home

Marines Face Involuntary Call Up to Iraq

A shortage of volunteers, according to the Administration, is the cause of up to 1,200 Marine reservists being called to Iraq next year.

What happened to the plans for withdrawal? Is this a message it's not happening until we get a new President in 2009?

The mobilization, which was approved by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last week, reflects the increasing manpower shortages the Marines are facing as the war in Iraq continues. Officials said it would have been necessary even without the increase in American force levels in Iraq, which will reach 160,000, including 25,000 marines, by June.

Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Riehl said Monday that the corps was notifying 1,800 members of the individual ready reserve, made up of inactive marines who have not finished their service requirements, with a goal of getting 1,200 marines for one-year deployments in 2008. The affected marines will begin reporting for duty in October, Colonel Riehl said.

Funding bill or no funding bill, withdrawal clause or not, we're not leaving Iraq any time soon. Seems to me we haven't yelled loud enough yet.

< Bay Buchanan to Serve as Tom Tancredo's Chief Advisor | Iraq Supplemental: Substance Matters For Once >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    We haven't yelled loud enough (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by koshembos on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:55:25 AM EST
    My interpretation for "loud enough" is that Bush popularity is not low enough. Olmert in Israel has a rating of a single digit for making just one major mistake, Bush has at least 1/3 of the country behind him after screwing up everything he touches. You can yell until you are blue in the face; it's not powerful enough.

    You want screaming (none / 0) (#30)
    by TexDem on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:51:06 AM EST
    Start drafting. Once the pain is felt beyond the confined area of already existing military families the rest of the country only pays a modest bit of attention.

    But of course this would also require a veto proof majority in both houses, but then I think the Dems should be on the high ground because of the strain the current over-deployments are putting on the military now. It may or may not get military backing. They would support getting increased manpower, but they wouldn't be totally happy with the quality. So it's quantity vs quality. Protect what you've built or let Bushco destroy it with his mismanagement.

    Parent

    Call up for defense lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by JohnB on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 06:53:22 AM EST
    What do you bet the call-up will include David Hicks' lawyer Rebecca Snyder, who was thrown out of the fake courtroom by fake judge Marine Col. Ralph Kohlmann yesterday because she was only "a reserve officer in the U.S. Navy"?
    http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16977656.htm

    GWB: The Military's 9-11 (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Lacy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 07:27:04 AM EST
    During the campaign of 2000, GWB went to military bases and towns around the country claiming he would be their benefactor. He even had a posted and oft repeated motto of his supposed intentions for the troops: "Help Is On The Way".

    We now know what was on the way, and it wasn't help. George W. Bush has been a second 9-11 for the US military.

    Uh, Lacy. (1.00 / 3) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:32:21 AM EST
    Now I know that you weren't in the military, and that you most likely was cheerleading the Clinton admistration's efforts to gut the military, with the capable help of Senator Kerry and some dummy Repubs...

    That is what the candidate W was referring to.

    We have a military to fight wars with.

    There is no other reason. None. Nada.

    The troops... all branches... understand that. The Army and the Marines, in today's world, face the touhest jobs. They are the ones in the streets of Baghdad and other miserable places in that miserable country.

    So, why not help them out?? The next time you see a service person, walk up to them, smile and say, "Thank you for your service."

    Nothing else. No politics, no burning them in effigy as shown in You tube clip from Portland.

    Just a simple thank you.

    Parent

    Uh, jimmy ..... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Skyho on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:52:27 AM EST
    "Now I know that you weren't in the military, and that you most likely was cheerleading the Clinton admistration's efforts to gut the military, with the capable help of Senator Kerry and some dummy Repubs..."

    Uh, you forgot Cheney, and Reagan.  dummy Repubs?  You are right about that, but not for that reason.

    I served and was damn glad to "beat weapons into plows" with the fall of the wall.  I was part of the effort to transition the military to a quick reaction, surgical strike team and am constantly amazed that people like you and that moron Bush keep trying to use the military like the 8th Army in WWII, on the cheap, no less.

    Your narrow (blindered) focus is evident from your comment:

    We have a military to fight wars with.

    There is no other reason. None. Nada.

    No, to you and that moron.  We have an army to influence other societies to behave as we would wish.   Once we commit to a "war", we have lost, maybe not as much as the other, but, we have lost.  The commanders of the military understand this, you and the moron, apparently, do not.  Not only have we lost, but we have opened the door to other conflicts, potential losers, all.

    We have too many video-game warriors making policy decisions these days and not enough that have had their buddies die in their arms.

    "if you do not believe in the freedom of speech for those you detest, then you do not believe in it at all"

    In addition, try going up to the Racheal Corries of the world and telling them you "Thank them for their service".  You would be a lot more credible in the world eyes.

    Parent

    SkyHo (1.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:44:15 AM EST
    Uh, the point was that Bush was saying he was going to increase spending...

    Reagan had been out of office 12 years.

    Cheney served as much as Clinton.  So your point in the first paragraph was???

    My single personal comment is and has been that I served 10 years in Naval Aviation, during the Cold War. I am glad to know that you took the win handed you and made all those changes you mention. Since you have declared we have lost, do you think the changes were really all that great?

    And can I assume that you supported Rumsfeld in his efforts for further reforms and changes?

    No, to you and that moron.  We have an army to influence other societies to behave as we would wish.

    Of course to actually have influence, we must have an army that can fight, and a demonstrated ability to use it.

    You do understand, cause and effect, don't you? Have any problems using it on Iran?? Of course, I mean just to have them behave as we wish. No nuke to blackmail the world with, etc..

    BTW - Still want to have us make a stealth aircraft attack during a Full Moon?  Is that strategy one you learned while beating "weapons into plows?"  

    We have too many video-game warriors making policy decisions these days and not enough that have had their buddies die in their arms.

    That is a hard statement to disagree with, but how many people met that criteria during WWII? The Civil War?? Would you support another Patton? Personally wounded, etc.

    As for freedom of speech, of course. You have it.
    Does that mean that you can tell those whose actions disgust you that they are totally wrong??

    BTW - I note you couldn't find the words to say that about those protestors in Portland.

    As for Racheal Corries, she died doing what she wanted to do. Few of us are so lucky.

    Have a nice day, and thanks for the grins.

    Parent

    Jiminy (none / 0) (#48)
    by Skyho on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 03:42:53 PM EST
    Uh, the point was that Bush was saying he was going to increase spending...
    Reagan had been out of office 12 years.

    Cheney served as much as Clinton.  So your point in the first paragraph was???

    Uh, Cheney was a whirlwind at slicing and dicing the military budget.  So was Reagan, after the wall fell.

    We had a great quick strike force at the disposal of the president.  It is just that Bush ignored all the command structure post-11Sep and decided to operate as if we were the 8th Army in WWII.  The moron increased spending in order to fight the last war, ignoring the tools he had at his disposal.

    You can't be that dumb, can you?

    Parent

    Dumb? Well, dumb is as dumb does. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 04:12:34 PM EST
    Can you tell me again about attacking during a Full Moon, with stealth aircraft??

    So what you're telling me is that under Clinton's watch, a military strategy was developed that failed to meet the needs of the 21st century.

    No surprose there, eh??

    Parent

    jimakapp and dumb-assumptions (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Lacy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 04:43:08 PM EST
    I was active duty military during Vietnam for 4 years and some months, then Reserves for 6 more years, contrary to assumptions of your biased mind.

    You also ignore that after the Soviet Union broke up, that it was the GOP, then haters of all government spending (now the proverbial drunken sailors), that championed a reduction of the military...yes, starting with GHW Bush. And thankfully, we haven't needed a large military up to now, since Afganistan required only about 50,000 troops.

    What we have needed recently is a president as smart as WJC who would have been intelligent enough to address the real problems of terrorism, not blundering and thrashing around like GWB, who has created massive new levels of terrorism by foolish conduct.

     

    Parent

    Lacy actually served... (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:27:04 PM EST
    Well, glad to know you served. It warms the cockles of my heart, although I can see how things have changed in the last 35 (?) years of your life. Or were you anti-military while you were in??

    As for Clinton, it seems to me that since he had 8 years, and him being so smart and all, he would have handed W a world at peace, with all the terrorists in jail..

    That he did not, and your claim he could, only demonstrates that you need to start thinking logically... I mean, that he didn't does say something, doesn't it?

    BTW - What I wrote was...

    Now I know that you weren't in the military, and that you most likely was cheerleading the Clinton admistration's efforts to gut the military, with the capable help of Senator Kerry and some dummy Repubs..

    Catch the dummy Repubs bit?? Didn't go too fast for you did I??

    Parent

    We got such big pay raises (4.50 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:06:48 AM EST
    when Clinton was prez, I'm really really missing him now!  We just got the smallest pay raise in like a 20 year history this year.  You are the cutest little troll ever.  You are much cuter than the troll on my keychain, you could possibly redefine cute little trolls for me.  Let us be quite clear about Clinton's gutting.......he gutted our Military Industrial Complex by enforcing as fully as he could that all the contractors had to do an honest days work for an honest days wages.  He educated the military though.  He allowed my husband to use his G.I. bill while serving active duty and going fulltime to school.  That's right, my husband was a student for his country.  I doubt you can find that deal in the Army these days.  The only thing you need to know how to do is fire a weapon at anything that you personally might think looks like an enemy and your wordly education is straight out of small town unexposed to the world America!

    Parent
    LOL (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:34:57 AM EST
    Wile (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:00:58 AM EST
    Me too.

    Parent
    Why stop there? (4.00 / 1) (#27)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:14:32 AM EST
    We have a military to fight wars with.

    There is no other reason. None. Nada.

    We have 10,000 nukes to annihilate all terrestrial life.

    Carry a concealed weapon to kill someone.

    Get airbags to crash your car.

    Seriously, no other reason, none, nada? Don't you claim to be a veteran? Ever wonder why the Swiss have an army? I can't bring myself to spell this out. I won't. Hell, even your Social Liberal idol Ronnie Raygun stated it pretty eloquently.

    Parent

    I sometimes wonder... (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:10:37 PM EST
    why cause and effect doesn't enter your mind.

    Becuase we have a military

    We can effect the actions of other countries...

    BTW - The Swiss also have Universal Service..

    Parent

    I some.... (4.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Skyho on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 04:04:14 PM EST
    No, we are not free because we have a military.  Never have been.  Even in your highly lauded WWII, examples abound that having a military protects no ideology.  It is the citizens themselves that protect and enshrine their value structure, not the military.

    The surviving attibutes from the Revolutionary War were how we treated their soldiers as our prisoners, not New York city.  The willingness of the rich to put all of their wealth on the line and not on who won or loss which battle.  In subsequent engagements, the bravery with which the politicos refused to give up any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights, even in the face of "expediency".

    That is what makes us great.  Most everything you advocate are things that seem to make us wrong, this shallow understanding of what people like Patton and the military were about.  Fighting engagements as if they are to be drivers of good all by themselves.  You and your ilk remind me of the three year old who just found out about hammers as the kid tries to get every object in sight to conform to its actions.

    Not very smart to know that the military is simply a tool, many times composed of heros, but a tool all the same.

    Parent

    Dubya is like Uma's Poison Ivy (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:25:59 AM EST
    He blows his poison into the swirling winds and now everyone who has ever served their country and still draws breath gets the "I'm stupid" booby prize for ever doing so.

    No, that is not true. (1.00 / 3) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:35:43 AM EST
    And it is believed only by those who do not support the troops.

    Parent
    What about me? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    I'm an Army vet, I "support the troops," and I want them out of harm's way because there is no mission to accomplish and all that will happen is that more will be dead and more of our expensive stuff will be used up.

    Parent
    You're obviously a terrorist sympathizer (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 05:45:34 AM EST
    For attempting to interfere with the profit margins of the companies in PPJ's military industrial complex-heavy investment portfolio.

    Parent
    We've yelled but the message is derailed (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Lora on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:47:06 AM EST
    Those who want the war to continue are still in power.

    Lora (1.00 / 3) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:50:21 AM EST
    Yes, unfortunately we have not yet wiped out all the terrorists fighting us in Iraq.

    Parent
    jiminy (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Skyho on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    all the terrorists

    Yes, indeed.  Some 230 years ago we used to call them freedom fighters.  You know, they fight invaders, occupiers (that be us).

    Now that our military blood was spillt just so our corporate welfare queens, oil barons, Halliburton, etc. could get a rather large welfare handout from the US tax base, I guess it is time to move on......

    Parent

    SkyHo displays it. (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:11:46 PM EST
    "That be us?"

    You know, if you are incapable of understanding the differences between our Founding Fathers, and the terrorists killing innocent people in Iraq, there is no hope for you. You absolutely are hopeless.

    And because we are opposing these people, and since they are equal to us in your mind, and since you can not stand the thought of us winning the war...

    Well, that explains you.

    Parent

    Stop making 7 lb 8 oz Meta baby Jesus (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    cry due to overwhelming bs assaults please!

    Parent
    Stop making what?? (1.00 / 2) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Are you saying that the terrorists aren't still blowing people up in Iraq?

    Who knew?

    Now that is real news.

    Parent

    Are you saying (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:37:17 PM EST
    that the people we kill in Iraq get a fair trial?

    Parent
    Actually if they don't (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:05:32 PM EST
    we try those who murder them.

    RePack. Try and get a dictionary and look up the meaning of murder and kill, etc.

    Parent

    Hey wingnut. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by walt on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 07:37:36 PM EST
    Citizens of Iraq living in Iraq who fight US military personnel are not terrorists even by the most moronic definitions Bu$hInc as ever tried to manufacture.  They are sometimes called "insurgents."

    Parent
    Hey wingnut?? (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:03:29 PM EST
    Wow. What an intelligent comment. I bet you were in the top 99% of your class.

    If the terrorists you refer to were attacking only US soldiers, you might be able to claim they were insurgents.

    But what we have here is Shia attacking Suni and Kurds, etc. And, of course, Iranian nationals and al-Qaida members of all sizes, shapes and descriptions.

    And the proper name for someone who drives a car into a market place and blows themselves up killing innocent people is a fing terrorist.

    Now that leaves out the fact that we are there trying to help them set up a democratic form of government which, we hope, will provide them a better life.

    Your inability to discriminate between good and evil is truly remarkable.

    Why do you think that is true? Lack of proper education? Societal influence?

    Parent

    Some would (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:33:16 AM EST
    say we have a military to prevent wars and other types of atrocities.

    If the "sole purpose" were to fight wars, than you would've fought in one, ppj and would probobly now be thinking twice before spouting bumpersticker platitudes about "supporting the troops".

    Ah, the Jondee has appeared (1.00 / 2) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    for another history lesson...

    I remind you of something called the Cold War.

    As I haven't in the past, I will not comment on any of the subsets of that war.

    Have a nice day... And don't forget to bring race into the conversation..

    Parent

    Wile (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    Apples and oranges, my friend. Clinton left a PREPARED military. They are no longer prepared.

    Bush was fully warned of an impending attack. What action did he take? He did nothing. Deliberately. The other big difference b/w Clinton and Bush is that after WTC I, Clinton's DOJ actually convicted someone (no SIX) of the attack-in a court of law. If you nearly drown someone, they'll tell you their mother did it.

    And militarytracy is correct. We don't care about beinglabeled unpatriotic. Only history will bear out who here is correct. Thus far the home team's record seems better.

    Fall 2008. What utter BS. If I were a betting man, I would feel it a safe bet that we will still be in Irag in 2009.

    I would agree we will be in Iraq for a while. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    I would say gutted military, but we would agrue all day about what constitutes a prepared military and what does not.  

    Parent
    No urban myths allowed, Che. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 06:34:45 PM EST
    You write:

    Bush was fully warned of an impending attack. What action did he take? He did nothing. Deliberately.

    Actually you reveal who you are, and your knowledge level of this with the word "Deliberately."

    But, one more time. let us see what Bush's folks were doing. Let us listen to what NSA Rice says.

    At the special meeting on July 5 (2001) were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken.

    So here we have the President's NSA telling everyone that to be especially alert, to expect an attack.

    Kinda makes your claim look silly, eh??


    Parent

    What a nasty ole geezer you are (4.66 / 3) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    I thought you were four based on your debate abilities.  Had no idea you were just a nasty ole guy who would take punishment sexually......ewwwww.  I was about to send you to the corner but God knows what you would do over there too.

    The AD personnel (4.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:37:53 AM EST
    around Camp Pendleton have been telling me this for weeks.

    That post deserves a big Hooah! (4.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:17:21 AM EST


    part of??? (1.00 / 3) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:48:13 AM EST
    As always, I speak only for myself.

    Now where have I heard that before?

    And based on what I have seen from Wilie, he doesn't need anyone's help.

    But you did make one point I want to bring forth and say that I totally agree with.

    So many of us are Unpatriotic these days.


    Sadly, whether or not (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:48:42 AM EST
    some in America would label me "unpatriotic" matters very little to those who have died in Iraq.  It probably didn't matter much to them the days and moments before they died and I am almost certain it doesn't matter to them now.  Whether some of my countrymen think I am patriotic or not doesn't matter to those who will die in Iraq today either.....their fates are all part of a trainwreck that my petty ideals have no ability to have an affect on today.  Honestly, if you think I'm unpatriotic who really cares?

    Parent
    You brought the subject up (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    and now that you have, you want to add some disclaimers??

    And yes, I believe that it did matter to those who were there.

    Parent

    No I just brought up the subject (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:44:24 PM EST
    and brought up the truth.  Most people choose life when someone threatens their life.  They choose to live first and they don't give a flying F what anybody labels anybody.  They would just like to live.

    Parent
    PS. PBJ (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:46:57 PM EST
    Why are you here blogging instead of in uniform?  We're taking anybody these days and we write waivers for almost any health reason and age does not matter either.  So why are you here blogging instead of out there fighting the fight you believe in with all of your heart and soul?

    Parent
    Hey, I did my 10. They are also taking women. (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 04:18:31 PM EST
    Why don't you sign up. That way you could actually have some military experience when you go blogging.

    I'm sure the terrorists would just bend over for a spanking, and then run to the corner...

    Sure. Yeah.

    BTW - You never did tell us if you are active, retired or whatever...

    Parent

    Huh? (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 04:14:37 PM EST
    What does that have to do with supporting the military??

    Are you trying to revive the old "Better Red than Dead" slogan??

    Parent

    Ah (1.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:53:52 AM EST
    So it was Clinton's military immediately post-9-11.  I will not argue that at all.  So 9-11 was deal also?  After all, Bush had not been there long enough to change the letterhead and signature blocks on the stationary?  I'm not arguing with you at all, just want to make sure your positing is clear.  Agree?  

    You need to read more widely. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by walt on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:53:12 PM EST
    Perhaps you've heard of Paul O'Neill & Richard Clark?

    The real short of it: RumDummy couldn't "unbuy" the equipment, materiel & weaponry nor could he "untrain" the troops in the short time between inauguration day & the invasion of Afghanistan.  He did have time to get some important things very screwed up & "undone" before invading Iraq.

    The events of Sept. 11, 2001, were very much attributable to the Clinton administration, which is why Tenet & Clark worked so diligently at getting Bu$h, Cheney, Powell & Rice to pay attention to the intelligence data.  And they were stunningly ignored (reports available & widely distributed).  I'm told Woodward's book also lays out this line of development very clearly.

    Finally, (without any references to kooku theories about which conspiracies resulted in the attacks of Sept. 11), Vice-president Cheney did have & did use his authority to "undo" the North American Air Defense Command and order a stand down for a training exercise on Sept. 11 to such an extent that the efforts at a response to the hijacked aircraft were totally ineffectual (this is available on tape).  Also, the Pentagon's top generals & admirals lied to the commission investigators about this sequence of events.

    Not Bill Clinton, no person in his administration & none of the Bu$hInc critics had anything to do with the day-to-day operations of the US's continental defense procedures which were completely inoperative on Sept. 11, 2001.

    So: yes, Clinton's military did their job.  Yes, Clinton's administration knew about some of the events leading to Sept. 11, 2001, & tried to warn, activate & motivate Bu$hInc--unsuccessfully.

    And NO, nothing remotely connected to the Clinton folks de-activated Norad on Sept. 11--Cheney "undid" that shield all by himself.

    Parent

    Walt (1.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 07:12:12 PM EST
    Which Richard Clarke are you speaking of?

    The one before he quit, or the one after he quit and wrote a book?

    Q: In his resignation letter, he praised the President's courage and determination, did he leave in a huff?

    DR. RICE: No. What's really puzzling is that there are two very different stories here. There's the book and the "60 Minutes" interview. There is the August 2002 interview, where I assume he said things that he believed to be truthful, that we didn't give him -- he didn't give us a plan; that the strategy was to eliminate al Qaeda, not to roll it back; that we had acted on the steps that he gave to us on January 25th. I assume he was saying things that he believed to be true.

    There is also during the whole time that he's here -- relations are very cordial. He comes to me and asks me to support him with Tom Ridge to become deputy homeland secretary, said he was supportive of the President. He'd like to continue to serve. He'd like to be deputy homeland secretary.

    Does the fact that he didn't get the job tell you anything??

    Anyway, here's Richard Clarke in 8/02

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

    CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

    JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

    CLARKE: All of that's correct.

    BTW - Read the link I gave Che about the 7/5/01 meeting.

    And do you ever provide links?? Or do you just make claims??

    Parent

    You need to get together with SkyHo (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:23:09 PM EST
    and decide who gets credit for all these wonderful changes...

