What Ex High Ranking Military Brass Thin k

“7 Retired Top US Military:
Bush Screwed Up In Iraq

"It's a huge strategic disaster, and it will only get worse."

By Naomi Klein
The Guardian - UK
12-6-4

The nineteen months since the war in Iraq began, some of the most outspoken critics of President Bush's plan of attack have come from a group that should have been the most supportive: retired senior military leaders. We spoke with a group of generals and admirals that included a former supreme Allied commander and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and they all agreed on one thing: Bush screwed up.


Adm. Stansfield Turner NATO Allied commander for Southern Europe, 1975-77 CIA Director, 1977-81

We are in a real mess. There are eighty-seven attacks on Americans every day, and our people in Baghdad can't even leave the International Zone without being heavily armored. I think we are in trouble because we were so slow in terms of reconstruction and reconstituting the military and police forces. We have lost the support of the Iraqi people who were glad to see Saddam go. But they are not glad to see an outside force come in and replace him without demonstrating we are going to provide them with security and rebuild their economy. I am very frustrated. Having a convincing rationale for going in gives our troops a sense of purpose. Whatever you call it, this is now an insurgency using the techniques of terrorism. With the borders poorly guarded, the terrorists come in. All in all, Iraq is a failure of monumental proportions.


Lt. Gen. William Odom Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-88

It's a huge strategic disaster, and it will only get worse. The sooner we leave, the less the damage. In the months since the invasion, the U.S. forces have become involved in trying to repress a number of insurgency movements. This is the way we were fighting in Vietnam, and if we keep on fighting this way, this one is going to go on a long time too. The idea of creating a constitutional state in a short amount of time is a joke. It will take ten to fifteen years, and that is if we want to kill ten percent of the population.


Gen. Merrill 'Tony' McPeak Air Force Chief of Staff, 1990-94

We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the situation. It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need. As a consequence, the insurgency seems to be gathering momentum. We are losing people at a fairly steady rate of about two a day; wounded, about four or five times that, and perhaps half of these wounds are very serious. And we are also sustaining gunshot wounds, when, before, we'd mostly been seeing massive trauma from remotely detonated charges. This means the other side is standing and fighting in a way that describes a more dangerous phase of the conflict.

The people in control in the Pentagon and the White House live in a fantasy world. They actually thought everyone would just line up and vote for a new democracy and you would have a sort of Denmark with oil. I blame Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the people behind him -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary Douglas Feith. The vice president himself should probably be included; certainly his wife. These so-called neocons: These people have no real experience in life. They are utopian thinkers, idealists, very smart, and they have the courage of their convictions, so it makes them doubly dangerous.

The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam have been overblown, because we were in Vietnam for a decade and it cost us 58,000 troops. We've been in Iraq for nineteen months and we're still under 1,200 killed. But there is one sense in which the parallel with Vietnam is valid. The American people were told that to win the Cold War we had to win Vietnam. But we now know that Vietnam was not only a diversion from winning the Cold War but probably delayed our winning it and made it cost more to win. Iraq is a diversion to the war on terror in exactly the same way Vietnam was a diversion to the Cold War.


Gen. Anthony Zinni Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000

The first phase of the war in Iraq, the conventional phase, the major combat phase, was brilliantly done. Tommy Franks' approach to methodically move up and attack quickly probably saved a great humanitarian disaster. But the military was unprepared for the aftermath. Rumsfeld and others thought we would be greeted with roses and flowers.

When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would find ourselves in a situation where we had completely uprooted an authoritarian government and would need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.

When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.

Did we have to do this? I saw the intelligence right up to the day of the war, and I did not see any imminent threat there. If anything, Saddam was coming apart. The sanctions were working. The containment was working. He had a hollow military, as we saw. If he had weapons of mass destruction, it was leftover stuff -- artillery shells and rocket rounds. He didn't have the delivery systems. We controlled the skies and seaports. We bombed him at will. All of this happened under U.N. authority. I mean, we had him by the throat. But the president was being convinced by the neocons that down the road we would regret not taking him out.

Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 1997-2000

From the beginning, i was asked which side I took, Shinseki's or Rumsfeld's. And I said Shinseki. I mean, Rumsfeld proudly announced that he had told General Franks to fight this war with different tactics in which they would bypass enemy strongholds and enemy resistance and keep on moving. But it was shocking to me that the secretary of defense would tell the Army how to fight. He doesn't know how to fight; he has no business telling them. It's completely within civilian authority to tell you where to fight, what our major objective is, but it is absolutely no one's business but uniformed military to tell you how to do the job. To me, it was astonishing that Rumsfeld would presume to tell four-star generals, in the Army thirty-five years, how to do their jobs.

Now here's another thing that Rumsfeld did. As he was being briefed on the war plan, he was cherry-picking the units to go. In other words, he didn't just approve the deployment list, he went down the list and skipped certain units that were at a higher degree of readiness to go and picked units that were lower on the list -- for reasons we don't know. But here's the impact: Recently, at an event, a mother told me how her son had been recruited and trained as a cook. Three weeks before he deployed to Iraq, he was told he was now a gunner. And they gave him training for three weeks, and then off he went.

Rumsfeld was profoundly in the dark. I think he really didn't understand what he was doing. He miscalculated the kind of war it was and he miscalculated the interpretation of U.S. behavior by the Iraqi people. They felt they had been invaded. They did not see this as a liberation.

As for the recent news about the 380 tons of explosives that disappeared, it's irrelevant when they disappeared. This was known by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a site to be watched. Here is the issue: Bush tried to turn this into a political matter instead of answering questions about why he didn't follow the warnings of the IAEA. It was another example of Bush being a cheerleader instead of a leader. Nothing in Iraq was guarded except for the oil fields, which tells you why we were there. There are any number of indications that with a larger troop strength we would have been able to deal with such sites. Here is my other concern: The IAEA gave us a list of sites to be watched, so there may have been other dumps that were looted. After all, you don't just put one item on a list.

So what do we do? I think it would be very irresponsible for us to simply pull out. It sounds like a very simple solution, but it would have some complexity and danger attached. Still, Iraq is a blood bath, and we need to be dealing with this in a much more sophisticated way than the cowboy named Bush.


Gen. Wesley Clark NATO supreme Allied commander for Europe, 1997-2000

Troop strength was not the only problem. We got into this mess because the Bush administration decided what they really wanted to do was to invade Iraq, and then the only question was, for what reason? They developed two or three different reasons. It wasn't until the last minute that they came up and said, "Hey, by the way, we are going to create a wave of democracy across the Middle East."

That was February of 2003, and by that time they hadn't planned anything. In October of 2003, Donald Rumsfeld wrote a memo asking questions that should have been asked in 2001: Do we have an overall strategy to win the war on terror? Do we have the right organization to win the war on terror? How are we going to know if we are not winning the war on terror? As it has turned out, the guys on the ground are doing what they are told to do. But let's ask this question: Have you seen an American strategic blunder this large? The answer is: not in fifty years. I can't imagine when the last one was. And it's not just about troop strength. I mean, you will fail if you don't have enough troops, but simply adding troops won't make you succeed.


Adm. William Crowe Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89

We screwed up. We were intent on a quick victory with smaller forces, and we felt if we had a military victory everything else would fall in place. We would be viewed not as occupiers but as victors. We would draw down to 30,000 people within the first sixty days.

All of this was sheer nonsense.They thought that once Iraq fell we'd have a similar effect throughout the Middle East and terrorism would evaporate, blah, blah, blah. All of these were terrible assumptions. A State Department study advising otherwise was sent to Rumsfeld, but he threw it in the wastebasket. He overrode the military and was just plain stubborn on numbers. Finally the military said OK, and they totally underestimated the impact the desert had on our equipment and the kind of troops we would need for peacekeeping. They ignored Shinseki. The Marines were advising the same way. But the military can only go so far. Once the civilian leadership decides otherwise, the military is obliged.

There is not a very good answer for what to do next. We've pulled out of several places without achieving our objectives, and every time we predicted the end of Western civilization, which it was not. We left Korea after not achieving anything we wanted to do, and it didn't hurt us very much. We left Vietnam -- took us ten years to come around to doing it -- but we didn't achieve what we wanted. Everyone said it would set back our foreign policy in East Asia for ten years. It set it back about two months. Our allies thought we were crazy to be in Vietnam.

We could have the same thing happen this time in Iraq. If we walk away, we are still the number-one superpower in the world. There will be turmoil in Iraq, and how that will affect our oil supply, I don't know. But the question to ask is: Is what we are achieving in Iraq worth what we're paying? Weighing the good against the bad, we have got to get out.”

“His greatest mistake was dismissing the Iraqi regular army. We would be looking a lot better had we not done that.”

“No his (Bush's) greatest mistake was running for the presidentcy. The job is way out of his league. And he proved it just the other day when he re-appointed Rumsfeld as his Sec of Defense and Condi Rice as Sec of State. Four more years of this confederacy of dunces! The man has a fatal flaw (for soldiers that is)in that he thinks loyalty to his fellow architects in disaster is showing strength of character. God help us and the GIs in Iraq.”

“Well of course if you're going to state your opinion as fact it's going to seem reasonable and easy to see.

:)”

“I wonder about that, Nigal.

We tried to restart the Iraqi Army in Falujah, but it failed miserably.

I think it is probable that things would have gone badly anyway. But this is convenient because Paul Bremer - no longer in Iraq - can take the fall.

Plausible deniability. Scapegoats.

I think that the BIGGEST mistake was made by Bush Senior when he personalized and demonized Saddam. He was certainly a bad man and deserved it.

But we started to believe our own rhetoric. We made the issue black and white and forgot the complexity of the situation. We also ignored the idea that maybe a defanged, powerless Saddam with US jets circling his palaces was a better strategic option than feeding a few million hostile Iraqis.

I think that Bush is about to make one of the biggest mistakes of this whole mess. This election was not set up correctly. What should have happened is that Iraq should be divided into semi-autonomous provinces with a weak central leadership. The Kurds could basically control themselves. The Shiites and Sunnis could control themselves.

The key is that even if only ten or 20 Sunnis voted, you'd still get a Sunni government in the Sunni area. They could feel represented. Now, we'll have an election that will result in a government almost devoid of Sunnis.

Let the Sunni uprising begin.”

“A coalition of military idiots criticizes the strategy and I'm supposed to think this is a bad thing? I'll stick with the opinions of military leaders who have a record of accomplishment like Schwarzkopf and Franks.

My uncle served directly under one of the Generals listed, his opinion - "one of the dumbest people I've ever met."
last edited: 12/06/04 7:47:15 PM”

“Bison,

Do you actually think that things are going well in Iraq?”

“Yes, I think those that feel it isn't have a warped perspective, If you felt that we'd breeze in there take few casualties and be out with the Iraqi's running things in peace within a year I'd expect that you'd think things were going terribly. If you bought General Shinsheki's line that we'd take 3-5000 dead before we even got to Baghdad (Notice you don't see him trumpeting his own we need more troops BS much these days, because he knows his expectations were in reality totally out of whack) as I figured it would go, you'd say it was going exceptionally well.”

“Nigal,
“His greatest mistake was dismissing the Iraqi regular army. We would be looking a lot better had we not done that.”

So your opinion is more factual than mine?
They're both opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. But think of it like this. We could have had a Sunni dominated police and miltary if we had just let a hamstrung Saddam remain in power. Like the general said we had him right where we wanted him. Leave it to Bush43 to grab defeat from the jaws of victory. Therefore my wager is that history will not look kindly on Mr. Bush.

Bison,
Do tell us in what capacity your illustrious uncle served one of the above commanders. I can hardly wait. And contrary to what you infer, Shinseki, is looking pretty smart right now. Unlike Franks, he took retirement rather than change his estimate of the needed troops on the ground. IMO (I want to qualify this next statement) that's what a good commander would do. Unlike Gen Franks who basically is a Bush/Rumsfeld a$$ kisser.”

“Thanks, Bison, I just wanted to get you on record as stating that the War in Iraq is going EXCEPTIONALLY WELL.

So, everyone remember, as the frequency of attacks on Americans holds at TEN TIMES the level it was one year ago, remember how EXCEPTIONAL things are going.

As we see almost every foreign aid agency and almost every reconstruction company leave Iraq because of decreasing security, remember how EXCEPTIONAL things are going.

In conclusion, I just want to invite everyone to support the troops.”

“"Yes, I think those that feel it isn't have a warped perspective, If you felt that we'd breeze in there take few casualties and be out with the Iraqi's running things in peace within a year I'd expect that you'd think things were going terribly."
>
Geeeeze Bison, I'm certainly glad it wasn't me who a year or so ago landed on that carrier in the Pacific for a photo op while standing under that huge banner proclaiming.
>
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"
>
Boy would I look stupid if I had done that!”

“Shinsheki's looking good? What the hell? What kind of numbskull would say such a thing? Shinsheki said it would take three times as many troops and we'd suffer nearly ten times as many casualties as we did getting to Baghdad, and someone trumpets this idiot as someone to look to for answers. Yes I'm gonna listen to the person who got the job done with one third the troops and one tenth the casualties that Shinseki said would be needed.

I look at how far we've come while suffering less than a third of what Shinseki expected in casualties just to get to Baghdad and from that perspective we're doing damn good.
last edited: 12/06/04 9:07:15 PM”

“I suppose it comes down to just what "getting to Baghdad" means.

Our troops and civilians hide out in a small secure zone in the middle of Baghdad. They have to shoot their way out every time. They can't even drive a few miles to the airport. They have to take helicopters because they are guaranteed to be hit on the ground.

We didn't lose 5,000 troops, in part, because the Iraqis decided not to fight in the initial battles of the war. They started to fight a classic guerilla campaign.

It has already taken 2,000 troops to get where we are now. I'll bet it will take thousands more to gain control, er "get to" Baghdad.

I hope I'm wrong.”

“"So your opinion is more factual than mine?"

I never stated my opinion as fact.

Everyone’s an armchair president now days and it just looks silly. Think for a second what it must look like to someone else reading this rhetoric. Some guy down in Carolina is sitting on his computer talking about the most powerful positions in our government as if he knows every little thing about the jobs and as if he could do better.

It’s like watching a construction worker criticizing a nuclear plant operator.”

“It’s like watching a construction worker criticizing a nuclear plant operator.”
Nigal
7:59:58 AM
12/07/04

Nigal, isn't that like you criticizing a politician ;)”

“Reformed lurker,
Well said but I think we are wasting our time. Apparently these guys are the true believers Eric Hoffer wrote his book about. Of course Nigal and Bison would say the same thing about us. Time will tell.

Nigal,
Let me get this straight. If you make a post readers should just consider it a reasoned personal opinion but if I make a statement all readers should consider it as

"Some guy down in Carolina is sitting on his computer talking about the most powerful positions in our government as if he knows every little thing about the jobs and as if he could do better." ?
>
or that ole Sol just states things as facts when he should qualify all statements with a "IMO". Well that's ok. I'm just asking so I'll know the rules I have to play by.
>
Bison,
Per your quote.
>
"Shinsheki's looking good? What the hell? What kind of numbskull would say such a thing?"
>
I'm the very sort of numbskull. And I'm not alone. Seems like more and more numbskulls are saying things like that. Shinsheki said 350,000 troops and that IMO (wanna make sure I follow the Sol Rule) is an accurate estimate. We don't have control of Iraq. We can't even garrantee the Green Zone. No GI in his right mind volunteers to drive down RPG Alley to the Baghdad airport. The resupply routes from Basra should be renamed The Saddam Hussein Memorial Turkey Shoot Highway. Even the Abrams tanks aren't safe against IEDs. The Army is scrapping the bottom of the barrel by backdoor drafting every old grandma and grandpa who ever served in the Army Reserve. They need the bodies, anybodies! But Bush and his sycophants just keep feeding you the same old BS. Everything is going swimmingly! Lap it up fool.”

“Bison...nothing personal here but....sheesh dude, you're full of crap. This is looking like a repeat of that financial argument a while back. What makes you so stubborn in the face of such evidence? If it looks, tastes and smells like $hit ....chances are it's $hit.

Retired military people are saying this and active duty military people are saying it in private. It's not a sign of personal weakness to admit your boy Bush made a mistake or two.”

“Nigal,
Let me get this straight. If you make a post readers should just consider it a reasoned personal opinion but if I make a statement all readers should consider it as

"Some guy down in Carolina is sitting on his computer talking about the most powerful positions in our government as if he knows every little thing about the jobs and as if he could do better." ?”

Well, let’s take a closer look at some of your comments and see what they reveal…

“No his (Bush's) greatest mistake was running for the presidentcy.”

“The job is way out of his league. And he proved it just the other day when he re-appointed Rumsfeld as his Sec of Defense and Condi Rice as Sec of State.”

“Four more years of this confederacy of dunces! The man has a fatal flaw (for soldiers that is)in that he thinks loyalty to his fellow architects in disaster is showing strength of character. God help us and the GIs in Iraq.”

Your own words seem to speak for themselves.

Here’s an analogy just to show how I can see it. If someone wants to worship trees as their religion and dance naked before them, hey fine, have at. It’s your right. But when the tree worshippers start telling me I’m nuts, naïve or just wrong because I don’t worship trees, well, then we have a problem. Just because I don’t wake up every morning thinking the gubmint’s out to get me and I don’t have a chronic problem with authority doesn’t automatically mean I’m nuts, does it?

But this brings us to the major flaw here. For some reason I can’t for the life of me figure out you seem to care what I think.

Are we done now? Because you're just repeating yourself over and over.”

“JO -

I honestly spend a lot of time worrying that someday people with such a warped perspective will be calling the shots.

We are there for a purpose, to return the country to its people, Not to pacify the country and act as occupiers, and we are well on the way to achieving that purpose with much less loss of life than was predicted by these idiots running around claiming that its all going to hell in a handbasket. I'm sorry that you are tied into such a perspective but I'm afraid that's just a consequence of how we get our news you see all the crap and none of the progress, why? progress doesn't sell and news is a business, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.”

“but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.”
Bison
10:51:50 AM
12/07/04

doesn't mean it is happening either.”

“Quick survey here. How many of you have actually spoken with anyone who has had their boots on the ground in Iraq?”

“I have.”

“OK, there's one.”

“I have”

“A neighbor of mine who lives maybe 150 yds away lost her son to this "war." Does that count?”

“Nigal - Bison. You can't possibly think Iraq is going to plan - and that the situation might have been much better if more troops had been on the ground early?”

“WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 - A classified cable sent by the Central Intelligence Agency's station chief in Baghdad has warned that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and may not rebound any time soon, according to government officials.

The cable, sent late last month as the officer ended a yearlong tour, presented a bleak assessment on matters of politics, economics and security, the officials said. They said its basic conclusions had been echoed in briefings presented by a senior C.I.A. official who recently visited Iraq.
[...]
Together, the appraisals, which follow several other such warnings from officials in Washington and in the field, were much more pessimistic than the public picture being offered by the Bush administration before the elections scheduled for Iraq next month, the officials said. The cable was sent to C.I.A. headquarters after American forces completed what military commanders have described as a significant victory, with the retaking of Falluja, a principal base of the Iraqi insurgency, in mid-November.
[...]

Full Story”

““Nigal - Bison. You can't possibly think Iraq is going to plan - and that the situation might have been much better if more troops had been on the ground early?”

I never said this? You sure it's my post you were reading? I criticized Bush for disbanding the Iraqi military. Keep it straight man. :)”

“Ok - so another question. Has the invasion of Iraq made America safer?

See in my view the invasion has provided a focal point for every extremest in the middle east to focus on. Which they seem to be doing as the scale of the insuregency increases day by day. Think of how safe america could be if $200 billion were spent on securing the borders and cities.”

“Like me putting better locks on the doors and hiding in my house instead of cleaning up the neighborhood.”

“A woman on the staff here lost her 21 year old son a few weeks ago.
She has been against this war from the git-go.

Having one's boots on the ground does not necessarily give an understanding of the situation country-wide.

Bison,
Cleaning up the neighborhood??
You're forgetting, Hussein was not a threat to the U.S.
The effort has created more terrorists and given them a reason to believe........in what ever it is they believe in.
last edited: 12/07/04 1:08:58 PM”

“Yes, I think we are safer. And you explained why...

"See in my view the invasion has provided a focal point for every extremest in the middle east to focus on."

For every terrorist we kill there is one less that will be crossing the boards into America. Better there than here. Sounds harsh but this is their culter and this is what a violent culter can expect.”

“Do you mean "Coulter"???

Those terrorists are killing our people over there.......not here.”

“Nigal. These guys weren't crossing the border to America or ever likely to. I don't get why so many people can't understand the fact that there wasn't one homogeneous group out there wanting to attack America. Why can't you understand that Iraq was safely in the box and posed NO threat to America?, there were no links to AQ or any WMDs. The Iraq war has made things worse, not better. It's acted as a recruiting tool for every group of extremists out there. And as they get stronger and stronger you increase their ability to strike america, as resources are diverted from defending the homeland.

Time will tell, but I think they'll be American soldiers dying in Iraq for many many years.”

“First off, I agree with Nigal. Disbanding the Iraqi army was a big mistake and it can't be undone by trying to reconstitute one now. The security situation has long ago gone to #&%!$ and many people in the army have become committed members of the resistance.

Secondly, there are some pretty distinguished people among those 7 officers. So what if one is a goofball.

Lastly, I think Shinseki's estimates on troops needed was born out - there weren't enough troops to secure what needed to be secured and establish security. If US occupation has eliminated Saddam, provided reasonable security and done more to repair material conditions for people on the ground - the resistance would not have grown the way it did.

I think the Iraqi people are glad that Saddam is gone, the majority at least, but they also don't think their lives have improved - and they aren't getting anything that is worth the continued occupation.

I think maybe the best thing the US could have done after Saddam was caught is declare victory and leave.”

“Well praise be to whatever god you may prostrate yourself before! It’s about damn time ya stop asking a billion questions trying to get me to say what ya want me to! You finally stated your views out in the open and clearly. Thank you. I don’t agree with you but thanks for being upfront finally.”

“I think Nigal meant cullcher.”

“Culture. Know fock of! LOL!”

“WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A moderate Republican senator who recently returned from Iraq said conditions are worse than last year and the American public needs to hear "the cold, hard facts."

Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island said the situation he encountered was "frightening at times."

"It's a very tenuous security situation," Chafee told CNN. "I'd been there a year ago -- what a change."
[...]
Chafee said the senators were unable to travel through Baghdad's neighborhoods, visit the northern city of Mosul or take the road from the airport -- all things visitors could do last year.

"Also, in the Green Zone a year ago we felt very secure," he said, referring to the fortified section of the capital that is home to Iraqi and foreign governments and the military. "Not so this time."
[...]
He said insurgents "pretty much" control Mosul and large parts of Baghdad, as well as the 10-mile stretch of road from the airport into the capital.

"If with 100,000-plus troops over there, we can't control that 10-mile road, it shows what's happening politically," the senator said. "The people are not as friendly as they were a year ago towards Americans."”

“I'm getting ready to start going door to door in the Iraqi election.

The election rules allow anyone who was born in Iraq or has a parent of Iraqi ancestry to vote in the election.

This means that there are roughly 80,000 eligible voters in Michigan.

These people may never have seen Iraq in their lives, but they will be voting. I'm waiting to see my first yardsign.

Oh, and I wonder how they are running the Iraqis-abroad election ballots in Iran. That country has a large number of expat Iraqis.

I guess this is why we let Liberians vote for our president, eh?”

“Come on Violin, I'm sure someone can dig up some trash on Chafee.

Ya know, like he's "queer" or his sister-in-law takes anti-depressants, etc......therefore he can't be believed.....he's a liberal liar......”

“My friend's neighbor's uncle said he is stupid.”

“There's your proof!!!

The guys is a lyin' sack.”

“"My friend's neighbor's uncle said he is stupid.”

“There's your proof!!!

The guys is a lyin' sack.”

LOL Violin and MarkO!

Face it. You can't win with these guys (Bison and Nigal). Next they'll be saying their Uncle's dogs told them that all the Ex Military Brass's dogs "were the stupidest dogs they ever met."

Just remember, in time we'll be proven right.”

“Gosh I missed this gem of a Nigal quote.
>
"For every terrorist we kill there is one less that will be crossing the boards into America."
>
Following the Sol Rule (gotta be careful here) IMO it seem like for every terrorist we kill, two three more come out of the woodwork. So even if this destruction/creation of terrorists is linear the net sum gain for us is zero. For this we're spending $200 billion?
>
And IMO, for every innocent Iraqi civilian, every little child, every son, mother, brother, father, and sister that gets caught in the crossfire, we citizens of this country conjure up ten more. Now we're talking geometric progression! Not good Nigal, not good!”

“Besides this stupid, fairy of a NE liberal senator prolly has no COMMON SENSE.

Wesley Clark has none , but the true believers in Bush almighty do?

Hmmmm?! I seem to recall backpacking in Dolly Sods and coming across a guy who was chain smoking while getting lost with a fancy GPS device. I remember muttering to myself..." that dude ain't got no COMMON SENSE".

When I see Wesley Clark actually acting a fool, then I'll start doubting the dudes credentials.”

“Ha ha! last time I checked having a little adventure is part of the fun of backpacking JO.

BTW - Clark didn't get fired for no reason. And Generals usually get to select their aides, that didn't happen in this case. Aides only get assigned when somebody's higher ups feel they need a babysitter.”

“...Rumsfeld picking stock answers to legitimate questions right out of his ass!


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops.ap/index.html”

“I guess this one took him by surprise...


(snip)
"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.”

““Following the Sol Rule (gotta be careful here) IMO it seem like for every terrorist we kill, two three more come out of the woodwork. So even if this destruction/creation of terrorists is linear the net sum gain for us is zero. For this we're spending $200 billion?”

I don’t believe this at all. So what’s the alternative? Sit down with them and hold hands and negotiate? I’ve never been too much of an isolationist but I can say that in the past 18 months my level of compassion for those who would harm us in exchange for us giving them their freedom has gone way down. I won’t go so far as to say let’s close up the shutters and let the world go to hell but I am a bit tired of cajoling those who seek nothing but our downfall and destruction.

“And IMO, for every innocent Iraqi civilian, every little child, every son, mother, brother, father, and sister that gets caught in the crossfire, we citizens of this country conjure up ten more. Now we're talking geometric progression! Not good Nigal, not good!”

It is terrible when this happens but it is unavoidable in a war. Take the battle for Fahluja. Every civie had the chance to get out before we went in. Many did not leave and took their own lives in there hands. It is war and it is hell. If anyone thinks we can run a war without bad things happening; they are kidding themselves. Frankly speaking, and this is gonna be very unpopular, but when I think of these poor innocent civilians, there is only one thing that springs to mind…the expressions of shear joy and ecstasy on the faces of all those men, women and even children as they danced around the charred remains of those contractors who came to their country willingly to help them. I remembering them dancing around the burnt bodies as they cheered and prodded them with sticks and beat them with their shoes. What about THEIR sons? What about THEIR draughts, mothers, wives?

”