War is easy for chicken hawks. or is that chickenhawks?

[quote=skeedaddy]Dude, welcome back, I guess you were just making a living. No county's
foreign policy is without self interest, certainly not ours. Our foreign
policy is full of exploitation, and I don't have a problem with that either.

Its an exchange of goods and services, kind of like our welfare system.
It's cheaper to provide cable for a welfare recipient, than pay for a jail cell.


I do however hate anything that is radical or fanatical, that goes for
politics, religion and sports. The majority of the Muslim world is not
radical, that's true. But there are over 30 million of them that are, and
that's a problem.

This conflict will not be resolved by Bush, Coca Cola or dollars. Doesn't
bin Laden have a $25 million bounty on his head? I don't have an answer,
because I can't relate to someone that self inflicts a beating with a chain,
or straps a bomb to his torso and walks into a crowded tea house.

Now I forgot what point I was trying to make, so I'll leave it there.

[/quote]

good points skee.  I just get annoyed with all the people who think if you disagree with an approach to problem solving (Bush's) that you must be some freak liberal.  It's the whole "if your not with us your against us" mentality which irritates me.  I guess THE test of integrity for Bush is What Would Jesus Do?

I also don't buy into Military MikeB's fear mongering, seeded by a powerful propaganda maching (his tenure in the US military in addition to many  sources of "objective" media).  Sure, there are threats to be attended to (Taliban, Al Queda) but I think Bush has capitalized on the percieved threat to achieve an underlying agenda not fully disclosed to the American public.  There are many sources which illustrate and verify my perspective.   Anyway, I have made up my mind on the issue as probably most of you have. 

[quote=csmelnix] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You couldn't be anymore wrong again with the former generals and current ones. 

[/quote]

Name one that was a commander on the ground in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq. Answer, zero.

[quote=csmelnix] Gen. Sheneski, forced to retire because his views differed w/ that of Rumsfeld. 

[/quote]

Untrue. Shenski was already scheduled to retire having completed his tour as CoSA..... His alleged rejection of a strategy that dates back to ALB 2000, notwithstanding.

[quote=csmelnix]

 Gen. Zinni,

[/quote]

Opposed the entire war, never a commander in Iraq.  That’s not to diminish his POV, it’s simply to point out that while there are always critics, you can’t locate one critical of the conduct of the war, AD or retired, that was actually on the ground there.

The major complaint of those not there is always current troop strength, but the commanders there have put forward a very rational reasoning as to why more troops would actually hurt their effort by making this an American fight, not a Iraqi national fight. In fact, we’ll be cutting troop strength even more here soon.

[quote=csmelnix]  

Grange, McCaffrey, Schwarkopf all had similar opinions. 

[/quote]

None of them have made the sort of hyperbolic comments you have.  You’re painting with far too wide a brush here. More to the point, for every critic I can name you 5 guys that disagree with them, most of whom have actually served in Iraq.

Sure, there are critics, and if you were actually on AD you know that Rumsfeld has had problems with the inner ranks of some of the Army from day one because of restructuring issues. McCaffrey, whom I happened to have met a few times at Benning when he was AC there, specifically was part of the Tom White (another I guy I worked for and respect) contingent that thought that Rummy was cutting too much of the conventional forces when he, for example, clipped the Crusader arty system and killed to Comanche.  This was all inside baseball territorial preservation on the part of the Army in the post-9/11 inter-service fights.

BTW, critics, even high ranking ones aren’t new. Ever heard the name McAurthur or Patton?

[quote=csmelnix] 

Sure, there are always the ones who argue about the prosecution of the war but you have got to be blind and just flat out stupid if you think this war has been executed properly from the top (BUSH). 

[/quote]

You have to be kidding me to claim that you buy the “Bush screwed the pooch” line. Again, if you ever spent a day on AD you know the CinC doesn’t write war plans. If you could claim with some accuracy that Bush was refusing to meet the needs and requests of the commanders on the ground, I’d agree with you. By all accounts that’s not the case and the commanders on the ground are getting everything they ask for. THAT’S what I want a CinC to do.

[quote=csmelnix] 

…it does appear however that we do agree on the notion of serving beyond 8 yrs; that was my contention all along that's all.

[/quote]

Not exactly. Every officer knows he essentially has a lifetime obligation should the service need you back, especially due to some specific specialty. Guys with unique specialties that get called back know the drill. The only guys I have any sympathy for are those who were called back with common skills because the Army said they were still on the rolls because they never requested a discharge from the IRR when in fact they had.

