home

Another "Phony Soldier"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:05:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ricardo Sanchez:

In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top American commander called the Bush administration’s handling of the war incompetent and warned that the United States was “living a nightmare with no end in sight.” In one of his first major public speeches since leaving the Army in late 2006, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez blamed the administration for a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” and denounced the current “surge” strategy as a “desperate” move that will not achieve long-term stability. . . . “There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.”

Cue Rush. We got another Jesse Macbeth on our hands.

< Dutch Ban "Magic Mushrooms" | "Perfecting Jews" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Another "Phony Soldier" | 87 comments (87 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Do anything (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 07:22:52 PM EST
    but dont mess with my Rush.

    That "mentality" and it's adherents is more foreboding than all the glaring incompetencies discussed by Sanchez combined.

    that would probably be because (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:56:32 PM EST
    He doesn't mean it literally, but rather seems to be sarcastically referring to the popular belief endorsed by Harry Reid that Limbaugh called our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq "phony soldiers."  

    he did. funny how facts get in the way of right thinking. oh well. see, this is what happens when people actually read those pesky transcripts, and they don't get altered or destroyed beforehand.

    rush just can't get good help anymore!

    yeah, i expect rush, sean, tucker, anne, and the rest of the "fightin' 101st keyboard division" will be out in full force, to show just what a "phony soldier" gen. sanchez is.

    Sure... we know he was... no doubt (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:27:00 PM EST
    ah so BTD was applying it only to a specific type of person.....that is General

    Sanchez, who seems to have a severe case of defending a lack of success... with Macbeth who had a severe case of claiming a lack of success..

    tehe

    Parent

    I'd be happy to read any pesky transcript (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by robrecht on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:31:08 PM EST
    you can provide, especially one from Limbaugh's Morning Update from Tuesday, September 25th.  Complete and unaltered preferred.

    Parent
    Ask Rush for one. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:33:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Actually, I asked his brother 'cause (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by robrecht on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:34:28 PM EST
    I'm not willing to pay Rush any money.

    Parent
    Neither one should have anything to hide. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:38:10 PM EST
    And both are interested in the truth of the matter laid bare for all to see.

    Of course they are.

    Ask them again.....

    Parent

    I asked Media Matters too BTW (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by robrecht on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:35:49 PM EST


    Parent
    then you didn't ask very (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cpinva on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:22:33 AM EST
    loudly. they have both the complete transcript, and the video, of the program in question. both quite clearly show mr. limbaugh refering to "phony soldiers", not solely mr. macbeth. his name doesn't come up until much later.

    nice try though. sorry that the facts just beat you to death.

    Parent

    Not very loudly, not my style (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:02:15 AM EST
    But if you pay attention you'll realize that I was referring to a transcript from the previous day.  What do you mean by "much later"?  Do you mean immediately after he ended the call?  I guess you would know that if you had a complete transcript:

    "Look, I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. I gotta -- let me see -- got something -- here is a "Morning Update" that we did recently talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. And they have their celebrities.

    One of them was Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal," I say in quotes -- 23 years old.

    [reading from "Morning Update" (subscription required)] Link

    Again, I'd be happy to read any complete transcript you'd like to provide.

    Parent

    Get a complete transcript from Rush. (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:46:46 AM EST
    Then you won't look like a troll.

    Parent
    I have had this argument with Robrecht (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 03:40:20 PM EST
    I think he is wrong, but I don't think he is a troll, based upon his comments on other topics.

    Parent
    I'm not sure either. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    Sometimes he appears to be. He often gravitates to the most minor details and avoids larger points, or tries to deflect to other subjects entirely away from a post topic, almost like thread hijacking attempts.

    Parent
    I think you are right. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 04:37:40 PM EST
    gravitates to the most minor details and avoids larger points


    Parent
    Thanks for calming me, Molly (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 04:42:21 PM EST
    You do that more often than you know.

    He does often do that.

    And I often lose patience and get dismissive. Too often...

    Parent

    What larger point would you like me to address? (none / 0) (#73)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 05:49:03 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm not too worried (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:48:51 AM EST
    about what you think I look like.  But thanks anyway.

    Parent
    Most trolls aren't. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:56:45 AM EST


    Parent
    Discussion or insults? (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:59:00 AM EST


    Parent
    You have to understand edger (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:46:07 AM EST
    This is his idea of a debate:

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.


    Parent
    You're learning. Slowly. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:46:42 AM EST


    Parent
    Learning? (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:25:47 AM EST
    Heck, I understood you years ago.

