islamofascists triumph against us, the Leftist fifth columnists will be rewarded. If so they are bigger fools than we thought.
April 19, 2006 - 11:08 AM on April 19th, 2006
“I would then have the Iraqi Army close the entire border with Syria and Iran.”
Ummm…WHAT Iraqi Army? You guys disbanded it, remember? That was one of the first of a thousand tactical errors…
“Liberals will never be able to run a war. They simply are too unrealistic in their thought processes to be able to make the tough decisions necessary to fight and win a war.”
Gee, that’s nice and I bet you feel good when you say it and your neocon buddies feel good reading it…but, the fact remains that it’s CONSERVATIVES RUNNING THIS FAILURE OF A WAR, NOT LIBERALS. You can’t pin this sh*t on us, and the US public KNOWS IT.
“But even if he (Clinton) did save the Balkans, what is his excuse for ignoring the genocide in Rwanda?
Gee, I don’t know. Let’s ask Bush why he would do nothing about Darfur in Sudan; maybe their answers will be similar. (!)
April 20, 2006 - 12:52 AM on April 20th, 2006
San Fran, what can I say. You’re either an idiot or a stoner. I’m going to give you some advice from someone with classified training in Chemical warfare. When the Koolaid smells and tastes like bitter almonds, put the cup down and walk away.
Your responses on this and any topic involving the military or intelligence communities are so totally lacking in any substance that you are simply wasting band width. You have such a lack of fundamental knowledge of history that it’s frightening. Believe it or not (and I know you won’t because it’s a fact and God knows you haven’t believed any of those yet) there is a very large and increasingly well trained Iraqi army. An Iraqi Army that, unlike the one that was disbanded previously, is actually inclusive of ALL sects of the Iraqi population not solely Sunnis who had pledged allegiance to Saddam Hussein. I thought you’d be at least cognizant of that fact seeing as inclusion and diversity are supposed to be so high in the Liberal lexicon.
You’ve got one thing right, the liberals aren’t running this war. We’re actually winning it. Anyone saying to the contrary is simply ignoring the facts. I hope the Democrats keep running their mouths the way they are. There are over 100,000 troops in Iraq who are able to vote in November and they will remember who was really supporting them in their mission. I would love to see the Congress become over 65% Republican.
April 20, 2006 - 01:51 AM on April 20th, 2006
SF Liberal and others are convinced the war on terror, and/or the war in Iraq, is a failure. They say this not because they have any real information from anyone that knows; they are just parroting the Democrite/MSM #1 talking point.
Everyone I know who has been there tells the same story: The troops there see what the MSM is reporting and they are just amazed, astonished at how wrongly the situation is being portrayed. EVERYTHING from the progress in Iraqi forces capability, to what we are doing to the “insurgents’ (and folks, they are getting whacked, bigtime) to the support by the Iraqi people is vastly different from what the Hyenas are shrieking. The terrorists (that’s right, terrorists, NOT insurgents) are limited to suicide bombers, IEDS, and an occasional small ambush because that is all they are capable of).
I shake my head in amazement at the ignorance of those simply regurgitating the crap they are systematically spoon-fed by the MSM and its Democrite comrades, who of course have the vested political interest and are quite willing to misrepresent, distort, and lie to achieve political benefit.
April 20, 2006 - 10:04 AM on April 20th, 2006
“San Fran, what can I say. You’re either an idiot or a stoner. I’m going to give you some advice from someone with classified training in Chemical warfare. When the Koolaid smells and tastes like bitter almonds, put the cup down and walk away.”
Wow. Frustration showing just a little bit there, huh? Let me give YOU some advice pal, the sure sign of a weak argument is to toss insults. “Idiot” or “Stoner” doesn’t help convince me or anyone else that what you are saying is credible. In fact, it makes you less credible and has you sounding like a high school kid. And I’m unimpressed by your “classified chemical training”…..~yawn~!
“You have such a lack of fundamental knowledge of history that it’s frightening.”
Nice. Keep `em coming, it only makes you and your argument look weaker. (!)
“Believe it or not (and I know you won’t because it’s a fact and God knows you haven’t believed any of those yet) there is a very large and increasingly well trained Iraqi army.”
Tell you what, guy. Why don’t you post some links and sources to back this little nugget up? And your wacko, far-right-fantasy-world sites don’t count as a source.
Everyone except you and your wacko cronies understands that the current Iraqi Army is not operational on a large scale, and are unable to operate independent from the US military, with the exception of a unit or two. So…FAO, I call BULLSH*T on that claim of yours until you can back it up with some evidence.
Anyone can make up something to help their argument along, but it it only counts IF IT’S TRUE.
“You’ve got one thing right, the liberals aren’t running this war. We’re actually winning it. Anyone saying to the contrary is simply ignoring the facts.”
I really think you don’t understand the depth of the situation – I’m not saying I know more than you, this isn’t a contest, but your recent statements show a very weak grasp on the reality of the situation in Iraq.
“I would love to see the Congress become over 65% Republican.”
Well, you’re going to have to wait. All signs point to republican losses this November.
And not everyone who has served in Iraq supports the missions and the administration. Read a book on it!
