Post #115
Subject: Shoes As Terror Weapons!
“(CBS) The joint FBI-Homeland Security bulletin, obtained by CBS News today [October 26, 2007], bluntly warns that terrorists are still working to use ‘modified footwear as a concealment method for explosive devices,’ CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports. The alert follows the discovery of bomb detonators - expertly hidden in the hollowed-out soles of this pair of shoes - found aboard a European bus last month. “
So, let’s bomb Iran! :p
As best as I can figure, the type of neo-con lunacy as subscribed to by the White House says that we must show terrorists that we’re tough – that’s the way to win the War on Terror. So, when we couldn’t finish in Afghanistan, we turned to Iraq – when we couldn’t finish in Iraq, we turn to Iran.
Bombing Iran, another country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us, is not the answer. Why ensure that another generation of 65 million Muslims hate us? Bombing Iran will just set us farther behind in the War on Terror.
Oh, how Osama must be smiling! The Soviet Union collapsed due to the self-inflicted wound of bankruptcy – squandering blood and treasure. America seems determined to follow.
“Intelligence officials say the shoes were not being worn at the time, but instead were being used, as the document says, ‘to smuggle electric blasting caps across international borders for use in a terrorist attack.’ ‘The terrorists have an interest in explosive devices. They are trying to figure out the best way to push them, to move them through the system,’ said CBS News counterterrorism analyst Paul Kurtz.”
Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Al-Qaeda in Europe??? Well, who? Who are these bad men, and how will bombing Iran help us?
“Officials say there is no specific intelligence that terrorists are preparing new attacks against America. “
Um, wonder why this information was released….
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Post #114
Subject: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Where do we go from here?
In my Post #112, I quoted retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, “Still, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos that would have global implications.”
I also quoted Pat Buchanan in my Post #37, “But those consequences [of a withdrawal] are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.”
Yes, and it is past time for us to accept the consequences of the defeat George W. Bush has inflicted upon us because those consequences get worse with each passing day. Turkish troops are ready to sweep into northern Iraq, Syria has apparently aligned with North Korea, al-Qaeda has found sanctuary in Pakistan.
Simply, it’s time -- and has been for a while – to “run, run, run away, live to fight another day.”
Could things get any worse?
Of course, they could.
In Charles Krauthammer’s column “Iraq divided” of September 7, 2007, he said: “The critics at home, echoing the Shiite sectarians in Baghdad, complain that an essential part of this strategy -- the "20 percent solution" that allows former-insurgent Sunnis to organize and arm themselves -- is just setting Iraq up for a greater civil war. But this assumes that a Shiite government in Baghdad would march its army into the vast Anbar province where there are no Shiites and no oil. For what? It seems far more likely that a well-armed and self-governing Anbar would create a balance of power that would encourage hands-off relations with the central government in
Baghdad. “
My respect for Charles just plummeted – either Charles is being foolish regarding human nature or he is lying about the possibility of a civil war to support his argument that the surge is working. I know that I said, in my Post #105, that Charles seems to actually listen to “the opposition” and try to understand without the usual dim-witted snipes of many right-wing-ers. But the reason for worry is that the new heavily-armed Sunni will march into the Shiite areas where there IS oil – then, ya have a civil war. Charles is just not listening – why does he continue to push a theory [the surge] that our own military deems “counterproductive?”
Does it make sense to continue to squander our military resources – blood and treasure –as the world becomes more and more dangerous? I thought the Historical lesson of the Soviet Union was that the self-inflicted wound of bankruptcy – squandering blood and treasure – led to their fall. How much longer will peeps agree with Bush and think that their loved one should die in a never-ending war? We‘ll sacrifice for enhancing the security of the United States of America, but Iraq ain’t it!
Subject: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Where do we go from here?
In my Post #112, I quoted retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, “Still, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos that would have global implications.”
I also quoted Pat Buchanan in my Post #37, “But those consequences [of a withdrawal] are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.”
Yes, and it is past time for us to accept the consequences of the defeat George W. Bush has inflicted upon us because those consequences get worse with each passing day. Turkish troops are ready to sweep into northern Iraq, Syria has apparently aligned with North Korea, al-Qaeda has found sanctuary in Pakistan.