[quote=csmelnix] 

….arguing that most leg units in the military still use things like Korean war era flak vests, or reserve units sent to Iraq still use sub par weapons and equipment - just another sign of failure to plan. 

[/question]

Oh, spare me. You know better than that (especially the stuff about Korean war era flak jackets) . They may have left CONUS with older equipment (probably 1980s era), but they got the newest and best available when they staged in Kuwait. You have to know that everything you’ve read in the press about deficient equipment, yadda, yadda, yadda has, for better or worse, been SOP in the history of our military.

[quote=csmelnix] 

About Blix's book and comment on France - it's negligible in the end w/ my …

[/quote]

No it isn’t. You said French intelligence did think Saddam had WMD. Blix’s book proves otherwise.

[quote=csmelnix] 

It was clever of you to forget about trying to address the Iraq mission and the other questions I poised; care to try again?

[/quote]

Seriously, if you’re unaware of what the mission is and under what criteria we’re leaving, you’re wasting my time. It’s been detailed too often to have to repeat.

[quote=csmelnix] 

please accept my apology. 

[/quote]

Accepted.

[quote=SonnyClips]"... The point was that anyway you slice it it was a dumbfcuk thing to do ..."

[/quote]

Got it, every person involved in an accident has committed a dumbfcuk thing, and the fact that Cheney pulled the trigger proves "the sons a bitches are going down in flames". Even more importantly, if Cheney is involved in a hunting accident, his ability to comment (and that's all he does, he isn't CinC) should be suspended.

On a similar note, Teddy "the Swimmer" Kennedy will be resigning his Senate seat later today after a review of his judgement over the past 40 years....

[quote=SonnyClips]

If you back the administrations perspectives then you should be mad at the ineptitude that this little stupid but ultimately unimportant hunting accident stands as a synecdoche for.

[/quote]

Yeah, that's the ticket... 

[quote=dude] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 I just get annoyed with all the people who think if you disagree with an approach to problem solving (Bush's) that you must be some freak liberal. 

[/quote]

And the people who equate agreeing with Bush, especially given the weak alternatives we’ve been given by the Democrats, you don’t mind calling them “Bush lovers”? How about the “Bush believes in the end of times stuff and therefore he’s driving us to Armageddon” you give us? Is that offensive, especially when you have nothing to support it?

BTW, one only becomes a “freak liberal” when they dip into the conspiracy theories outlined below or spout long-since disproved stories from Michael Moore about how Bush helped people complaisant in 9/11 seek out of the country before the FBI could talk to them.

 [quote=dude] I also don't buy into Military MikeB's fear mongering, seeded by a powerful propaganda maching (his tenure in the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US military in addition to many  sources of "objective" media). 

[/quote]

Yeah, it wasn’t what the terrorists themselves have said over and over again that “seeded” my views, I’ve simply been brainwashed by my military service and the media. I suspect if it ever were to happen, the Islamofacist that cut your head off would laugh, thinking about how you handed yourself to his knife, something he wouldn’t do when he cuts mine.

[quote=dude]

“…..but I think Bush has capitalized on the percieved threat to achieve an underlying agenda not fully disclosed to the American public.”

[/quote]

Ohhhhhh “underlying agenda” and, of course, the “perceived” hole in the ground in NYC has been greatly exaggerated.

People who, after all we’ve seen from the terrorists, STILL think it’s all about some “agenda” (and they know what they think it is, they just don’t want to hear the laughter that comes when they spell out their conspiracy theories) simply amaze me. I’m certain they only survive in this world because others protect them from the logical consequences of their naiveté.

These are the modern day version of the “Oh, Stalin ain’t so bad, the West just has it out for him” types that could never allow themselves to admit the horrors he perpetrated when the details and documents came spilling out.

O.K. MikeB.  Tell me now, what don't you like about Bush?  I referenced "Bush Lovers" because it seems like you unequivacally support Bush.  You give the impresion that you have Rose tinted Bush goggles on.  I personally feel that it's dangerous to sign off on someones decisions with such passion. 

[quote=dude] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

O.K. MikeB.  Tell me now, what don't you like about Bush? 

[/quote]

It's like a playbook that never changes. Out come the laughable conspiracy theories, the quoting of Michael Moore’s long disproved myths, and when that falls flat, the mission gets twisted to “OK, you’re delusional unless you can tell me what you DON’T like about him”….. sigh…

Fine, here you go; Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. Happy?