April 20, 2006 - 10:11 AM on April 20th, 2006
31. When were you over in Iraq? What did you see when you were there? Who did you speak with? Just because 65% of americans have never been there doesn’t mean they are making an informed decision.
April 20, 2006 - 10:16 AM on April 20th, 2006
“SF Liberal and others are convinced the war on terror, and/or the war in Iraq, is a failure. They say this not because they have any real information from anyone that knows; they are just parroting the Democrite/MSM #1 talking point.”
No Robert, there is actually overwhelming evidence that the Iraq mission is a quagmire, and the global war on terror isn’t going too well. Increased terror attacks globally for starters.
Look, I don’t have to waste my time or breathe to convince True Believers like you or FAO or anyone else here. Most of you people have blinders on that physically prevent you from accepting that Iraq has gone sour.
You have invested SO MUCH emotion and pride into this administration and it’s policies, that backing down or accepting changing situations is unacceptable to you. So you hold on, despite all evidence to the contrary.
If you hear something that doesn’t fit with your ideology, you label it biased or liberal, tainted to a point.
How nice and comfortable your little world must be. I wish I could live in my own fantasy land despite the facts. That would make life so much easier if I could ignore reality like many on your side does.
It doesn’t have to be this way. I know plenty of DIE-HARD conservative Republicans personally and on the media scene who have accepted the changing situation and come to re-think their support of the Administrations policy on this matter.
They aren’t turning liberal, they aren’t even turning Democrat…they are just living in the real world with all the rest of us.
Let go of your sinful pride, and accept that you were wrong. It takes a strong man or woman to do that. Do you have it in YOU to admit your error?
probably not.
April 20, 2006 - 10:30 AM on April 20th, 2006
BonBon: “When were you over in Iraq? What did you see when you were there? Who did you speak with? Just because 65% of americans have never been there doesn’t mean they are making an informed decision.”
On October 5, 2005, the former head of the National Security Agency, Retired Lt General William Odom, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying: “The invasion of Iraq, I believe, will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.”
“William F. Buckley Jr., the longtime conservative writer and leader, said George W. Bush’s presidency will be judged entirely by the outcome of a war in Iraq that is now a failure.”
Republican congressmen against the War in Iraq…
I could do this all day, look up republicans, conservatives, Iraq veterens all who oppose the war, after once supporting it.
April 20, 2006 - 10:43 AM on April 20th, 2006
“You have invested SO MUCH emotion and pride into this administration and it’s policies, that backing down or accepting changing situations is unacceptable to you. So you hold on, despite all evidence to the contrary.â€
Well said. It’s almost like a debating religion at this point.
April 20, 2006 - 11:24 AM on April 20th, 2006
You have not shown any of us how Iraq is a failure. You keep repeating what the anti-war movement has been saying, but you do not have evidence of failure to backup your statements…Just because you wish for failure doesn’t make it a failure
April 20, 2006 - 11:40 AM on April 20th, 2006
“Just because you wish for failure doesn’t make it a failure.â€
Well said. But just because you wish for success doesn’t make it a success.
I hope for a success in Iraq, but I know that failure is a very real possibility.
April 20, 2006 - 11:45 AM on April 20th, 2006
“You have not shown any of us how Iraq is a failure. You keep repeating what the anti-war movement has been saying, but you do not have evidence of failure to backup your statements:”
See my comment: “You have invested SO MUCH emotion and pride into this administration and it’s policies, that backing down or accepting changing situations is unacceptable to you. So you hold on, despite all evidence to the contrary.â€
Peejz, don’t take my word for it. Look towards your own Republican / Conservative scholars. William F. Buckley, the GodFather of Conservatives has said as much. Conservative Blogger Andrew Sullivan owned up to his mistake of supporting the war…
I don’t, and probably can’t convince you that Iraq has failed.
Like Zelda said, at this point with some of you, it would be like debating religion. No amount of information will sway you. You are just too firmly rooted in place with your opinion to change, no matter what anyone tells you.
Just because you wish for failure doesn’t make it a failure
April 20, 2006 - 12:02 PM on April 20th, 2006
No amount of information will sway you.
the same can be said of you, SF…
can we please get off of this fucking “I know you are, but what am I?? Merry go round???
it’s enough already.
April 20, 2006 - 12:06 PM on April 20th, 2006
37-There is too much positive change for it to be a failure Zelda
38- So because Buckley and Sullivan say so? Neither of which I read, would read or follow btw..I am not too firmly planted in anything but reality SF..the economy is booming in Iraq, the country is thriving as the country is being transformed. What idiot thought this would be a walk in the park? Hell, we have been in business since 1776 and we are still figuring it out…we still don’t have it just right…but everyday we give it another try..just as the people in Iraq will work together to build a bigger and better live for its’ people! You want this to be a failure and it is just not turning out that way..there is nothing that you would call a success either..you just wont’s acknowlege progress, because if you did that, your thoughts and wish for failure would be prove me right.
April 20, 2006 - 12:11 PM on April 20th, 2006
San Fran…..if you want to believe op-ed’s then by all means visit some of the soldiers now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan blogs. Michael Yon whose link can be found on this website is an excellent start. First hand information from someone who should know.