    Your problem is that you can't get your way.

    Parent

    Insults? Why would you start making them? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:03:15 AM EST
    Do you know any other trolls who care what people think of them?

    Parent
    What insult did I make? (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:08:59 AM EST
    I thought maybe you were repeating (more indirectly this time) your characterization of me as a troll.  I don't know any trolls very well but I think most people care what most people think of them.

    Parent
    Dude (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:27:22 PM EST
    Relax.  Most progressives here call anyone they don't agree with trolls.  It is easier than actually engaging in intelligent discourse.

    Parent
    You :can: get this. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:21:47 AM EST
    Scrunch up your forehead like Bush does. Rub your temple. Pretend to think about it. I have faith in you. You can get this. Can't you?

    Parent
    Are you just being silly or (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:26:07 AM EST
    are you trying to make a point?

    Parent
    The thread is not about you or rush (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:30:01 AM EST
    or your desire to deflect it away from the topic: Sanchez' condemnation of Bush's policies. About the utter and complete debacle in Iraq.

    I know it hurts, but think about it.

    You can get this. I hope.

    Can't you?

    Parent

    BTD made it about Limbaugh. (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:37:44 AM EST
    Part of my point, as in the previous thread, is precisely that this phony controversy is an unworthy distraction from the real issue.  Nor have I tried to make this thread about me, it seems you have tried to do that.

    Parent
    You and ppj have a lot in common. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:42:51 AM EST
    You don't really believe people are stupid enough to not see through you.

    Do you?

    Parent

    Still trying to make this thread about me? (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:47:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Ok - I was wrong. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:50:04 AM EST
    My faith was misplaced. You can't get it. My apologies. I shouldn't have saddled you with such high expectations. I won't do it again, ok?

    Parent
    And still trying to make it about me! (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:51:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Why do you ask me?? (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:31:06 AM EST
    I have specified that I am not a "listener," much less a "premium" member...

    And what difference does it make??

    Let's assume Limbaugh was funning us and the update never happened, the fact remains that he said what he said during the broadcast. And that was he first stated that he thought Mike in Chicago (Caller 1) was phony, and then Limbaugh agreed with Mike's(Caller 2) description of "phony soldiers" and followed with a description of Jason Macbeth as a phony soldier....

    Let is revisit the transcript from 9/26:

    RUSH:  There's a lot more than that that they don't understand.  The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out?  What's in it for the United States to pull out?"  I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever.  

    CALLER:  Yeah.

    RUSH:  It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

    CALLER:  No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

    RUSH: The phony soldiers.

    CALLER: Phony soldiers.  If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country...

    RUSH: ...Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers.  This is a story of who the left props up as heroes.  They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth.  Now, he was a "corporal."  I say in quotes.....

    No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences.  He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children.  In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way:  "We would burn their bodies.  We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

    ....He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record.  He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly.  Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp.  Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was.

    9/26 Transcript from Limbaigh's home page

    Some people, Limbaugh included, believe that if you claim to have served, and did not, you are a phony. Put me in that group.

    As to exactly who he was talking about, it is obvious that he wasn't talking about the troops in general.

    Was he talking about just one? Well, he can make a point that he was merely agreeing with Caller 2, who first made the "phony soldiers" claim. I find that Clintonian in the extreme. He said what he said.

    Parent

    No one asked you. (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:40:44 AM EST
    And no one expects you to get it.

    Parent
    Who asked you? (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:46:03 AM EST
    I was speaking to cpinva, not asking you for yet another transcript of 9/26.

    Parent
    Actually I thought you had asked again (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:53:14 AM EST
    as you did the other day..

    But in any event this is called a blog and if you don't want a comment made, then don't make one.

    And don't let edger upset you. He gets these fits of anger and depression when someone points out a few facts, especially with humor.

    Parent

    I don't mind comments (none / 0) (#47)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:55:31 AM EST
    especially substantive ones, I just didn't think we needed yet another transcipt from 9/26.

    Parent
    He loves to eat (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 03:45:30 PM EST
    bandwidth with "complete" transcripts.

    It's a diversion from chasing Hanoi Jane around that little hamster wheel in his head.

    Parent

    ROTFL .... heh! (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 05:28:33 PM EST


    Parent
    And neither of you two charmers (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:26:08 PM EST
    have been able to refute the information I have provided...

    Frustrating, isn't it.

    Parent

    Question (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:27:25 AM EST
    Why the "morning update?"