    I served and was damn glad to "beat weapons into plows" with the fall of the wall.  I was part of the effort to transition the military to a quick reaction, surgical strike team

    The problem is, that doesn't work well in a situation requiring a longer commitment, said loner commitment being mostly driven by the enemy's belief that the Left will eventually make the US withdraw.

    Also, as I did with SkyHo, I am sure you supported Rumsfeld trying to make further changes??

    What? (4.66 / 3) (#46)
    by walt on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:13:26 PM EST
    Perhaps some reading & observation of Gen. Wesley Clark's views on this topic would help bring the discussion into the 21st century.  Which "left" made the US withdraw from Germany, Japan, Korea, Kosovo, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc?

    Bu$hInc's "retro" preparations to fight USSR commies is & was & always will be an abject, stupid, vapid failure.

    RumDummy's efforts to change the rapid response capabilities of the US Armed Forces have all been failures--they don't work, even in exercises.  He's a complete jackass & the senior command teams that he put together are, generally (puns intended), a collection of rightwingnutz, talking point airheads who want all their subordinates to be good Xians--especially at the Air Force Academy.  Many (20 or 25) retired generals & admirals have been quite vocal about the insane & inept attempts by Rumsfeld to "modernize."  NOT.

    The strike forces that hit Afghanistan & Iraq were precisely suited for their assignments & clearly accomplished their missions.

    The occupations are turning into total failures because RumDummy (Gates also) & friends are  not smart enough to administer & manage a defeated nation.  The US has experts on this stuff, still alive & walking around--but Bu$hInc doesn't talk to them.  These are the folks who controlled Germany & Japan for 57 years, Korea for 54 years & some smaller places for 50 to 60 years.  It's not a mystery except to Bu$hInc & the brain-dead yes men.

    And, by the way, Gen. Clark ran NATO & is one of the guys who knows how to manage an occupation, a war & a peace.

    Parent

    You need to refresh your memory (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    He was so good he retired. And I don't think he has requested to come back...

    Too bad he didn't, but then he couldn't have run for Pres...

     

    don't know whether we'll win the postwar if Congress approves the money Bush asked for. But I know we'll lose it if Congress doesn't. That's what happens when a nation at war starts to think like the Wes Clark of 2003. Just ask the Wes Clark of 1999.

    BTW - The way you manage an ocupation is to destroy everything standing. Then, after you have their attention, you may be able to institute some changes.

    And oh yeah.... Are we out of Kosovo????? No? Gosh. Bush better hurry up if he wants to beat Clark's record..."


    Parent

    Hey the wingnut came unscrewed. (none / 0) (#61)
    by walt on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 07:19:20 PM EST
    You seem to not understand military retirement.  Gen. Clark completed a 34-year career & left active duty in 2000--long before the 2004 presidential campaign & not in order to run for the office.

    It's not possible to discuss war & peace with a person who writes "destroy everything standing" as if it's a solution or result.  And it's not funny or satirical.  What's amazing is you're serious!  Seriously screwed up.

    Parent

    Yes, I'm serious. (1.00 / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 07:27:58 PM EST
    And yes. If you are going to change a society, it is necessary to get its total attention, as we did in WWII.

    What we have been doing in Iraq is trying to let them work out the problems, except the terrorists don't want to do that.

    Radicals are funny like that. You just mostly have to let them have their way, or kill them. I opt for the latter.

    Do you actually contend that you can negotiate with them?

    BTW - My point was that Clark could have come back.

    He didn't.

    Are you always so obtuse??

    Parent

    And Tracy said (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:30:47 PM EST
     
    you could possibly redefine cute little trolls for me.

    Hey, I could redefine a lot of things for you, but I do have my standards.

    Let me see. (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 04:24:29 PM EST
    You want to spank me and/or make me stand in a corner... and you wonder why I recommended some professional help?

    And I have kept right on talking at ya after the suggestion. You know, keep the patient engaged until help arrives....

    BTW - If you are being told that multiple times... have you considered that you may actually need to??

    Now go tell some women that she's stupud for worrying about her children...

    Hey... (none / 0) (#57)
    by desertswine on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 04:49:59 PM EST
    Who's stupud?

    Parent
    Scar (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:55:52 PM EST
    You'll have to ask Tracy who that woman was.

    Parent
    Remind (none / 0) (#28)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:28:42 AM EST
    us of your experience.