Simply, it’s time -- and has been for a while – to “run, run, run away, live to fight another day.”
Could things get any worse?
Of course, they could.
In Charles Krauthammer’s column “Iraq divided” of September 7, 2007, he said: “The critics at home, echoing the Shiite sectarians in Baghdad, complain that an essential part of this strategy -- the "20 percent solution" that allows former-insurgent Sunnis to organize and arm themselves -- is just setting Iraq up for a greater civil war. But this assumes that a Shiite government in Baghdad would march its army into the vast Anbar province where there are no Shiites and no oil. For what? It seems far more likely that a well-armed and self-governing Anbar would create a balance of power that would encourage hands-off relations with the central government in
Baghdad. “
My respect for Charles just plummeted – either Charles is being foolish regarding human nature or he is lying about the possibility of a civil war to support his argument that the surge is working. I know that I said, in my Post #105, that Charles seems to actually listen to “the opposition” and try to understand without the usual dim-witted snipes of many right-wing-ers. But the reason for worry is that the new heavily-armed Sunni will march into the Shiite areas where there IS oil – then, ya have a civil war. Charles is just not listening – why does he continue to push a theory [the surge] that our own military deems “counterproductive?”
Does it make sense to continue to squander our military resources – blood and treasure –as the world becomes more and more dangerous? I thought the Historical lesson of the Soviet Union was that the self-inflicted wound of bankruptcy – squandering blood and treasure – led to their fall. How much longer will peeps agree with Bush and think that their loved one should die in a never-ending war? We‘ll sacrifice for enhancing the security of the United States of America, but Iraq ain’t it!
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Post #113
Subject: To protect and defend….
When the next President of the United States is sworn in, January of ‘09, she – :) – will swear to protect and defend the Constitution. Contrary to what ya hear, the most important job of the President is NOT to protect and defend the American people but rather to protect and defend the Constitution. As Ron Paul would tell ya, this country would be a lot better served if our political leaders would pay attention to the Constitution.
… from “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” September 28, 2007:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Mario Cuomo was a three-term governor of New York. Governor Cuomo, thank you for joining us. What concerns you about the Democratic field right now and what they‘re doing in terms of Iran?
MARIO CUOMO (D), FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: Well, it‘s what they‘re not doing that concerns me most. What they‘re not doing is learning from the terrible mistake we made in allowing the president to seize the war power and take us to war all alone. It was his war. And we sent a few resolutions which were ambiguous and which didn‘t mean a whole lot, tagging along with him.
The Founding Fathers addressed the question of who and how you declare war and said it was the most important question that would face the country. And they were given two choices: give it to the president or give it to the Congress. Washington, who led the convention, said under no circumstances should a president have the power to declare war by himself, basically. And so it should go to the Congress. There was only one vote for the president.
And in the Constitution today is something we ignored in Iraq. It says, Article 1, Section 8, the power to declare war belongs to the Congress. The difference is—and this is what was said at the convention and it‘s common sense—you give it to one man, he may be mad. He may be an egotist. He may be misguided. Or he might be stupid. And instead, you should give it to the Congress. They represent everybody. The whole country will have an opportunity town participate in the deliberations. That‘s what should have happened.
And what should happen now is that the Democrats, who have the responsibility because they lead the Congress—we have the majority vote they should say this: There may come a time to go to war, but before you go to war, you should come back, read that Constitution, come to the Congress and let us all deliberate so all the people with congressmen can speak to their congressmen and can discuss this issue. Let‘s not do what we did before and wind up apologizing for our resolutions and saying we‘re sorry.
Now, remember, the Founding Fathers gave the power to declare war to the Congress. That power cannot be delegated to the president. You can‘t adopt a resolution and say, Well, the Founding Fathers wanted us to do it, but it‘s too heavy a lift for us, so we empower you, Mr. President, if you feel like doing it, to do it.
And my goodness, the president you‘re talking about is the president who started a war with a mistaken context. Assuming he was telling the truth, and I will, he was wrong about the reason for it. He was wrong about complicity. He was wrong about how many troops we needed. He was wrong about how we would be greeted when we got there. He was wrong about the civil war, wrong about how much it would cost, wrong about how long it would last, and now you‘re saying maybe he can start another war. It‘s a mistake.
This is an opportunity for the Democrats to show real leadership, and the presidential candidates should lead the way. And if they don‘t, then the question is going to be, Well, when it comes to improvident war making, why are you any better than Bush?
MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you about—Governor, about this resolution this week. It declares the Iraqi—or rather, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization. What do you think—what use could the president make of that resolution by the Senate and now by the House, as well?
CUOMO: Well, if you judge by history, he would say something like this, and this kind of lawyer‘s trick—but he has some lawyers around him. He would say, Well, they‘re terrorists—they‘re a terrorist group and they‘re associated with other terrorists, al Qaeda. And therefore, they are complicit with al Qaeda, and the authority you gave me to fight al Qaeda and to fight in Iraq, that covers these people. So you‘ve already given me permission for this. I don‘t need to go to the Congress. I‘m going to do it on my own.
That would be a terribly stupid and unconstitutional thing to do, and that should be dealt with now. Look, the practical part of it is, even if you don‘t agree with the constitutional argument—and I don‘t know how you can disagree, it‘s clear in the Constitution, all you have to do is read it. But even if you disagreed that he had to go back to it as a matter of constitutional law, as a matter of practicality, he should.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CUOMO: At the very least, that language gives you an option. And the Democrats should say, Come back to the Congress, let‘s do it more thoroughly. Maybe the Congress will say there should be a war. I doubt it, but maybe they will. But it should be Congress and not the president.
MATTHEWS: You know, Governor, you are so far ahead—you are so far ahead of some of the other Democrats because I hear people on this program I say to them, Do you believe the president of the United States, this president or any other, has to come to Congress before he launches a military action against Iran? And they won‘t say he has to. They won‘t even insist on their constitutional role anymore.
CUOMO: You know why, Chris? Here‘s what‘s happened. And it‘s unfortunate, but this is what‘s happened. Ever since the Second World War, I‘m not going to say gutless, but timid Congress people and eager presidents went to war and committed acts of war, ignoring the Constitution. And they did it in Vietnam. And they did it in Korea. And the Congress never spoke out against it. As a matter of fact, the Congress to use the word again—was complicit with the president. In effect, they tried to hand their power over to the president.
And the Supreme Court never intervened because they have a very cute doctrine called “political question.” If it‘s an argument between you politicians, we‘re going to get out of the way. Incidentally, they didn‘t do that in Bush against Gore, the most political of all questions.
MATTHEWS: Sure.
CUOMO: They grabbed that opportunity. So there‘s something hypocritical about that power. But that‘s what happened. And so you got in the habit of ignoring the Constitution. And let me say this about that. You cannot amend the Constitution with persistent evasion. You can‘t say, Well, we didn‘t do it right for a long time. Therefore, it doesn‘t count anymore. The Constitution is unchanged. Article one, section 8, if you want to declare war—and that‘s what dropping the bomb on the head of anybody is, it‘s war—you have to come to the Congress. And Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the leaders of the Democrats—wonderful opportunity to step forward and say, That‘s right, and if there‘s going to be a war here, you‘re going to have to come back to us to talk about it.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the last war, the war, unfortunately, that continues and may continue for another decade, the way people are talking right now. And I‘m including the Democrats. I‘m not just pointing to Hillary Clinton here because I have other people I know in Congress who voted to authorize the war back in 2002. But when you challenge them at a party or somewhere, you say, Why did you guys vote for this war, they all say the same thing—Oh, we didn‘t vote to authorize the war. We just gave the president the authority to make a decision, and we thought he was going to continue with inspections. What‘s your response?
CUOMO: Here‘s my response. You‘re right, you didn‘t authorize him. You‘re right, you did try to delegate him, to take your power that the Founding Fathers said only you should have, and to deliver it to the president if he wished to use it. You can‘t do that. The power was given to you. It‘s not delegable. You can‘t turn around and give it to the secretary of state or give it even to the president.
They had a chance to make the president the person who declares war, and they said no, the Founding Fathers, and they said it very, very decisively. And my goodness, have you ever had a better set of facts to instruct you in how right they were? Look at what happened when you did leave it to this president and left it just to him and his advisers to decide on war. The whole United States of America now, you let them vote on whether or not they want a president all by himself, especially this president, to declare war again. God forbid!
Subject: To protect and defend….
When the next President of the United States is sworn in, January of ‘09, she – :) – will swear to protect and defend the Constitution. Contrary to what ya hear, the most important job of the President is NOT to protect and defend the American people but rather to protect and defend the Constitution. As Ron Paul would tell ya, this country would be a lot better served if our political leaders would pay attention to the Constitution.
… from “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” September 28, 2007:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Mario Cuomo was a three-term governor of New York. Governor Cuomo, thank you for joining us. What concerns you about the Democratic field right now and what they‘re doing in terms of Iran?
MARIO CUOMO (D), FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: Well, it‘s what they‘re not doing that concerns me most. What they‘re not doing is learning from the terrible mistake we made in allowing the president to seize the war power and take us to war all alone. It was his war. And we sent a few resolutions which were ambiguous and which didn‘t mean a whole lot, tagging along with him.
The Founding Fathers addressed the question of who and how you declare war and said it was the most important question that would face the country. And they were given two choices: give it to the president or give it to the Congress. Washington, who led the convention, said under no circumstances should a president have the power to declare war by himself, basically. And so it should go to the Congress. There was only one vote for the president.
And in the Constitution today is something we ignored in Iraq. It says, Article 1, Section 8, the power to declare war belongs to the Congress. The difference is—and this is what was said at the convention and it‘s common sense—you give it to one man, he may be mad. He may be an egotist. He may be misguided. Or he might be stupid. And instead, you should give it to the Congress. They represent everybody. The whole country will have an opportunity town participate in the deliberations. That‘s what should have happened.
And what should happen now is that the Democrats, who have the responsibility because they lead the Congress—we have the majority vote they should say this: There may come a time to go to war, but before you go to war, you should come back, read that Constitution, come to the Congress and let us all deliberate so all the people with congressmen can speak to their congressmen and can discuss this issue. Let‘s not do what we did before and wind up apologizing for our resolutions and saying we‘re sorry.
Now, remember, the Founding Fathers gave the power to declare war to the Congress. That power cannot be delegated to the president. You can‘t adopt a resolution and say, Well, the Founding Fathers wanted us to do it, but it‘s too heavy a lift for us, so we empower you, Mr. President, if you feel like doing it, to do it.
And my goodness, the president you‘re talking about is the president who started a war with a mistaken context. Assuming he was telling the truth, and I will, he was wrong about the reason for it. He was wrong about complicity. He was wrong about how many troops we needed. He was wrong about how we would be greeted when we got there. He was wrong about the civil war, wrong about how much it would cost, wrong about how long it would last, and now you‘re saying maybe he can start another war. It‘s a mistake.
This is an opportunity for the Democrats to show real leadership, and the presidential candidates should lead the way. And if they don‘t, then the question is going to be, Well, when it comes to improvident war making, why are you any better than Bush?
MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you about—Governor, about this resolution this week. It declares the Iraqi—or rather, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization. What do you think—what use could the president make of that resolution by the Senate and now by the House, as well?
CUOMO: Well, if you judge by history, he would say something like this, and this kind of lawyer‘s trick—but he has some lawyers around him. He would say, Well, they‘re terrorists—they‘re a terrorist group and they‘re associated with other terrorists, al Qaeda. And therefore, they are complicit with al Qaeda, and the authority you gave me to fight al Qaeda and to fight in Iraq, that covers these people. So you‘ve already given me permission for this. I don‘t need to go to the Congress. I‘m going to do it on my own.
That would be a terribly stupid and unconstitutional thing to do, and that should be dealt with now. Look, the practical part of it is, even if you don‘t agree with the constitutional argument—and I don‘t know how you can disagree, it‘s clear in the Constitution, all you have to do is read it. But even if you disagreed that he had to go back to it as a matter of constitutional law, as a matter of practicality, he should.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CUOMO: At the very least, that language gives you an option. And the Democrats should say, Come back to the Congress, let‘s do it more thoroughly. Maybe the Congress will say there should be a war. I doubt it, but maybe they will. But it should be Congress and not the president.
MATTHEWS: You know, Governor, you are so far ahead—you are so far ahead of some of the other Democrats because I hear people on this program I say to them, Do you believe the president of the United States, this president or any other, has to come to Congress before he launches a military action against Iran? And they won‘t say he has to. They won‘t even insist on their constitutional role anymore.
CUOMO: You know why, Chris? Here‘s what‘s happened. And it‘s unfortunate, but this is what‘s happened. Ever since the Second World War, I‘m not going to say gutless, but timid Congress people and eager presidents went to war and committed acts of war, ignoring the Constitution. And they did it in Vietnam. And they did it in Korea. And the Congress never spoke out against it. As a matter of fact, the Congress to use the word again—was complicit with the president. In effect, they tried to hand their power over to the president.
And the Supreme Court never intervened because they have a very cute doctrine called “political question.” If it‘s an argument between you politicians, we‘re going to get out of the way. Incidentally, they didn‘t do that in Bush against Gore, the most political of all questions.
MATTHEWS: Sure.
CUOMO: They grabbed that opportunity. So there‘s something hypocritical about that power. But that‘s what happened. And so you got in the habit of ignoring the Constitution. And let me say this about that. You cannot amend the Constitution with persistent evasion. You can‘t say, Well, we didn‘t do it right for a long time. Therefore, it doesn‘t count anymore. The Constitution is unchanged. Article one, section 8, if you want to declare war—and that‘s what dropping the bomb on the head of anybody is, it‘s war—you have to come to the Congress. And Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the leaders of the Democrats—wonderful opportunity to step forward and say, That‘s right, and if there‘s going to be a war here, you‘re going to have to come back to us to talk about it.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the last war, the war, unfortunately, that continues and may continue for another decade, the way people are talking right now. And I‘m including the Democrats. I‘m not just pointing to Hillary Clinton here because I have other people I know in Congress who voted to authorize the war back in 2002. But when you challenge them at a party or somewhere, you say, Why did you guys vote for this war, they all say the same thing—Oh, we didn‘t vote to authorize the war. We just gave the president the authority to make a decision, and we thought he was going to continue with inspections. What‘s your response?
CUOMO: Here‘s my response. You‘re right, you didn‘t authorize him. You‘re right, you did try to delegate him, to take your power that the Founding Fathers said only you should have, and to deliver it to the president if he wished to use it. You can‘t do that. The power was given to you. It‘s not delegable. You can‘t turn around and give it to the secretary of state or give it even to the president.
They had a chance to make the president the person who declares war, and they said no, the Founding Fathers, and they said it very, very decisively. And my goodness, have you ever had a better set of facts to instruct you in how right they were? Look at what happened when you did leave it to this president and left it just to him and his advisers to decide on war. The whole United States of America now, you let them vote on whether or not they want a president all by himself, especially this president, to declare war again. God forbid!
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Post #112
Subject: "a nightmare with no end in sight”
General Sanchez: No concerted effort in U.S. to devise a strategy to win the war in Iraq. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their "lust for power."
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and Congress all share blame.
[And, ultimately, I would add, the American people who continue to vote for kicking in a few more Baghdad doors.]
Sanchez told a group of military reporters in Arlington, Virginia, on Friday that such dereliction of duty by a military officer would mean immediate dismissal or court martial, but the politicians have not been held accountable.
He said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could never achieve on its own.
Still, he said, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos that would have global implications.
"After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism," Sanchez said.
Sanchez pointed to what he said was "neglect and incompetence at the National Security Council level" which has put the U.S. military into "an intractable situation" in Iraq.
NSC spokeswoman Kate Starr issued a short response to Sanchez Friday evening:
"We appreciate his service to the country. As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker said, there's more work to be done but progress is being made in Iraq. And that's what we're focused on now."
Sanchez, who retired in 2006, said it was his duty to obey orders and not object publicly when he was on active duty, but now that he is retired he has an obligation to speak out.
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
[That is true, so true.]
The administration, he said, has ignored messages from field commanders that warned repeatedly that "our military alone could not achieve victory" without corresponding help from the State Department.
"Our National leadership ignored the lessons of World War Two as we entered into this war and to this day continue to believe that victory can be achieved through the application of military power alone," he said.
"From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration's latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economical and military power," he said.
Sanchez said the current strategy, which included a "surge" of troops into Iraq, was "a desperate attempt by the administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war and they have definitely not been able to communicate effectively that reality to the American people."
"Too often, our politicians have been distracted and they have chosen loyalty to their political parties above loyalty to the Constitution because of their lust for power," he said.
Congress, he said, has failed its job of oversight.
"Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leadership involved in the management of this war," he said. "They have unquestionably been derelict in in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would be immediately relieved or court-martialed."
Sanchez was pessimistic about the chances of victory in Iraq unless there is a major change in commitment.
"Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory," he said. "The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat."
[Yes, I quoted Pat Buchanan in my Post #1, “We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.”]
[Yes, three options:]
[1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. George W. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point. Bush lacks the leadership skills necessary to plainly and bluntly ask for the kind of shared sacrifice that is so obviously necessary. Bush just wants to get out of office without the responsibility for his defeat. What a small man.]
[2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.]
[3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible. I also quoted Pat Buchanan in my Post #37, “But those consequences [of a withdrawal] are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.” Yes, and it is past time for us to accept the consequences of the defeat Bush has inflicted upon us because those consequences get worse with each passing day.]
"There is no question America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," he said.
The nightmare will not end, he said, until the partisan struggle for power in Washington ends.
"National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from devising an effective, executable and supportable strategies," he said. "At times, these partisan struggles have led us to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had greater priority than our national security objectives."
"Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward achieving victory in Iraq," he said. "Without bipartisan cooperation, we are doomed to fail. There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope."
Subject: "a nightmare with no end in sight”
General Sanchez: No concerted effort in U.S. to devise a strategy to win the war in Iraq. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their "lust for power."
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and Congress all share blame.
[And, ultimately, I would add, the American people who continue to vote for kicking in a few more Baghdad doors.]
Sanchez told a group of military reporters in Arlington, Virginia, on Friday that such dereliction of duty by a military officer would mean immediate dismissal or court martial, but the politicians have not been held accountable.
He said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could never achieve on its own.
Still, he said, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos that would have global implications.
"After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism," Sanchez said.
Sanchez pointed to what he said was "neglect and incompetence at the National Security Council level" which has put the U.S. military into "an intractable situation" in Iraq.
NSC spokeswoman Kate Starr issued a short response to Sanchez Friday evening:
"We appreciate his service to the country. As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker said, there's more work to be done but progress is being made in Iraq. And that's what we're focused on now."
Sanchez, who retired in 2006, said it was his duty to obey orders and not object publicly when he was on active duty, but now that he is retired he has an obligation to speak out.
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
[That is true, so true.]
The administration, he said, has ignored messages from field commanders that warned repeatedly that "our military alone could not achieve victory" without corresponding help from the State Department.
"Our National leadership ignored the lessons of World War Two as we entered into this war and to this day continue to believe that victory can be achieved through the application of military power alone," he said.
"From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration's latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economical and military power," he said.
Sanchez said the current strategy, which included a "surge" of troops into Iraq, was "a desperate attempt by the administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war and they have definitely not been able to communicate effectively that reality to the American people."
"Too often, our politicians have been distracted and they have chosen loyalty to their political parties above loyalty to the Constitution because of their lust for power," he said.
Congress, he said, has failed its job of oversight.
"Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leadership involved in the management of this war," he said. "They have unquestionably been derelict in in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would be immediately relieved or court-martialed."
Sanchez was pessimistic about the chances of victory in Iraq unless there is a major change in commitment.
"Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory," he said. "The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat."
[Yes, I quoted Pat Buchanan in my Post #1, “We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.”]
[Yes, three options:]
[1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. George W. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point. Bush lacks the leadership skills necessary to plainly and bluntly ask for the kind of shared sacrifice that is so obviously necessary. Bush just wants to get out of office without the responsibility for his defeat. What a small man.]
[2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.]
[3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible. I also quoted Pat Buchanan in my Post #37, “But those consequences [of a withdrawal] are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.” Yes, and it is past time for us to accept the consequences of the defeat Bush has inflicted upon us because those consequences get worse with each passing day.]
"There is no question America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," he said.
The nightmare will not end, he said, until the partisan struggle for power in Washington ends.
"National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from devising an effective, executable and supportable strategies," he said. "At times, these partisan struggles have led us to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had greater priority than our national security objectives."
"Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward achieving victory in Iraq," he said. "Without bipartisan cooperation, we are doomed to fail. There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope."
Friday, October 12, 2007
Post #111
Subject: Nine questions
Here are nine questions that I’d like to see every Presidential candidate answer – well, at least six answers. And I think every voter should answer, too, by the way. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
1. Did you support our going into Afghanistan? [Yes]
2. If no, why not?
3. If yes, what did you want us to accomplish? [To get those who attacked us on 9/11 – including you-know-who, to destroy terrorist training camps where future attacks could be hatched, to topple the government that harbored ‘em.]
4. Did you support our going into Iraq? [No]
5. If no, why not? [As I – and others, by the way – feared BEFORE our troops went there, the Iraq War has been and remains a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror – that is, the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan – longer and harder. As I said BEFORE we went into Iraq, the first time we are wrong about the reasons for a “pre-emptive war,” the harder it will be to launch another “pre-emptive war” – even if the evidence is clearer. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. Even Hitler appreciated the dangers of two fronts]
6. If yes, what did you want us to accomplish? [Well, once we went anyway, to secure and destroy WMD, to topple Saddam. Now, we are stuck in a never-ending war. The best simile I heard about the War is that the administration was like kids playing with matches and it blew up in their faces – they’ve been inventing reasons ever since.]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, September 11, 2007)
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
7. Do you support our bombing Iran? [No]
8. If no, why not? [We ought not to target Iran, another country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us. Why ensure that another generation of 65 million Muslims hate us?]
9. If yes, what do you want us to accomplish?
Subject: Nine questions
Here are nine questions that I’d like to see every Presidential candidate answer – well, at least six answers. And I think every voter should answer, too, by the way. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
1. Did you support our going into Afghanistan? [Yes]
2. If no, why not?
3. If yes, what did you want us to accomplish? [To get those who attacked us on 9/11 – including you-know-who, to destroy terrorist training camps where future attacks could be hatched, to topple the government that harbored ‘em.]
4. Did you support our going into Iraq? [No]
5. If no, why not? [As I – and others, by the way – feared BEFORE our troops went there, the Iraq War has been and remains a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror – that is, the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan – longer and harder. As I said BEFORE we went into Iraq, the first time we are wrong about the reasons for a “pre-emptive war,” the harder it will be to launch another “pre-emptive war” – even if the evidence is clearer. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. Even Hitler appreciated the dangers of two fronts]
6. If yes, what did you want us to accomplish? [Well, once we went anyway, to secure and destroy WMD, to topple Saddam. Now, we are stuck in a never-ending war. The best simile I heard about the War is that the administration was like kids playing with matches and it blew up in their faces – they’ve been inventing reasons ever since.]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, September 11, 2007)
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
7. Do you support our bombing Iran? [No]
8. If no, why not? [We ought not to target Iran, another country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us. Why ensure that another generation of 65 million Muslims hate us?]
9. If yes, what do you want us to accomplish?
Friday, October 05, 2007
Post #110
Subject: Why it is absolute insanity to bomb Iran.
Neo-cons are pushing.
The crowd who:
1. Is losing Afghanistan.
We’ve installed the mayor of Kabul – to use a dismissive phrase of Pat Buchanan. But… the War on Terror?
As I feared BEFORE we went into Iraq, the Iraq War has been a diversion from and a drain on the War on Terror. In my Post #36, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said, “… when I went to Iraq the last time, General Casey was very clear. He said that our presence there in a large footprint is counterproductive. That is fueling terrorism, and that is exactly what the intelligence estimate said, that our presence there is fueling terror. Sending more troops isn‘t going to help us at all. There already is chaos in Iraq. And our own intelligence people are saying that our presence there is fueling the chaos.”
General Casey – a phony soldier? :p
2. Has lost Iraq.
Our military has won the war. Success in Iraq has been ours. There were at least two chances to declare a “victory” that would have satisfied most people’s original reasons for supporting this mess. One, “victory” was achieved when our tanks rolled through the streets of Baghdad and our troops were not attacked with WMD. Two, “victory” was achieved when we found Saddam.
By not claiming “victory” when it was ours, we are stuck in a never-ending war. What really gets me is that this what neo-cons want.
3. Now, wants to bomb Iran.
The argument that Iran was on the way to getting “the bomb” did not fly. As I said BEFORE we went into Iraq, the first time we are wrong about the reasons for a “pre-emptive war,” the harder it will be to launch another “pre-emptive war” – even if the evidence is clearer.
Now, the justification for bombing Iran is that Iran is arming the rebels in Iraq who are killing the occupiers. How is that different from us arming the rebels in Afghanistan who killed Soviet occupiers? BEYOND the fact that it was us.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
As even the most amateurish of observers – me – knows, Ahmadinejad is not the real ruler of Iran. He is a figurehead. Plus, his term is limited. Ahmadinejad will not be there to rant and rave forever.
It is insanity to follow neo-con’s theory of an even larger and ever-growing military footprint. It’s not like that theory has worked so well so far. Two strikes, and ya’re out! :p
Now, we will maintain a footprint in the Middle East until they run out of oil – or we shake our addiction. But that is not – and should not be – a military footprint. Why do neo-cons continue to push a theory that our own military deems “counterproductive?” Who are phony soldiers?
It is absolute insanity to target Iran, another country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us. Why ensure that another generation of 65 million Muslims hate us?
Subject: Why it is absolute insanity to bomb Iran.
Neo-cons are pushing.
The crowd who:
1. Is losing Afghanistan.
We’ve installed the mayor of Kabul – to use a dismissive phrase of Pat Buchanan. But… the War on Terror?
As I feared BEFORE we went into Iraq, the Iraq War has been a diversion from and a drain on the War on Terror. In my Post #36, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said, “… when I went to Iraq the last time, General Casey was very clear. He said that our presence there in a large footprint is counterproductive. That is fueling terrorism, and that is exactly what the intelligence estimate said, that our presence there is fueling terror. Sending more troops isn‘t going to help us at all. There already is chaos in Iraq. And our own intelligence people are saying that our presence there is fueling the chaos.”
General Casey – a phony soldier? :p
2. Has lost Iraq.
Our military has won the war. Success in Iraq has been ours. There were at least two chances to declare a “victory” that would have satisfied most people’s original reasons for supporting this mess. One, “victory” was achieved when our tanks rolled through the streets of Baghdad and our troops were not attacked with WMD. Two, “victory” was achieved when we found Saddam.
By not claiming “victory” when it was ours, we are stuck in a never-ending war. What really gets me is that this what neo-cons want.
3. Now, wants to bomb Iran.
The argument that Iran was on the way to getting “the bomb” did not fly. As I said BEFORE we went into Iraq, the first time we are wrong about the reasons for a “pre-emptive war,” the harder it will be to launch another “pre-emptive war” – even if the evidence is clearer.
Now, the justification for bombing Iran is that Iran is arming the rebels in Iraq who are killing the occupiers. How is that different from us arming the rebels in Afghanistan who killed Soviet occupiers? BEYOND the fact that it was us.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
As even the most amateurish of observers – me – knows, Ahmadinejad is not the real ruler of Iran. He is a figurehead. Plus, his term is limited. Ahmadinejad will not be there to rant and rave forever.
It is insanity to follow neo-con’s theory of an even larger and ever-growing military footprint. It’s not like that theory has worked so well so far. Two strikes, and ya’re out! :p
Now, we will maintain a footprint in the Middle East until they run out of oil – or we shake our addiction. But that is not – and should not be – a military footprint. Why do neo-cons continue to push a theory that our own military deems “counterproductive?” Who are phony soldiers?
It is absolute insanity to target Iran, another country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us. Why ensure that another generation of 65 million Muslims hate us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)