    I don't see its importance..

    Parent

    Important? (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:48:35 AM EST
    It may be the earlier context from which the dittohead caller immediately understood and repeated Limbaugh's words, "The phony soldiers."

    Limbaugh's defenders point to this previous day's discussion of fake soldiers as the background of that exchange.

    Important?  I don't consider it that important since as you know I obviously have no interest in defending the baboon.  But I do think leaders in congress once again let themselves get distracted from the important issue of the Iraq war with an ad hominem distraction, all the more unfortunate since it's based on an ultimately unwinnable argument with a baboon about the meaning of his own words.

    Parent

    Background? (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:19:55 PM EST
    Limbaugh said what he said. I don't see how that can be in dispute.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:30:03 PM EST
    If George Bush had any kind of a human heart beating inside him, he might have felt the stake that Sanchez just drove through it....

    Who's spending the peoples money paying for this debacle, Nancy?

    .....
    I suppose we'll have to listen to "phony" conservatives slamming and smearing Sanchez, now??

    no no Edgar... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:46:12 PM EST
    He's a mindless zombie who is being used... remember?  Just like McGough.

    He's an honorable man who served his country, who, in the prime of his life, when his mental faculties aren't what they used to be, became just another pawn to be used by the evil left.

    And each time a soldier speaks out, it will be the same thing.

    Now... if you band together, then you are just a political hack PAC of nuts.

    Ummm... wait... they really don't leave anything that is "right" do they.  There is just "wrong" and "wrong".

    Parent

    Mindless zombie? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:58:27 PM EST
    George!?!?

    Parent
    hey... you know how they work! (none / 0) (#21)
    by Michael Gass on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 01:57:05 AM EST
    ... probably better than I do!

    Parent
    I hope everyone does realize (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by kovie on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 01:40:30 AM EST
    that Sanchez was the guy who knowingly signed off on the use of various forms of torture in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib--and then lied to congress about it. If he wants to play the role of unwitting and outraged dupe to give "war critics" like Mikey O'Hanlon cover, fine, but as with other Jimmy Swaggart Come Latelies like Powell, Tenet and Bartlett, I ain't buying it. The rats are jumping off the Ship O' Bush and blaming each other for its demise.

    But if it further hurts the Bushies, way to go Ricardo!

    Why Are We In Iraq? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by john horse on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:50:45 AM EST
    If as General Sanchez says Bush's war plan is "catastrophically flawed" and "unrealistically optimistic" then what he is saying is that the war in Iraq is not winnable.

    Even if someone believe that this war is justified I don't see how anyone can support sending troops to die for a war that is not winnable.  

    Whats the point?

    Its time to bring the troops home.

    Nope (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:37:13 AM EST
    If as General Sanchez says Bush's war plan is "catastrophically flawed" and "unrealistically optimistic" then what he is saying is that the war in Iraq is not winnable.

    The previous, current and/future plans may, or may not be terrible.

    That has nothing to do with whether or not the war is winnable.

    Based on your logic a basketball team has one shot at the goal.. If they miss, they lose.

    Why is the Left so enthused with the prospects of the US losing??

    Parent

    You cant even define what winning (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:59:05 PM EST
    means anymore, Jim.

    How do you "win" without succeeding in your plans/strategy?

    Why are you so enthused with defing things in the cloudy, childish terms of "winning and losing"?

    Parent

    Who said anyone was "enthused" (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    Oh, that's right: "the Left" hates America.

    If anyone should apologize you should.

    Dipsh*t troll.

    Parent

    Ask and you shall receive. (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:28:01 PM EST
    Link

    Parent
    Yes, From A Systems Point Of View (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by john horse on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    PPJ,
    It is possible that you can win a war with a war plan that is "catastrophically flawed" and "unrealistically optimistic" (Mark Twain's short story "Luck" provides a comical example of this) but it is highly unlikely.  From a systems point of view, poor analysis will probably lead to poor planning which will probably lead to poor implementation and the goal will probably not be achieved (see my diary post A Systems Approach To Iraq).  

    Regarding Bush coming up with a new war plan that is not "catastrophically flawed" or "unrealistically optimistic", I'm afraid the window of opportunity has passed him by.  We've been at war now for over 4 years.  Over 3800 Americans have been killed in Iraq.  As even many of his supporters acknowledge this surge was Bush's last chance.  He doesn't get an unlimited number of do-overs, not when American lives are at stake.