Now, the part that works against you is even in the things I disagree with Bush about, your party offers and even more distasteful alternative.

[quote=dude]

 I referenced "Bush Lovers" because it seems like you unequivacally support Bush. 

[/quote]

You might want to consider that fact that what YOU chose to bring to the table as criticisms are simply over the top conspiracy nonsense that gets no purchase because of their nature.

I mean, start with the “hidden agenda” stuff and then make everyone that disagrees with you a reflexive Bush lover? Does that make any sense?

[quote=dude]

 You give the impresion that you have Rose tinted Bush goggles on.

[/quote]

I suppose anyone who sees Bush, and not the terrorists as the real threat to freedom …. Anyone who is in denial of what the terrorists themselves say their aims are…… might get that idea

[quote=dude]

  I personally feel that it's dangerous to sign off on someones decisions with such passion. 

[/quote]

It’s funny you should say that because the only “passion” I see that’s an obvious danger to rational thought is the BDS that causes people to say some of the things you say. Seriously.

Mike,

You are a joke.  We just disagree on too much to continue.  All the generals I named regardless of whether they were in Iraq on this latest round have stated the exact points I raised - they screwed the war completely from start to finish.  Everyone of them has served on the ground in Iraq and intimately know the area of the world.  In fact, most if not all served in CENTCOM.  But since they aren't there now they can't possibly know what they're talking about - You are a freak'n joke.  Thank God you left the service. You must be an advocate of the Ken Lay defense as well to state Bush isn't at fault for prosecuting this war; Commander in Chief - leaders are responsible for all that their people do and fail to do; being a professional school soldier shoudl have taught you that.  Furthermore, there are no lifetime appointments, if you resign upon the end of your 8 years, you are done, who's painting what with a broad brush.  And again, love how you avoid answering the questions; it's a waste of time for you because YOU CAN'T ANSWER THEM BECAUSE NOBODY FREAKN KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[quote=SonnyClips]Mike don't overplay my statements. All I'm saying is fcukups continue to fcukup and drag you down with them. {/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

And how does that pithy summary differ from what I said?

Kennedy can't drive, at least not while drunk. Byrd wears a sheet over his head. It's all down hill from there....

[quote=SonnyClips]....seem strangely willing to go to great lengths to find reasons why these misstakes are not the admins fault.

[/quote]

For the third time, you guys tried that theme, the "Bush was in charge during 9/11" and it didn't sell. It didn't sell during the election, it won't sell now.

[quote=SonnyClips]

 In doing so it impeaches your credibility to speak to any of it.

[/quote]

Wait a sec, the guy trying to make the case that "hunting accident = going down in flames" is trying to make a point about credibility? <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

[quote=SonnyClips]
Sooner or later your eyes will open to the type of fools these guys are.

[/quote]

Ohhhh, a list of talking points. Wow, that's powerful. Man, I bet we’ve never seen such a thing before. Oh, wait, we have, applied to every politician who’s ever existed.

The sad thing is even if the entire list was true and applicable, your side can't seem to find a way to present a rational alternative. That's the really pathetic element in all this.

[quote=SonnyClips] If say you and I owned a business together Mike and an employee had this kind of luck ...[/qUOTE]

You mean if your compiled list of spin, half-truths and untruths were accurate would I consider an alternative? Perhaps, but what did you offer?

John “I voted for it before I voted against it” Kerry? John “magic hat” Kerry? John “Christmas in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Cambodia” Kerry?  Carter II? Just what right have you to b!tch when your cure was worse than any disease you’ve described?  

[quote=csmelnix] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 All the generals I named regardless of whether they were in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq on this latest round have stated the exact points I raised - they screwed the war completely from start to finish. 

[/quote]

Then you'll have no problem providing quotes. Oh, wait, you can't do that....

 [quote=csmelnix]

Everyone of them has served on the ground in Iraq …

[/quote]

Bzzzzz, wrong again, thanks for playing… not one of them has commanded troops in this conflict.

----- hissy fit snipped------

[quote=csmelnix]

Commander in Chief - leaders are responsible for all that their people do and fail to do;

[/quote]

Hmmm. So you admit Bush isn’t sitting at his desk moving military symbols on the map, that he’s relying on his military professionals. Good for you. And you want to make Bush responsible for that? Fine by me.  But why do you insist on suggesting you know better what troop strengths should be than the commanders actually on the ground? Do you have any proof whatsoever that Bush is ignoring the people closest to the fighting? Of course not.

 [quote=csmelnix]

“… if you resign upon the end of your 8 years, you are done,..”

[/quote]

You might want to reread that contract, pal. Ever heard the phrase “for the good of the service”? Plenty of officers with specific, needed skills, have been called back to active duty when needed. In fact, check out the current CoSA, called back from retirement.

[quote=csmelnix]

who's painting what with a broad brush. 

[/quote]

That would be you attributing your hyperbolic comments to retired general officers.

[quote=csmelnix]

 “….it's a waste of time for you because YOU CAN'T ANSWER THEM BECAUSE NOBODY FREAKN KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

[/quote]

Of all the inane criticisms, the worst is the claim that the mission and goals in Iraq haven’t been clearly laid out. It’s almost beyond belief that people would attempt that one. The troops on the ground, reenlisting at high rates and going back to the fight over and again, seem pretty clear on those things as is anyone not willfully ignorant.

BTW, with all this huffing and puffing about the course of the war, are you suggesting we’re losing? Spell it out..

It used to be the case that in order to be considered a “liberal” or someone “of the Left,” one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, “judicial activism,” hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a “liberal,” such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a “liberal,” only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a “liberal,” regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more “liberal” one is. Whether one is a “liberal” – or, for that matter, a “conservative” – is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

Sooner or later your eyes will open to the type of fools these guys are. The DWI's, fatal car crashes, bad business deals, 911, trading Sammy Sosa, pretzels, mountain bike, daugters busted with fake IDs, No WMD, Can't catch Osama, leaks on wiretaps, leaks on Plame, leaks about Powell's UN speech, Castro making fat jokes about your brother, mother talking sh*t about poor people, Michael Brown, Indictments of Delay, Safavian, Abramoff, and Libby, Ongoing investigations of Rove and Cheney in Plame affair, Michael Chertof, Anthony Moscatiello , Anthony Ferrari, and James Fiorillo, Paul O'Neil, Lawrence Wilkerson, Hunting Accident, prolonged ground campaign in Iraq, Body Armour, Army Hummer tire failures due to excess wait of vehicles, etc etc etc.

OMFG!! I'm laughing sooooo hard.  Pretzels......mountain bike......you forgot to mention that maybe Bush had a booger hanging from his nose once or Barbara Bush cooks with lard instead of peanut oil, or Cheney says the  "F" bomb occaisonally.  I think once Condoleza Rice had toilet paper stuck to to bottom of her heels.

The DWI's, fatal car crashes, bad business deals, can't catch Osama

Ted Kennedy, Whitewater, Mary Jo Kopeckne.....oh wait you weren't talking about the Democrats.  That's right they never ever did anything stupid or bad.   Just the Bushies. oooookay.

 trading Sammy Sosa

LOL this is the funniest of all. !!!  Oooh the world is coming to an end..... they traded a baseball player or was it football.     Who gives a rip...  Hope they got something nice in exchange.  Mabye new slipcovers for the couch.

[quote=Sailor25]It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone ..."[/quote]

Why not attribute that to the person who said it? BTW, it used to be that to be a fascist you had to hold a certain set of beliefs, now all you have to do is support, even if in part, the Bush agenda. Ask Joe Lieberman....

[quote=babbling looney]

OMFG!! I'm laughing sooooo hard.  Pretzels......mountain bike......you forgot to mention that maybe Bush had a booger hanging from his nose once or Barbara Bush cooks with lard instead of peanut oil, or Cheney says the  "F" bomb occaisonally.  I think once Condoleza Rice had toilet paper stuck to to bottom of her heels.[/quote]

It's like BDS just started with the Florida issue in 2000 and has grown worse. I hear Dick Cheney eats kittens and Bush has children in chains in the basement of the White House doing laundry.

Notice how in all the hysteria they never, never mention an alternative?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=babbling looney]

OMFG!! I'm laughing sooooo hard.  Pretzels......mountain bike......you forgot to mention that maybe Bush had a booger hanging from his nose once or Barbara Bush cooks with lard instead of peanut oil, or Cheney says the  "F" bomb occaisonally.  I think once Condoleza Rice had toilet paper stuck to to bottom of her heels.[/quote]

It's like BDS just started with the Florida issue in 2000 and has grown worse. I hear Dick Cheney eats kittens and Bush has children in chains in the basement of the White House doing laundry.

Notice how in all the hysteria they never, never mention an alternative?

[/quote]

Dick eats kittens in addition to spotted owls?  How does Bush get away with keeping innocent children in chains?  See what happens when you elect bloodthirsty oilmen and illuninati alumni to the throne of power.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Sailor25]It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone ..."[/quote]

Why not attribute that to the person who said it? BTW, it used to be that to be a fascist you had to hold a certain set of beliefs, now all you have to do is support, even if in part, the Bush agenda. Ask Joe Lieberman....

[/quote]

MikeB,

ya' know, you are a piece of work.  Sailor has a great point with his post.  Do you have any humility at all?  It's becoming clear that you have it all figured out and in fact know it all.  No use in discussing anything with you.

I love how skepticism and distaste for Bush, gets you branded as a liberal.  It's funny because I know a lot of conservatives (including myself) that are very dissappointed in Bush. 

Obviously with your military background MikeB, i would expect nothing less than believing the military is the best tool for any challenge; it would invalidate your background, training and the large personal sacrifice and investment you've made to think otherwise.  I suspect you're too stubborn to honestly put your preconcieved notions aside and question.  If you can't see that there are clear reasons to question Bush's incompetence than you do have rose tinted glasses.  Not that you have to agree with me, but I am concerned by your zealousness and apparent lack of objectivity. 

Mike I will provide quotes when you answer the questions I asked.  Maybe you need to watch Meet the Press someday when those officers are on it. 

Great comments sailor if it weren't for di&kheads like Mike, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in....we'll see reality in a few more yrs douchbag when progress still has moved toward an endstate there.

I love how skepticism and distaste for Bush, gets you branded as a liberal.  It's funny because I know a lot of conservatives (including myself) that are very dissappointed in Bush

And vice versa.... the least bit of support for some of the administration's policies get you called a Bush clone, neocon, or lumped in with evangelical christians.   I am a conservative and also not happy with some of Bush's policies.  He is not anywhere conservative enough for me.

Come on people.  Everything isn't black and white.  Well, except for the fact that Ted Kennedy is a fat, corrupt blowhard who's brain is pickled by too much scotch.

All this bloviating on whether we should have gone into Iraq is pointless.  We are there now.  Like it or not.  What we need to do is focus on winning,work together as a nation that is in peril, keep the terrorists from another 9/11 (or worse) and getting out with as little loss of life and political entanglements as possible.    You can argue about the past all you want but it is a waste of breath.  You can't change the past. You can't un-ring the bell.

Here spin this:

Lauer: "Sticking to the subject of morale, it's clear that there were miscalculations going into this war. Clearly the way we were going to be greeted hasn't turned out to be the reality, the level and the scope of the insurgencies [were underestimated], so when it comes again to military commanders and troops, do you feel they may be frustrated that back home in Washington no one has lost their job over this?"

McCaffrey: "Clearly bad judgments were made by the civilian leadership in the Pentagon going into this war. It got away from us, it didn't have to be this way. One would think Sec. Rumsfeld and others would be held accountable for it."

Lauer, finally sensing blood in the water: "These military people live by a code, among other things, of accountability, so do you think they would want someone like Sec. Rumsfeld or others to be held accountable?"

McCaffrey suggested that troops in the field wouldn't focus on that, but that "the military leadership" realizes that the civilian heads of the Pentagon engaged in "widespread" misjudgements.

Lauer, clearly now with his man in his sights: "You've heard the drumbeats for a while and it seems to be intensifying again [thanks to you, Matt] surrounding Sec. Rumsfeld. Do you think he's going to hold onto his job?"

Lauer hit the Mother Lode, as McCaffrey replied:

"I'm surprised to be honest he's still there. His judgments were egregiously wrong. He's staying now to shape the Armed Forces over the next 20 years. It's hard to imagine why someone who made that series of bad calls would be allowed to be the architect of future armed forces."

McCaffrey called on a number of senators to lead the anti-Rumsfeld coup. He described McCain, Hagel, Warner, Reed as people "who understand national security," and in a clear pitch for them to lead the revolt, said "it's about time for them to step in and make their views known."

Gen. Meigs: Tim, it doesn't matter. We're there. We lanced the boil. We're there. We have Salafist penetration into this situation in a very-hard core Sunni insurgency in a critical point in the Middle East, where if it goes south, if we get a civil war between Sunnis and Shias, international markets will be affected. Our role as an international leader will be affected. We'll have a huge strategic problem. So having pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall, which I would agree was untimely, the Pottery Barn rule applies. We have got to leave this as a stable situation. We cannot afford to pull out here prematurely.

Mr. Russert: Does that mean putting in more troops, if necessary?

Gen. Meigs: It means doing whatever's required strategically to ensure that we get an Iraqi government and an Iraqi security services that can run a reasonable country that's constituent-based.

Mr. Russert: Do we have more troops to put in there if need be?

Gen. Meigs: If we had to surge troops, we could. It wouldn't be easy but we could, yes.

Mr. Russert: General McCaffrey, you said this two weeks ago:

Gen. McCaffrey: We haven't put the strategic argument in the right context in the public. However, you know, I pulled out a quote, 24 August news conference, Secretary Rumsfeld: "Throughout history there's always been those that predicted America's failure just around every corner." And he goes on to talk about "many Western intellectuals praised Stalin during the period of World War II."

For God's sakes, Tim, you know, we have to have this argument set up in a respectful manner to the American people. We have had 16,000 killed and wounded, $200 billion. It's a very difficult situation. And I think some of the happy talk and spin coming out of the Pentagon leadership is part of the president's problem.

Mr. Russert: Do you believe that Secretary Rumsfeld should stay in his current position?

Gen. McCaffrey: Well, I don't think I have a legitimate viewpoint to express on that thing. I think many people argue that his misjudgments have put us in a serious difficult position. I think the intervention, as Wes Clark says, was badly done. You know, I go over there and look at these soldiers and Marines in combat right now and Navy SEALs. They're the best kids we ever had in uniform--I don't think that's an overstatement in terms of courage and commitment--but they've got to be backed up by the American people, by the Congress and by the Pentagon with more sensible policies and adequate resources and we don't have that right now

Gen. Clark: Tim, and if I could just--I just want to come in on one thing here. You got us here as military experts. But if you ask any of the top leaders, they will tell you that the country has a responsibility. The president has a responsibility. This administration has a responsibility diplomatically in the region. One of my greatest heartburns with this operation is we dumped the responsibility on our uniformed services over there for doing this. We haven't carried the load diplomatically in the region.

Now, every one of us who serve in top positions knows that there has to be hand-in-glove teamwork between military force, diplomacy, economic power and informational power. This administration has relied excessively on the courage and skill of the men and women in uniform. It doesn't want to talk to the people in Iran. It doesn't want to talk to Syria. It doesn't want to do the hard work and heavy lifting of diplomacy because of domestic politics at home. And I think it's time we said it. You know, I just can't stand to see the sacrifices men and women in uniform and their families make when this administration won't lift its finger the right way diplomatically to give them the help they need to succeed in Iraq.

Mr. Russert: You have this concern about diplomacy. General McCaffrey, you raised a concern about misjudgments made. Anthony Zinni, a man you know well, had this to say--he's the former head of the U.S. Central Command. He says that "Rumsfeld has turned the nation's top military officials into `Stepford generals,' who have acquiesced in a transfer of power from uniformed officers to the Pentagon's civilian managers. ... `We have a very strong-willed secretary. We went into a war where he took away a lot of the prerogatives of the military, made some military decisions on troop strength and postwar planning, and they did not do well to say the least.'"

Do you agree with General Zinni?

Gen. Downing: Well, that's a--that's a--that's a very controversial statement. The people that I know in the building, Tim, in the Pentagon say that Secretary Rumsfeld is a very aggressive, very, very tough leader, but you can talk to him. Certainly there were decisions made during the Iraq War, Tim, that were probably ones that we wish we could--we could relive.

'Where's the Threat?'

Anthony Zinni's passage from obedient general to outspoken opponent began in earnest in the unlikeliest of locations, the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He was there in Nashville in August 2002 to receive the group's Dwight D. Eisenhower Distinguished Service Award, recognition for his 35 years in the Marine Corps.

Vice President Cheney was also there, delivering a speech on foreign policy. Sitting on the stage behind the vice president, Zinni grew increasingly puzzled. He had endorsed Bush and Cheney two years earlier, just after he retired from his last military post, as chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in Iraq.

"I think he ran on a moderate ticket, and that's my leaning -- I'm kind of a Lugar-Hagel-Powell guy," he says, listing three Republicans associated with centrist foreign policy positions.

He was alarmed that day to hear Cheney make the argument for attacking Iraq on grounds that Zinni found questionable at best:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Cheney's certitude bewildered Zinni. As chief of the Central Command, Zinni had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar with the intelligence analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' "

Though retired for nearly two years, Zinni says, he remained current on the intelligence through his consulting with the CIA and the military. "I did consulting work for the agency, right up to the beginning of the war. I never saw anything. I'd say to analysts, 'Where's the threat?' " Their response, he recalls, was, "Silence."

Zinni's concern deepened as Cheney pressed on that day at the Opryland Hotel. "Time is not on our side," the vice president said. "The risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action."

Zinni's conclusion as he slowly walked off the stage that day was that the Bush administration was determined to go to war. A moment later, he had another, equally chilling thought: "These guys don't understand what they are getting into."

Unheeded Advice

Zinni's concern deepened at a Senate hearing in February, just six weeks before the war began. As he awaited his turn to testify, he listened to Pentagon and State Department officials talk vaguely about the "uncertainties" of a postwar Iraq. He began to think they were doing the wrong thing the wrong way. "I was listening to the panel, and I realized, 'These guys don't have a clue.' "

That wasn't a casual judgment. Zinni had started thinking about how the United States might handle Iraq if Hussein's government collapsed after Operation Desert Fox, the four days of airstrikes that he oversaw in December 1998, in which he targeted presidential palaces, Baath Party headquarters, intelligence facilities, military command posts and barracks, and factories that might build missiles that could deliver weapons of mass destruction.

In the wake of those attacks on about 100 major targets, intelligence reports came in that Hussein's government had been shaken by the short campaign. "After the strike, we heard from countries with diplomatic missions in there [Baghdad] that the regime was paralyzed, and that there was a kind of defiance in the streets," he recalls.

So early in 1999 he ordered that plans be devised for the possibility of the U.S. military having to occupy Iraq. Under the code name "Desert Crossing," the resulting document called for a nationwide civilian occupation authority, with offices in each of Iraq's 18 provinces. That plan contrasts sharply, he notes, with the reality of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation power, which for months this year had almost no presence outside Baghdad -- an absence that some Army generals say has increased their burden in Iraq.

Listening to the administration officials testify that day, Zinni began to suspect that his careful plans had been disregarded. Concerned, he later called a general at Central Command's headquarters in Tampa and asked, "Are you guys looking at Desert Crossing?" The answer, he recalls, was, "What's that?"

The more he listened to Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist "neoconservative" ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn't understand. "The more I saw, the more I thought that this was the product of the neocons who didn't understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground."

Iraq is in serious danger of coming apart because of lack of planning, underestimating the task and buying into a flawed strategy," he says. "The longer we stubbornly resist admitting the mistakes and not altering our approach, the harder it will be to pull this chestnut out of the fire."

Three years ago, Zinni completed a tour as chief of the Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East, during which he oversaw enforcement of the two "no-fly" zones in Iraq and also conducted four days of punishing airstrikes against that country in 1998. He even served briefly as a special envoy to the Middle East, mainly as a favor to his old friend and comrade Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

Zinni long has worried that there are worse outcomes possible in Iraq than having Saddam Hussein in power -- such as eliminating him in such a way that Iraq will become a new haven for terrorism in the Middle East.

"I think a weakened, fragmented, chaotic Iraq, which could happen if this isn't done carefully, is more dangerous in the long run than a contained Saddam is now," he told reporters in 1998. "I don't think these questions have been thought through or answered." It was a warning for which Iraq hawks such as Paul D. Wolfowitz, then an academic and now the No. 2 official at the Pentagon, attacked him in print at the time.

Now, five years later, Zinni fears it is an outcome toward which U.S.-occupied Iraq may be drifting. Nor does he think the capture of Hussein is likely to make much difference, beyond boosting U.S. troop morale and providing closure for his victims. "Since we've failed thus far to capitalize" on opportunities in Iraq, he says, "I don't have confidence we will do it now. I believe the only way it will work now is for the Iraqis themselves to somehow take charge and turn things around. Our policy, strategy, tactics, et cetera, are still screwed up."

(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.

From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East.

But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll. Correspondent Steve Kroft reports. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

“There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure.”

From Richard Wallace in New York
Daily Mirror (England)

THE American general who led allied troops to victory in the Gulf War, yesterday refused to accept that there was enough evidence to invade Iraq.

Retired Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf insisted that UN inspections must continue and said the US had not considered the consequences for the Middle East after an invasion.

He said: "The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought.

"Having said that, I don't know what intelligence the US government has. And before I can just stand up and say 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq', I guess I would like to have better information."

He added: "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive."

Schwarzkopf slammed defence chief Donald Rumsfeld for his warlike language.

He said: "I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made. He almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it.

"When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the army. He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him, or else. It's scary.

"Let's face it, there are guys at the Pentagon who have been involved in operational planning for their entire lives.

"And for this wisdom, acquired during many operations, just to be ignored and in its place have somebody who doesn't have any of that training, is of concern."

Schwarzkopf, interviewed on MSNBC-TV’s “Hardball,” chided Rumsfeld for his reply to a soldier in Kuwait over the lack of armor on many military vehicles used in Iraq.

“I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,” Schwarzkopf said.

Schwarzkopf, a registered independent who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections, has previously criticized Rumsfeld on several occasions as arrogant and out of touch with troops on the ground.

Monday, Schwarzkopf said the Defense Department had badly misjudged the situation in Iraq. Reserve forces were rushed into urban combat — “toughest kind of fighting” — without adequate training, and “things have gone awry.”

“In the final analysis, I think we are behind schedule” in Iraq, Schwarzkopf said. “... I

In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.

"We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion." Mr. Wolfowitz's refusal to be pinned down on the costs of war and peace in Iraq infuriated some committee Democrats, who noted that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the budget director, had briefed President Bush on just such estimates on Tuesday.

"I think you're deliberately keeping us in the dark," said Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia. "We're not so naïve as to think that you don't know more than you're revealing." Representative Darlene Hooley, an Oregon Democrat, also voiced exasperation with Mr. Wolfowitz: "I think you can do better than that."

Mr. Wolfowitz, with Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller, at his side, tried to mollify the Democratic lawmakers, promising to fill them in eventually on the administration's internal cost estimates. "There will be an appropriate moment," he said, when the Pentagon would provide Congress with cost ranges. "We're not in a position to do that right now."

At a Pentagon news conference with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld echoed his deputy's comments. Neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general's suggestion that a postwar Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort.

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.

In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Sailor25]It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone ..."[/quote]

Why not attribute that to the person who said it? BTW, it used to be that to be a fascist you had to hold a certain set of beliefs, now all you have to do is support, even if in part, the Bush agenda. Ask Joe Lieberman....

[/quote]

MikeB,

ya' know, you are a piece of work. Sailor has a great point with his post.

[/quote]

"Sailor" quoted Andrew Sullivan quoting Glen Greenwald, and he did it without attribution.

The fact is the opposite is the truth. It used to be you had to stand for something to be ok in the eyes of liberals, now, you could be the most reprehensible sort of thug or someone with zero common ground with liberals, but if you bash Bush, you’re suddenly just A OK.

[quote=dude]I love how skepticism and distaste for Bush, gets you branded as a liberal. It's funny because I know a lot of conservatives (including myself) that are very dissappointed in Bush. [/quote]

Yeah, you’re a “conservative”. Mouthing every fringe conspiracy theory about hidden agendas, the “blame America first” diatribe, the “we need an open dialogue”. All hallmarks of a conservative. Actually this is just a dodge on your part having hand your head handed to you on your “Bush let bin Laden’s family go” trope. I don’t recall anyone calling you a liberal. Liberal, “real conservative” (like Buchanan going after Bush for being a “closet liberal lime his father”) I couldn’t care less. The issue is your grasp on who we face and what should be done about it.

[quote=dude]Obviously with your military background MikeB, i would expect nothing less than believing the military is the best tool for any challenge; it would invalidate your background, training and the large personal sacrifice and investment you've made to think otherwise.[/quote]

What a steamy load of nonsense. I’ve NEVER, NEVER said any thing remotely like “the military is the best tool for any challenge”. You just keep stuffing that foot further and further down your throat. You should quit while you’re behind.

[quote=dude]I suspect you're too stubborn to honestly put your preconcieved notions aside and question. [/quote]

Says the guy with the “open dialogue with the terrorist guy” who thinks there’s no real threat beyond Bush’s “hidden agenda”. Your tinfoil hat is slipping….

[quote=dude]

If you can't see that there are clear reasons to question Bush's…

[/quote]

There may be, but the moonbat theories you’ve raised aren’t “clear reasons” to question anything but your grasp on reality.

[quote=dude]

Not that you have to agree with me, but I am concerned by your zealousness and apparent lack of objectivity.

[/quote]

So it’s “objectivity” that causes you to spout nonsense like the Moore theory that Clarke disproved? Face it, dude, you suffer from BDS, and worse yet, you’re so incredibly ill-informed that it’s down right scary.

Again, stop reading the “9/11 was an inside job” websites and devote just a little bit of time to read what bin Laden and his lieutenants have written by their own hands as to what their goals are. Just get informed.