April 20, 2006 - 12:32 PM on April 20th, 2006
“What idiot thought this would be a walk in the park?”
Secretary Rumsfeld for one.
April 20, 2006 - 12:34 PM on April 20th, 2006
Let me try it this way. How about if some of you post “hypothetical” conditions that would cause you to admit that Iraq has failed.
Can you do that?
Am VERY curious to see what those on the far fringes think it would take to call the Iraq War “failed”.
Stretch those mental muscles, guys and gals!!!
April 20, 2006 - 12:38 PM on April 20th, 2006
“What idiot thought this would be a walk in the park?â€
“…they will welcome as liberators; the United States when we come to do that.” (Cheney, Meet the Press, 3/16/03)
“Think of the faces in Afghanistan when the people were liberated, when they moved out in the streets and they started singing and flying kites and women went to school and people were able to function and other countries were able to start interacting with them. That’s what would happen in Iraq.” (Rumsfeld, Media Roundtable, 9/13/02)
[Rejecting Army Secretary Eric Shinseki's assessment that the mission would require large numbers of troops for a long duration:] “We can’t be sure that the Iraqi people will welcome us as liberators, although based on what Iraqi-Americans told me in Detroit a week ago, many of them – most of them with families in Iraq – I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down. In short, we don’t know what the requirement will be, but we can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark.” (Wolfowitz, House Budget Committee, 2/27/03)
April 20, 2006 - 12:41 PM on April 20th, 2006
In response to your question San Fran…..Saddam Hussein is once again in power because the left in America thought he hadn’t done anything wrong. THAT would be failure in Iraq.
April 20, 2006 - 12:42 PM on April 20th, 2006
A Democrat gets elected President and undoes all the great work that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have accomplished for the liberated Iraqi people.
Failure is fundamentally impossible so long as President Bush is in power.
April 20, 2006 - 12:48 PM on April 20th, 2006
come on guys, be serious.
April 20, 2006 - 01:42 PM on April 20th, 2006
“No Robert, there is actually overwhelming evidence that the Iraq mission is a quagmire, and the global war on terror isn’t going too well. Increased terror attacks globally for starters.
Look, I don’t have to waste my time or breathe to convince True Believers like you or FAO or anyone else here. Most of you people have blinders on that physically prevent you from accepting that Iraq has gone sour.”
Weak, weak, weak…:lol: He can’t come up with anything so he takes the easy way out…any port in a storm…
April 20, 2006 - 01:48 PM on April 20th, 2006
This is almost like the Global Warming debate. You can say 5,000 scientists believe man is causing it, and there are just as many or more that say the opposite.
One difference: I personally know people who have been in Iraq, on the ground, and what they say is consistent. So sorry, but I’ll put more trust in what they say than what the birdcage-liner (New York Times) says.
I am pleased to say that the Liberals, and anti-war peaceniks have been so consistenly wrong on foreign affairs matters that I have confidence history will show they are on the wrong side again…
SF Liberal, you can also be said to be a religious zealot. You have your own dogma and filter all information that contradicts it.
April 20, 2006 - 02:05 PM on April 20th, 2006
43- You just proved my point…
April 20, 2006 - 02:11 PM on April 20th, 2006
What idiot thought this would be a walk in the park?â€
“:they will welcome as liberators; the United States when we come to do that.”(Cheney, Meet the Press, 3/16/03)
“Think of the faces in Afghanistan when the people were liberated, when they moved out in the streets and they started singing and flying kites and women went to school and people were able to function and other countries were able to start interacting with them. That’s what would happen in Iraq.”(Rumsfeld, Media Roundtable, 9/13/02)
All of that has happened. And the invasion, except for the sandstorm, was a walk in the park. What changed was that Al Qaeda, Iran, and various other enemies sent substantial resources into Iraq to fight after the invasion was over. They also undoubtedly linked up with ex-saddamites to start their campaign. As our tactics adapted, theirs changed. That’s the way such things are, and nobody can predict all of the changes and consequences in advance.
[Rejecting Army Secretary Eric Shinseki's assessment that the mission would require large numbers of troops for a long duration:] “We can’t be sure that the Iraqi people will welcome us as liberators, although based on what Iraqi-Americans told me in Detroit a week ago, many of them – most of them with families in Iraq – I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down. In short, we don’t know what the requirement will be, but we can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark.”(Wolfowitz, House Budget Committee, 2/27/03)
We don’t have several hundred thousands troops in there, and we are succeeding without that many.
SF Liberal, you haven’t posted anything that is not easily explained. Sorry, but you haven’t scored any points at all.
April 20, 2006 - 02:16 PM on April 20th, 2006
Robert, you are right on the money
If you talk to the average US soldier, Iraqi schoolchild, Iraqi univeristy professor, etc.. the War is going tremendously well.
clearly al qaeda sees people like SF, and the dummycrats in the US and thinks if they can continue their cowardly “insurgency” long enough, we will not have the stomach to see it through.
they are wrong.
April 20, 2006 - 02:16 PM on April 20th, 2006
This aint billy blowjob in somalia…captain cut and run.
April 20, 2006 - 02:30 PM on April 20th, 2006
I can keep this up for years…
“Was the preemptive military strike to remove Saddam in America’s best interest? That is a question that receives a sharply divided response in our country with the trend being against the preemptive military action we launched. I’ve reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition. The cost in casualties is already large and growing, and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible. Our country’s reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened. From the beginning of the conflict it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world.”
Fmr. Rep. Doug Bereuter (R – Neb.)
April 20, 2006 - 02:34 PM on April 20th, 2006
SF, how about quoting people who have actually been there…actually worked with the Iraqi military, iteracted with the poeple. talked with them…ya think?
April 20, 2006 - 02:34 PM on April 20th, 2006
This isn’t just Democrats and Liberals who agree with me…many Conservatives do also.
“With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn’t the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.â€
William F. Buckley
April 20, 2006 - 02:36 PM on April 20th, 2006
What’s your point? American foreign policy isn’t dictated by William Fucking Buckley (thank god)
nor is it dictated by a handful of smelly hate-filled liberal proterstors.
get used to it.
April 20, 2006 - 02:40 PM on April 20th, 2006
“SF, how about quoting people who have actually been there:actually worked with the Iraqi military, iteracted with the poeple. talked with them:ya think?”
Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who led the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq
Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq
I could go on…if you want.
April 20, 2006 - 02:43 PM on April 20th, 2006
So both of those men agree with everything you have posted about your opinion? Their opinions support everything you have concluded? Yeah, right.
April 20, 2006 - 02:48 PM on April 20th, 2006
SF Liberal, your post #55 quote has nothing to do with the issues I adressed of your in my post #50! That addresses the whole “Where are the WMD?” issue. What is wrong with you (well, actually, I know :razz
?
You can’t play this argumentive sleight of hand here, this constant shifting of subjects, with this group. We are far more perceptive than the usual rabble sheeple the Liberals are accustomed to snookering. You’re busted.
You’re 0 for 12 on this topic…
April 20, 2006 - 02:54 PM on April 20th, 2006
“So both of those men agree with everything you have posted about your opinion? Their opinions support everything you have concluded? Yeah, right.”
I never said that. All I’m saying is these are two top leaders who have been on the ground, talked with more Iraqis than an average foot soldier with a little blog does, and put their reputations on the line to come out and say that the War is NOT going well, and the planning from the civilian leadership was incompetent and is to blame for the failures and “thousands of tactical errors”.
Shall I pull up more? This could go on for days! There is a dearth of republicans, conservatives, military men and women who are coming out AGAINST the War in Iraq…
April 20, 2006 - 02:59 PM on April 20th, 2006
I know there is a “dearth of republicans, conservatives, military men and women who are coming out AGAINST the War in Iraq”…that’s because the VAST majority of them support it, and although they know nobody has been perfect, they know there have been problems, and they know that the perception that it has been an “utter failure” is a big lie created, nurtured, and promulgated by the Democrite leadership, the MSM, and useful idiot parrots.
You’re 0 for 13 now…
April 20, 2006 - 03:04 PM on April 20th, 2006
“We are far more perceptive than the usual rabble sheeple the Liberals are accustomed to snookering.”
Apparently not really! Most of you I’ve read here are in the far-fringe of American public opinion and CERTAINLY the general global opinion, on this issue.
Look, I don’t have to convince you of anything, my friend. My side has already won this issue. Look at the CLEAR majority of Americans who view the war as a mistake. You guys had your chance, three years in fact, but you blew it! The constant stream of bad news from Iraq has wore down on the public.
Now, we are seeing generals go public (!) with criticism of the Admins Iraq Policy. That’s pretty huge. The average American looks at that and says to himself, “these guys know what they’re talking about”.
Here is how the Left have officially won on this:
…one, three, twelve, twenty years from now, school children will be learning about Iraq in the same light that we all learned about Vietnam. As an American failure and a political disgrace.
This and future generations will look back on Iraq as an error. THAT is how you lose.
April 20, 2006 - 03:08 PM on April 20th, 2006
“…and they know that the perception that it has been an “utter failure”is a big lie created, nurtured, and promulgated by the Democrite leadership, the MSM, and useful idiot parrots.”
Does that even make sense? You know they are against the war because they know it is a lie? What?:?:
Second, you don’t see how paranoid and delusional it sounds to create this huge conspiracy of Lefties?
That may work with you on the fringe, but it won’t (and obviously doesn’t) hold water with the majority of Americans.
“0 for 13″? Guy, this isn’t a game.
April 20, 2006 - 03:10 PM on April 20th, 2006
“Apparently not really! Most of you I’ve read here are in the far-fringe of American public opinion and CERTAINLY the general global opinion, on this issue.”
In case you didn’t catch it (although it is blinking in neon), the word “dearth” means “a scarcity”. So you see, you try to use them ten-dollar words, thinking it sounds good, but all you did was reinforce my point for me!
Sorry, but you’ve lost this topic. Best move on to another one.
You’re final tally: 0 for 14. Thanks for playing. You can pick up some swell gifts on the way out.
I apologize to RightVoices for gloating, but I couldn’t resist in this case.
April 20, 2006 - 03:12 PM on April 20th, 2006
Didn’t see post #62, sorry, the final tally is 0 for 15. (although maybe post #62 shouldn’t count because it contains no content of value).
April 20, 2006 - 03:37 PM on April 20th, 2006
San Fran said-”0 for 13″? Guy, this isn’t a game.
after making this statement My side has already won this issue.
April 20, 2006 - 04:30 PM on April 20th, 2006
I just noticed this in post #61:
“”Apparently not really! Most of you I’ve read here are in the far-fringe of American public opinion and CERTAINLY the general global opinion, on this issue.—
So SF Liberal’s position on this topic represents the “global” opinion? He presumes to know the global opinion?
Ok, SF, here’s one for you: My side on this topic represents galactic opinion. How do like that? Just as meaningful as your “global opinion”.
You know, SF Liberal, you should be a comedian. You’ve had me laughing so much today I can barely work.
April 20, 2006 - 06:36 PM on April 20th, 2006
“San Fran said-”0 for 13″? Guy, this isn’t a game.
after making this statement My side has already won this issue.”
It isn’t a game, it’s just people discussing politics. Nobody is keeping “points”, and if they are, that’s pretty silly of them.
“My side” is in reference to the political ideologies, and how the anti-war side can now be counted amoung the majority 65% of American public opinion on the war. Get it?
“Dearth”. Thank you for correcting my misspeak. The word I intended to use was “deluge”. I’m sure, as a Bush fan, you are used to hearing the wrong word from time to time…
“…there is a deluge of republicans, conservatives, military men and women who are coming out AGAINST the War in Iraq”
—————–
“Sorry, but you’ve lost this topic. Best move on to another one.”
How so? I’ve laid out my position, that the Iraq war is a failure – and that more and more people are realizing this, and I backed it up with evidence from military commanders who were IN the war, conservative politicians who were once pro-war but are now anti-war, statements from Bush Administration officals INCORRECTLY predicitng the outcome of the invasion…
What have you done? Tried to make fun of me? Used the “LOL” half a dozen times in one post and counted score like some middle school kid with “0 and 15″?
Come on, please, at least make this interesting for me!
How, and with what evidence, can your little group of hold-outs say the war is going well, despite overwhelming public opinion and politicans breaking ranks from pro to anti-war?
April 20, 2006 - 06:43 PM on April 20th, 2006
“Ok, SF, here’s one for you: My side on this topic represents galactic opinion. How do like that? Just as meaningful as your “global opinionâ€.”
You’re playing the fool, and I’m being serious. Robert, “Global Opinion” is in reference to the sum total of various national opinions concerning the war in Iraq. And, not surprisingly, it adds up to a majority with a negative view.
So, not sure what this galactic opinion thing is that you got, but it’s probably made up like all your supporting evidence for your Iraq War opinion.
April 20, 2006 - 08:59 PM on April 20th, 2006
67–“Dearthâ€. Thank you for correcting my misspeak. The word I intended to use was “delugeâ€. I’m sure, as a Bush fan, you are used to hearing the wrong word from time to time:
I have to give you that one, San Fran. Pretty funny!
April 20, 2006 - 10:08 PM on April 20th, 2006
“My side”is in reference to the political ideologies, and how the anti-war side can now be counted amoung the majority 65% of American public opinion on the war. Get it?
The results of Leftist push polls, taken amongst people who are subjected daily to the relentless drum beat of the hate-Bush propagandists.
“Dearthâ€. Thank you for correcting my misspeak. The word I intended to use was “delugeâ€. I’m sure, as a Bush fan, you are used to hearing the wrong word from time to time:
I’m sure, as a Liberal, you are used to being wrong most of the time.
“:there is a deluge of republicans, conservatives, military men and women who are coming out AGAINST the War in Iraqâ€
And a vastly larger deluge of those who realize why we are there, have the guts to see the job through, and really want to win against our enemis.
How so? I’ve laid out my position, that the Iraq war is a failure – and that more and more people are realizing this, and I backed it up with evidence from military commanders who were IN the war, conservative politicians who were once pro-war but are now anti-war, statements from Bush Administration officals INCORRECTLY predicitng the outcome of the invasion:
What have you done? Tried to make fun of me? Used the “LOL”half a dozen times in one post and counted score like some middle school kid with “0 and 15″?
You’ve laid out your opinion, all right, and that’s about all. You post names and assume that is all you have to do to use them to prove your point. That is like posting the names of scientists who participated in a study, create your own interpretation of the results of the study, then fail to even post any of the critical details of the study so it can be validated.
So you find a retired General or two who has criticized Rumsfeld. And that automatically translates into those persons validating your smorgasboard of issues. Uh-huh.
And as fr as the laughing faces, I’m just sitting here laughing at your posts. This is all entertainment for me, because I know that nobody’s mind is really going to be changed as a result of this banter. I see the same techniques that you use to bob and weave (yeah, float like a butterfly, sting like a bee right? Except that it is really closer to “Kill bug dead!”) intentionally missing the main point, changing subjects in the middle of an argument, etc. Classic stuff. But very easy to spot.
How, and with what evidence, can your little group of hold-outs say the war is going well, despite overwhelming public opinion and politicans breaking ranks from pro to anti-war?
Just the evidence of the reports and opinions of probably 90% of the military, the people who are actually over there, doing the job and seeing what is really going on. On your side you have some disgruntled military people, the MSM hyenas, the Democrites (who would sell their own Grandmothers for political advantage) and some sheeple programmed by the relentless media campaign.
face it, you are a bandwagon jumper. You want to be part of what you see as popular, and don’t have the determination, discipline, and fortitude to support doing what is necessary regardless of the shifting (manipulated) winds. That’s why, as FAO so articulately pointed out, Liberlism cannot win wars. Never has, never will. Look at the roots of our Western Civilization, the Democracy of ancient Athens. They went too far by indulging the Sophists (the ancient version of Liberalism), which in turn destroyed them. America is headed dangerously far down a similar path. Liberalism is the path to eventual cultural and societal suicide. The socialist EU countries are proving that even now.
April 20, 2006 - 11:58 PM on April 20th, 2006
Everyone except you and your wacko cronies understands that the current Iraqi Army is not operational on a large scale, and are unable to operate independent from the US military, with the exception of a unit or two. So:FAO, I call BULLSH*T on that claim of yours until you can back it up with some evidence.
SAN FRAN your sources are the ones full of BS. With over 100,000 troops fielded, NCO academies and training for commissioned officers, the modern Iraqi army is growing, adapting, and learning at a pace that almost amazes those who know how military training works. For the US Military to train that many troops, considering the language barrier, in the amount of time involved is outstanding.
Oh That’s right. The ever venerable John Muertha who has never drug his fat old ass to Iraq is the quintessential authority on what’s going on there versus Joe Lieberman who has been there at least 5 times, Colonel Oliver North who has been there an innumerable number of times, and ALL of the officers currently serving in Iraq. You, like all liberals, just don’t want to admit that the US military can be the single strongest force for positive change.
John Muertha is a disgrace to the Marine Corps. I hate to say that because he did serve honorably, but I have little use for anyone who would bring dishonor onto our troops as he has done.
The best and only true indicator of military morale is the REENLISTMENT rate. I am certain that Robert will agree that broken and worn out soldiers who don’t believe in their mission are highly unlikely to sign up for an additional tour in a combat zone. The REENLISTMENT rate is its highest in history. That is NOT an indication of soldiers who are demoralized or worn out. Honestly, most soldiers complain that the only thing that adversely effects their morale is the nonsense of the MSM.
You have no clue as to what the US considers combat ready versus actually able to go out and fight. The US doesn’t consider a battalion combat ready until it has a completely developed logistical system including supply, maintenance and even meal preparation capacity. A unit that doesn’t have a fully staffed and stocked kitchen isn’t considered combat ready. Yep without those cooks, you really can’t handle going on combat patrols. You never know when you may have to kill someone by making them drink military coffee.
April 21, 2006 - 01:48 AM on April 21st, 2006
SF Liberal must be a masochist; he has been a virtual punching bag on this topic yet keeps popping back up (like the plastic clown with the weighted base) to take more argumentive punishment.
He finds himself arguing regarding things (like the military) about which he knows very little, using information from sources that are part of the hate-Bush, undermine the war on terror crowd, plus a handful of Generals who either have their own political axes to grind or have made a singular comment (like they don’t like Rumsfeld), so SF Liberal extrapolates that into a cornucopia of negative opinions about various aspects of the war to support his position.
Sorry, SF Liberal, but you’ve brought a knife to a gunfight.
April 21, 2006 - 07:34 AM on April 21st, 2006
SF gets his talking points right off the KOS site
“Iraq is a disaster”
“Bush low approval rating”
“Rumsfeld resign”
blah blah blah
I think if he formed an original thought, it would actually cause him physical pain.
April 21, 2006 - 08:38 AM on April 21st, 2006
I see the SF Dope Head can type and smoke his bong at the same time. He just can’t accept there are FACTS that counter his opinions from DU and Daily Krap. He’s worthless.
April 21, 2006 - 10:22 AM on April 21st, 2006
SF..who gives a FUCK about “global opinion”?
are you aware that 95% of the globe..sucks ass????
I mean, no one is banging down the doors to immigrate to Russia…. no one is packing up to get a specialized medical procedure done in Turkmenistan…winters in estonia..ooh mama… Zimbabwe: not your greatest tourist destination…France? I’ll have a croissent, and hope the cafe isn’t burned down by marauding “youths”…Bangledesh…they still have the BUOBONIC PLAGUE FOR GOD’S SAKE!!!!
Fuck global opinion…Global opinion gives us shit like Kofi Annan (who should be in shackles somewhere).. and China/Lybia on the UN Human Rights commission..please, no more, my gut hurts from laughing.
and before you label me a toothless xenophobe..know this.. I speak 4 languages, have travelled to: Brazil, Chile, Barbados, Mexico, US Virgin Islands, Ontario, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China.
April 21, 2006 - 11:13 AM on April 21st, 2006
I just picked up a copy of the San Jose Mercury-News the last few days to read while enjoying coffee. The birdcage liner, which I prefer to call the “Monkey News”, is a Liberal rag.
But I get a chuckle out of the Letters to the Editor because many are so inane.
As usual, it was a collection of drivel from parrots regurgitating the same talking pints over and over.
Bush lied!
WHERE are the WMDs?
The war in Iraq is a quagmire!
Bush is the worst President ever!
Halliburton, Halliburton, HALLIBURTON!!!
Bush Admin thoroughly incompetent, can’t be trusted to handle Iran !
I wonder if they just never tire of repeating them, or they need to recite them daily, like a religious ceremony, or what. Now if you’re a Bush-hating Leftist, you don’t need much more than a few simple sources like this to program all the talking points you’ll ever need into your non-volatile memory. It’s all there…
April 21, 2006 - 11:32 AM on April 21st, 2006
“Bush lied!
WHERE are the WMDs?
The war in Iraq is a quagmire!
Bush is the worst President ever!”
Please. Your personal opinion is of little consequence on this issue in the grand scheme of things. You, and people like you, have already been left behind on this Iraq debate on the national and international level.
When you have nearly all the nations major publications repeating the same lines, over and over again…it begins to sink into the hearts and minds of the public.
This is why 65% of the US thinks Iraq was a mistake.
This is why school children are already learning about Iraq in the context of foreign policy failure.
This is why republicans are polling worse than Democrats on a congressional level for this upcoming mid-term election.
You can make fun of the Left, me, and anyone else ALL you want, but you can’t change – and I think this is why your posts are so desperate sounding – the tide of public opinion that has SHARPLY turned anti-war…
April 21, 2006 - 11:35 AM on April 21st, 2006
HALLIBURTON!!!
April 21, 2006 - 11:36 AM on April 21st, 2006
FAO: “With over 100,000 troops fielded, NCO academies and training for commissioned officers, the modern Iraqi army is growing, adapting, and learning at a pace that almost amazes those who know how military training works.”
Prove it. Post government or military sources that show there is a sizable and effective Iraqi army waiting to “enforce the borders” as you had said earlier.
I’m waiting…
April 21, 2006 - 11:38 AM on April 21st, 2006
Robert says: “This is all entertainment for me”
Gee, me too! Why would I try to convince wacko, fringe-right hold-outs that the Iraq War is unsuccessful and a foreign policy failure…if it WASN’T entertaining to me???
April 21, 2006 - 11:38 AM on April 21st, 2006
SF, I have to tell you, when you lash out at veterans discussing our fellow troops..you don’t help yourself.
stick to what you know.
April 21, 2006 - 11:44 AM on April 21st, 2006
Mike Kilo says: HALLIBURTON!!!
SF Liberal says: I thought you NeoCons were all about protecting the taxpayer?
“The Pentagon’s Project and Contracting Office (PCO) found that Halliburton repeatedly overcharged the government…”
“Halliburton Co., the world’s second largest oil services company, repeatedly overcharged taxpayers and provided substandard cost reports under a $1.2 billion contract to restore Iraq’s southern oil fields…”
April 21, 2006 - 11:45 AM on April 21st, 2006
it’s really rather insulting.. I talk to my fellow soldiers, sailors and marines both in Iraq and back home and I’m moved to tears by their stories of accomplishment and bravery.
they have shown me thousands of photos and videos of children just gushing for them, women weeping in joy at their presence, at a new school, at clean running water.
and these brave men, TO A MAN…dream of returning.
These are the stories I hear.
April 21, 2006 - 11:47 AM on April 21st, 2006
that’s the REAL war.. not this political football that assholes like the dummycrats, san fran sam and media sheep are playing with.
April 21, 2006 - 11:49 AM on April 21st, 2006
PCD says: “I see the SF Dope Head can type and smoke his bong at the same time. He just can’t accept there are FACTS that counter his opinions from DU and Daily Krap. He’s worthless.”
Why do some of you CONSTANTLY resort to childish name calling??? WHY can’t you post credible evidence to support your claims?
Mike Kilo: “SF, I have to tell you, when you lash out at veterans discussing our fellow troops..you don’t help yourself. stick to what you know.”
Just because someone is a veteran Mike, doesn’t mean they get a free pass to say false things that can’t be backed up when challenged.
What I know, and apprently 65%+ of the American public ALSO knows, is that the mission in Iraq is failed. It’s time to assign blame and move on. But we can’t move on until your side accepts that those who took us into this failed adventure, need to be held accountable. And you guys seem to want to give them a free pass, for political reasons.
Where is the vaunted Right-Wing-Moral-Compass when we need it most????
April 21, 2006 - 11:53 AM on April 21st, 2006
“…that’s the REAL war.. not this political football that assholes like the dummycrats, san fran sam and media sheep are playing with.”
Mike, believe me, I also know a handful of soldiers who served in Iraq. One of which was killed over there. So I’m not as ignorant on the military aspect as you would think.
There are groups of Iraq Veterans who are so disgusted with the War that they form anti-war groups when they return and get out of the service. Iraq Veterans Against the War, for starters…
My point? It’s not all roses and praise coming from those who served over there. I just think you are being selective, like your side is on nearly ALL aspects of this adventure.
April 21, 2006 - 11:54 AM on April 21st, 2006
and just because someone has NEVER taken an oath, NEVER picked up a weapon, NEVER stood a post…dosen’t mean that they can’t go online and make a complete jackass of themselves on a daily basis.
April 21, 2006 - 11:55 AM on April 21st, 2006
SF.. everything you say can be turned around right at you..your side is EQUALLY selective.
what is it getting you/us? nothing…just fucking childish banter
it’s really tiresome.
April 21, 2006 - 11:57 AM on April 21st, 2006
FAO: “You, like all liberals, just don’t want to admit that the US military can be the single strongest force for positive change.”
I HEREBY ADMIT THAT THE US MILITARY CAN BE A STRONG FORCE FOR POSITIVE CHANGE.
…but it’s not happening in Iraq.
You guys think I’m knocking the military, along with other liberals…but thatisn’t the case AT ALL.
WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS, WE SUPPORT THE MILITARY….WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP OF THE MILITARY.
is that REALLY that hard to understand?
April 21, 2006 - 12:01 PM on April 21st, 2006
“and just because someone has NEVER taken an oath, NEVER picked up a weapon, NEVER stood a post
osen’t mean that they can’t go online and make a complete jackass of themselves on a daily basis.”
Ummm, what? Why the anger? Do I not have a right to speak my mind, and to oppose the Iraq war?
Do I have to have served to have a valid opinion on political matters? If so, how does Dick Cheney fot into that equation?
You’re just pissed that I’m not backing down, and that I won’t be bullied by second rate political amateurs.
Take your ball and run home if you want, but I love my country, I love my system of government, and I want America to NEVER be dragged down into the gutter by second-rate politicians ever again.
April 21, 2006 - 12:33 PM on April 21st, 2006
it’s easy to talk when you’ve never risked a damned thing for it…
Dick Cheney isn’t the commander-in-chief..what was senior blowjob’s excuse for dodging the draft? If were going to go down that road.
Frankly I’m tired of it… it’s not taking a ball and going home..this shit is just a waste of time… mind numbed robots on the right and left…
April 21, 2006 - 01:32 PM on April 21st, 2006
“mind numbed robots on the right and left: “
On that, we can agree for sure.
April 21, 2006 - 01:38 PM on April 21st, 2006
well then, why don’t we do something about it?
April 21, 2006 - 01:44 PM on April 21st, 2006
Let’s prostrate ourselves on the ground in front of the Democrite alter. Beg Ted Kennedy, Hillary Klinton, Turban Durbin, and the rest of the trai-I mean, great and wise leaders, for their forgiveness. Impeach Bush, put the Democrites in control and let them carry out their secret plan for success in all matters domestic and foreign without obstruction.
Then all will be solved; it will be the dawning of the Age of Aquarius!
April 21, 2006 - 01:51 PM on April 21st, 2006
“well then, why don’t we do something about it?”
We are trying. I think open, honest, CIVIL contact between the two sides is a great start.
The goal is for people on both sides to realize that the other isn’t as alien as many would wish us to believe they are.
Unfortunately, sometimes people can lose sight of that and try to hit low or they get too emotional and sensationalize for effect. There is A LOT of misinformation going around, and both sides are equally susceptible to it.
April 26, 2006 - 09:49 AM on April 26th, 2006
Regarding Rumsfeld resignation, this poll taken from Armytimes.com
It is inevitable…I’m just wondering when. (!)
April 26, 2006 - 09:53 AM on April 26th, 2006
SF Dope Head, there will be no Rumsfeld resignation. Resign yourself to that fact.
April 26, 2006 - 10:22 AM on April 26th, 2006
Your poll certainly does not constitute proof that Secretary Rumsfeld is going to resign. I think he’ll still be there in January of 2009 and still doing a poor job.
April 26, 2006 - 11:15 AM on April 26th, 2006
PCDick, “there will be no Rumsfeld resignation. Resign yourself to that fact.”
That’s kind of dumb of you to say that he won’t resign. You have no way of knowing that, and to put yourself out on a limb like that is pretty bold, FYI.
I’m not saying he’ll resign due to the hoopla over the eight generals ripping him apart in public, but history shows that presidential cabinet members do not always stay on the job for the full term or terms.
There are always exceptions to the rule, and Rummy may be one of them – we all know Bush values loyalty over competence.
But for you to 100% close the door on the possibility of a future resignation sure is dumb debate maneuver.
You could be right, or you could end up looking like a fool with the proverbial foot in your mouth. (!)
“Your poll certainly does not constitute proof that Secretary Rumsfeld is going to resign. I think he’ll still be there in January of 2009 and still doing a poor job.”
Posting of the poll not intended for anything other than a view into what people who frequent the armytimes website think. And, you’re probably right…he could very well still be there in 2009 making an ass of himself and p*ssing off members of the military brass with his arrogance and incompetence.