    Regarding the Left favoring losing, I don't speak for the Left, I can only speak for myself, but if the choice is between losing more American lives in an unwinnable war or continuing an unjustified war so that some neocons won't have to lose face, the choice is a no-brainer to me.

     

    Parent

    John H (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:30:39 PM EST
    Nice words, but your reveal your basic bias in:

    Regarding the Left favoring losing, I don't speak for the Left, I can only speak for myself, but if the choice is between losing more American lives in an unwinnable war or continuing an unjustified war so that some neocons won't have to lose face, the choice is a no-brainer to me.

    See, if you define the goal as "losing," then why should you be concerned with "winning?"

    Parent

    Here Is More Nice Words (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by john horse on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    Where did I "define the goal as losing"?  You really had to twist what I said in order to come up with that.  

    What I believe is that we need to face reality.  I've got news for you PPJ.  We are not omnipotent, nor do we have to prevail in every conflict.  Sometimes supporting our troops means pulling them out when they are placed in an unwinnable situation.  

    So if I'm wrong about this war being unwinnable, then tell me how we are going to win.  Bush said that the purpose of the surge was to give the Iraqis time to work out the differences between the different groups.  However, senior Iraqi political leaders have said recently that reconciliation is not possible.  So if it is not possible then what are Americans fighting and dying for?      

    Speaking of losing the longer we stay in Iraq, the worse off our military is.  Our troops are stressed out.  A lot of our equipment is unusable. And this will only get worse the longer we are in Iraq.  

    Sometimes you need to make the best out of a bad situation and cut your losses.

    Parent

    When your goal is not to win.. (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 08:45:45 PM EST
    We are not omnipotent, nor do we have to prevail in every conflict.

    then it is likely you will lose.

    If you do not understand that there is little I can tell you.

    Parent

    The Cats Out of the Bag (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by john horse on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:29:33 PM EST
    I'm afraid the cats of the bag on being omnipotent.

    The American people have looked behind the curtain of the great and all powerful Oz and they've discovered George Bush.

    Parent

    Your response (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:58:09 PM EST
    proves my point.

    Thanks

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#1)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 07:12:58 PM EST
    see the comparison betwixt MacBeth and Sanchez.  Maybe you can explain more.  

    Yes, we have no bananas! (none / 0) (#4)
    by robrecht on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:07:49 PM EST
    He doesn't mean it literally, but rather seems to be sarcastically referring to the popular belief endorsed by Harry Reid that Limbaugh called our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq "phony soldiers."  It seems pretty clear to others, myself included, that Limbaugh (the baboon) was probably referring to fake soldiers such as Jesse MacBeth.

    Parent
    Dududdududududu (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:05:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Clear (none / 0) (#22)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 05:39:01 AM EST
    to everyone but some in congress.

    Parent
    And those who enable them ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 06:56:37 AM EST
    ... to betray their constituents who elected them to end the war.  41 Democratic senators signed Reid's letter in outrage at Limbaugh's "recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as 'phony soldiers'."

    Only 2 Democratic senators voted against the last Iraq funding bill (Byrd, Feingold).  Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Obama all missed the vote.

    Who are the real phonies here?

    Parent

    That's gonna hurt. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 07:15:31 PM EST
    I think General Sanchez will probably be pretty incensed that you compare him to faux-Army Ranger MacBeth.

    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:05:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Will you apologize?? (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:22:44 PM EST
    Details at 11....

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:50:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Sanchez is the latest (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:29:38 AM EST
    in a long line of more than 20 Generals now.

    Lt. Gen. William Odom (US Army, ret), more than two years ago:

    "When the president says he is staying the course, that makes me really afraid. For a leader has to know when to change course. Hitler did not change his course: rather he kept sending more and more troops to Stalingrad and they suffered more and more casualties. "When the president says he is staying the course it reminds me of the man who has just jumped from the Empire State Building. Half-way down he says, 'I am still on course.' Well, I would not want to be on course with a man who will lie splattered in the street. I would like to be someone who could change the course... "Our invasion of Iraq has made it a homeland for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, I believe that it was the very first time that many Iraqis became terrorists. Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism." At Fort Bragg yesterday, the president spoke of the need to "prevent al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban: a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends." Too late, Mr. President, has no one told you that you've succeeded in accomplishing that yourself? "No organizational design will compensate for incompetent incumbents."
    Pay attention, Nancy. Change the course. Defund it. And end it. Before November 2008. To avoid being "splattered in the street".

    Edger, can you please (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:55:31 AM EST
    provide a link or list of the 20+ generals?  I knew there were several but didn't realize there were that many.  That would be a helpful list.

    Parent
    Sure. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:05:52 AM EST
    Here.

    Parent
    Sorry, but you usually have such helpful links (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:09:14 AM EST


    Parent
    Sorry. I know it's complicated. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:19:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Why complicated? (none / 0) (#56)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:21:53 AM EST
    Oops, guess you were just being sarcastic again.  But sarcasm or hostility is in this case still an unnecessary complication IMHO.

    Parent
    robrecht (4.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    You're sitting in front of the biggest library ever devised in human history. If you can't help yourself no one can.

    Parent
    You could have, still could, (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:35:21 AM EST
    but I won't hold my breath.

    Parent
    He won't. (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:31:39 PM EST
    Because he has been caught.

    Parent
    More phony soldiering (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:36:58 AM EST
    More than 20 retired generals speak out against Iraq war.

    Generals opposing Iraq war break with military tradition

    Retired generals rising up against Iraq war

    Retired Generals Against Iraq War

    All together now...

    Watch for phony conservatives sliming Sanchez (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:40:56 AM EST
    Sanchez is speaking out, in the face of the slime machine, even though he knows full well that he has an Abu Ghraib problem that will make him a target of vicious criticisms and accusations that he is trying to shift blame for his own shortcomings to the poor, hapless president. Although Sanchez was cleared of wrongdoing in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal by an Army investigation, he became a symbol of an occupation that was botched from the get-go.

    Look for accusations that he has an axe to grind, that he is seeking revenge against the president who opted not to nominate him for a fourth star and effectively ended his career, forcing him into retirement.



    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#61)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:14:02 PM EST
    After considerable reading and sifting, my list is up to 18 names.  Of course, some are more opposed for tactical reasons and would have preferred a much greater deployment of soldiers and don't necessarily favor withdrawal, but still it's an impressive and growing list.

    Parent
    Disagreement over "strategy" (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:33:21 PM EST
    is not the same as saying we should immediately surrender.

    Parent
    Interesting article in the NYT (none / 0) (#74)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 06:28:11 PM EST
    about military theorists rethinking the Iraq war strategy:

    But senior officers say that much of the professional second-guessing has become an emotional exercise for young officers. "Many of them have been affected by people they know who died over there," said Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the Leavenworth commander and the former top spokesman for the American military in Iraq. Unlike the 1991 Persian Gulf war and the conflicts in the Balkans and even Somalia, General Caldwell said, "we just never experienced the loss of life like we have here. And when that happens, it becomes very personal. You want to believe that there's no question your cause is just and that it has the potential to succeed.
    Link

    More Like (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 11:26:03 AM EST
    NYT: Debating who lost Iraq - the civilians or the generals - at Ft. Leavenworth.

    War & Piece

    Parent

    WSWS: anti-democratic tirade (none / 0) (#86)
    by Andreas on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 12:21:32 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:
    Sanchez avowed his support for freedom of the press and democracy, but the implicit message of his speech was the incompatibility of democratic processes with the pursuit of a global war against "extremism."
    An anti-democratic tirade
    Former US commander blames "partisan" politics and "agenda-driven" media for Iraq debacle
    By Barry Grey, 15 October 2007

    Sanchez's comments about the Iraq war (none / 0) (#87)
    by Bob F on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 09:12:50 AM EST
    He's a good person, but this certainly looks like sour grapes.  He was visited numerous times while he was the commander in Iraq.  Visitors (his military and civilian bosses) always ask if the commander on the ground needs or wants anything.  In his recent comments Sanchez made no mention that he cited the same concerns then that he has now.  There's an understanding in the military: you argue aggressively, up to the point of decision; then you support the decision as if it were your own.  If things were so bad then, as he is describing now, he was obligated to make his concerns known.  If we assume that he did so, he would have naturally included that bit of information in his recent comments.  Because he did not, we can assume that he didn't cite his concerns when he was given the opportunity.  Doing so now appears only to be headline seeking.  Lastly, he had another option while he was the commander.  If things were so bad that his critical recommendations were not accepted, he could have resigned.  He didn't.  All said, unless there's more to the story than what he's outlined, LTG(R) Sanchez should find another venue to express his thoughts.

    Sure. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 09:20:50 AM EST
    It  would have been much better if they all would just shut up and play along, right?

    Parent
    Another "Phony Soldier" | 87 comments (87 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment