A soldier's viewpoint
 

I have copied this in its entirety from another site that requires you to register and go thru e-mail rigamorole to read the article. http://info.interactivist.net/ It's rather long, but interesting, I think.

QUOTE:

The writer is currently being investigated by the military and could face treason charges and the gulag if convicted. The investigation was prompted by this article.

Why We Cannot Win

by Al Lorentz

Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.

When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the "political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off the tracks.

I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more dollars and even more casualties than we’ve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or necessary but possible.

Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.

First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.

The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the
idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.

So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)

Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.

Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.

We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media bias."

Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them. This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us.

We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army but also into more support of the guerilla army.

Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.

Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them. Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and traditional religious networks.

Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.

Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.

Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency and adaptability.

Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional.

It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has sworn.

September 20, 2004

Al Lorentz [send him mail] is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

END QUOTE

A truly interesting article. It seems to me that any thinking person could not help but to come to the conclusion that this is the modern day Viet Nam and that the current leadership is soley responsible for the whole problem.

Ah, but Lorentz fails to take into consideration, God is on OUR side. :angel:

:) Aw Shucks born again.

Here's a letter from a soldier I have copied in it's entirety from an email that was sent to me. It's from another website that presents a view from the other side of the spectrum.

Forwarded From: http://Moms4Bush.com

We asked this active Air Force member if we could share his letter with our group. We all just had a hectic week ~ Lots of PR and along with that some other not so kind comments ~ the debate on Thursday. This letter should inspire you to keep working hard for the next 31 days, to keep President Bush in office! Though addressed to ma'am, it is for all our volunteers and our other grassroots friends!

==================

Ma’am,

I would like to express my personal gratitude to your group and the others like it. President Bush is not only my president, but my Commander-in-Chief as well. I am a member of the United States Air Force and have deployed to the Middle East five times. That would be five times more than most of those that sit in their armchairs at night, watching the evening news, telling their families what our foreign policy should be. I have been there. I have seen the face of terrorism. If we do not fight the terrorists in their own backyard, we will be fighting them in ours. I prefer the former. Trust me when I say this, President Bush is pursuing the correct policy. I am not alone in my feelings. At least 90% of my brothers-in-arms, across all branches agree with what we are doing to stem the tide of terrorism. Our biggest fear is that John Kerry will be elected president, and we will not be able to complete our important work in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I often hear people say that there is no link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. That is on par with saying that there was no link between the Nazis and Japan during WWII. The Nazis did not attack us on December 7, 1941, yet our leadership saw a growing threat from Germany as well as a direct threat from Japan. I liken this vision to President Bush’s clear vision of the task at hand. Unfortunately, military members are not authorized to speak their minds in regards to political issues. If they could, you would hear a resounding roar of support for President Bush. It is a difficult task, however, with your organization and others like it, we are often reminded as to why we stand so boldly in the face of terror. It is for you, and all Americans, that I wear my uniform with pride and would defend to the death your freedom, and the freedom of your children.

God bless you,

MSgt __________ _________ (name omitted)

Your Leadership Team
Security Moms For Bush
Website: www.moms4bush.com
email: Founder@moms4bush.com

If he looked into the eyes of terrorism, then why did he not shoot bin Laden right then and there. Oh. bin Laden is no longer the eyes of terrorism? This Master Sergeant's own generals said Saddam was a threat to no one. Why then does this Master Sergeant know more?

Retired generals tend to speak for the active generals (because active generals are not permitted to speak). No mystery about Gen Tommy Franks extreme anger when George Jr told him to reverse direction - plan an attack of Iraq. Of course he was mad. Anyone with minimal intelligence knows who the terrorist is - bin Landen. Same person who attacked the WTC and Pentagon, attacked two American embassies in Africa, attacked the USS Cole, and failed (because Clinton did his job) attacks on LAX, US embassy in Tirana, Christian tourists on Mt Nebo, massive bomb on Amman Radisson in Jordan, USS The Sullivans (in Yemen), and a possible attack on Montreal, US embassies in Uganda and Rwanda, and on Time Square - all during or after Millenium celebrations . Same person we stopped going after because George Jr had a revelation?

So what did Saddam attack? Funny how facts dispute those who blindly follow a lying president.

Of course this Master Sergeant knew all this when he tells us he looked into the eyes of bin Laden.

Why did the Master Sergeant not shoot bin Laden right there? Because he never really looked into the eyes of THE terrorist. A mental midget president using classic propaganda in a Jan 2002 State of the Union address easily confused this poor Master Sergeant and many other Americans. The danger here is that the Master Sergeant may be fighting a war he does not understand - just like in Vietnam. Exactly why this expression exists: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

People who know far more than a simple Master Sergeant have long been saying who the terrorist is. It's no mystery. It's bin Laden. bin Laden is not in Iraq. Furthermore, those with knowledge said Saddam was a threat to no one. Again, a no brainer. Wonder why this Master Sergeant was never officer material. A president openly lies and some people even believe him. And yes, some people in the deep south once believed blacks were monkeys - because they were told so. Its called learning to think for yourself. Some never learn - and still become president.

what source document are you using for your knowledge of Franks' anger at going to Iraq? I've never seen anything to suggest he was anything but positive about the concept of going into Iraq. His interviews, his articles, and his own autobiography support this. rightly or wrongly, Franks sees himself as a student of maneuver warfare and an excellent strategist. Franks approached this as a test of his abilities.


without debating whether or not saddam was a threat, i would caution you on this statement. the AF generals (retired) that have come out against the war are Merrill McPeak and his boys. The legacy of McPeak's leadership is that he liked to change our uniforms a lot - McPeak was an extremely political animal without a lot of in service respect and support.

come on, tw - even though we disagree 99.9% of the time, i expect better out of you. this is just pure condescension on your part. the modern enlisted force is not filled with a bunch of mindless monkeys. The fact that he is an E7 does not speak to his intelligence or his abilities - only to the fact that he did not choose to pursue a commission. the modern enlisted force has a higher level of education than the officer corps did pre-1975.

For once I agree with Lookout! :eek: E7's and E8's are no fools. They form the backbone of the enlisted army and many a green lieutenant or captain would be lost without his far more experienced master sergeant to show him the ropes. Also, a master sergeant with 20 years in the military makes more than a lower level officer. Look at the education and well thought out writing displayed by the non-commissioned officer whose letter I started this thread with.

I know a Sgt. with a Master's. I also know a lady who was a CPO in the Navy (Gulf War I vet, was on the ground in Kuwait, staffing a mobile hospital), has a Master's in Counselling (and damn good at it too ... she's also an EMT/Paramedic Instructor) who only took officer rank when she switched branches of service to get an increase in grade. The Navy wouldn't make her a Lt., but the Army did.

there are many people who are enlisted because in the sometimes arbitrary world of the military - the job only exists in the enlisted ranks (mine is one. 24 enlisted people in my area, all have at least a Bachelor's.) i've turned down the opportunity for commissioning because i truly enjoy my field.

AFSOF until the last 12 months were enlisted only. they have now created a commissioned position within these units and most of the slots have been filled by enlisted people who were already serving in the field.

the AF uses such a large number of officer billets for pilots and other aircrew positions that many jobs that are done by officers in other branches, must be filled by enlisted in the USAF. even some bizarre positions like Historian are enlisted only in the AF. the army still uses officers only in the position. the educational requirements are the same, force structure sometimes dictates what jobs are for enlisted and what are for officer.

Whether someone is educated or not., the facts remain.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...casualties.htm

who is debating the fact that the attacks have been increasing? that is an indisputable fact. this thread was more about the attitudes of the troops on the ground. high casualty rate doesn't necessarily mean low morale rate, although we are hearing more from the troops who are opposed to the war.

Does that make him/her a Master's Sgt.? Bad pun, but I couldn't stop myself! :D

It was leaked to the press sometime after the Iraq war started. It was reported as part of some news articles about the Iraq war - when others were complaining about information overload.

Other news reports vary as to how long it took him to settle down. He literally exploded over that absurd request - and justifiably so. Some reports suggest he settled down that day. Others report it took him many days to get over this rediculous idea of an Iraq invasion. But his anger was clearly justified.

Look at the numbers - the dates. World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked 11 September. By Wednesday before Thanksgiving, Tommy Franks is being ordered to plan the attack on Iraq - when we have not even yet invaded Afghanistan.

Back then he rationalized to his deputy Renuart, "Don't get too worreid. We'll just do what we can. I just can't imagine this is something we're going to be doing anytme soon." He was wrong. On Friday, 28 Dec in TX, Franks is breifing George Jr on Iraq invasion plans.

It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense. Military analysts even demanded to see the only evidence George Jr had that Iraq was building nuclear weapons. The only evidence were speculations about aluminum tubes. Today we know that technical analysts by the dozens were correct - those tubes were only for making rockets - to duplicate an Italian rocket called Medusa. Even the company (Zippe?) who made centrifuges that George Jr claimed Saddam was duplicating said those aluminum tubes were wrong - completely wrong - for uranium processing.

Of course, you have read today the long NY Times articles that demonstrates how this admistration perverted facts to justify the Iraq war:How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence Perverted is a word very appropriate to how George Jr decisions are made.

Miltary analysts demanded to see the evidence and found it lacking. Repeatedly, those who know how the work gets done were upset with the mental midget president's decision to invade Iraq. It made no logical sense. That is painfully obvious with what the retired generals were saying back then. An Iraq invasion was not justified. Franks was correct to be angry. Even back then, a war with iraq was obviously wrong - once you eliminate the propaganda from the White House and their mouth pieces - ie Rush Limbaugh.

Again I make the point that you don't have enough information to dispute what I post. Gen Franks was clearly furious when told to plan for the Iraq invasion. And he should have been.

Based upon far more information, I have conceded to this conclusion. To many sources - especially the video of him sitting in the FL classroom - say this president does not make his own decisions. He is told what to think. That, lookout123, is the daming fact that becomes obvious as one reads more facts - and discounts everything from the White House and its mouth piece Fox News.

Franks was furious that we were even talking about an Iraq invasion - because unlike the president, Franks is intelligent. Ironically, Franks even reads his own memos. Wish we could say that about the current president. Lookout123, if your sources are sufficient, then you too conceded this president does not even read his own Presidental Daily Briefings. He essentially admitted same in the National TV debates.

We disagree because - and I say again - your information sources are insufficient. Therefore you support a president who repeatedly lies. Once you start doing some heavy reading, you will discover this is a terrible president who has earned his adverse credibility throughout the world. (Please list how many leaders even visited this president during the start of a new UN General Assembly session. Why do they avoid this president in droves?)

He just sat their in that FL classroom for seven minutes. He did not even ask if anyone was in charge. I ask others repeatedly what they would have done if Andy Card said to them, "A second plane has just hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." Everyone - yes everyone - says they would have gotten up and left the classroom immediately. George Jr never even asked one question for seven minutes. Seven minutes when fighter pilots still had no authorization to fire - to protect America. Why? I finally had to concede. This president waits to be told what his decision will be. That is why we disagree. I have conceded this president is even worse than I thought only one year ago.

This president even and intentionally confuses the war on terrorism - bin Laden - with someone who was a threat to no one - Saddam. Well at least he finally admitted on National TV that he knows the difference between Saddam and bin Laden. We had to wonder.

When, dear lookout123, will you recommend we go get bin Laden. When do we finally go after America's number one enemy? We are not doing so now because the mental midget president lies. He says Saddam was the threat. He ignores bin Laden - America's number one enemy and an enemy of Saddam. Even you must now admit - the president therefore lies. When do you think we will finally go after bin Laden? Please, if you have any credible news sources, then you can clearly answer that question. Lookout123 now being characterized as the typical George Jr supporter. When do we go after bin Laden?

What is also is not debated is that I posted long ago, that you don't disban the Iraqi military and police. I originally quoted or paraphrased a 500 BC author - Sze Tze - his book "Art of War" - when Bremmer was still there. If we had intelligent leadership, then the army and police would never have been disbanned. Today's American deaths and the resulting double or tripling of insurgency is directly traceable to George Jr and his replacement for Lt Gen Jay Garner. Garner, it is believed, opposed a disban of the army and police. Therefore Bremmer replaced him. George Jr - because he does not have basic knowledge of military political history - created this Iraq insurgancy.

So lookout123 - do you deny this insurgency is directly traceable to George Jr? Or do you assume this was inevitable. Any leader with even basic knowledge - or who had even seen the end of the movie Patton - knew disbanning of military and police was wrong. When do we blame top management - George Jr - for making just another problem? When do you, lookout123, admit that all this insurgency and American casulties (we don't even list the many Americans who lost limbs) is directly traceable to George Jr's lack of basic knowledge?

Yes it is hard nose questioning. And it should be. The alternative is proven by Vietnam. If one thinks George Jr should be relected, then one better have the long posts full of facts to justify this president. We have a serious crisis here. It's called a president who does not even read his own memos. Who sits for seven minutes in a FL classroom while America is under attack - and does not even ask one simple question such as "Who is in charge?". These are daming facts that lookout123, as the typical George Jr supporter, must reply to - if he can. Please tell us that George Jr did not make Iraq ripe for insurgency. Please explain where he made an intelligent decision to disban the military and police? Americans are dying due to his decision.

TW asks the question which goes to the heart of the entire situation. When do we go after bin Laden? I might also add, why don't we? Why have we allowed ourselves to become immersed in the quagmire which is Iraq for no damn good reason?

The letter I started this thread with is intelligent, well written, and asks some very hard questions. 404error responded with a letter which is aimed at achieving an "I'm for our boys, God Bless America" response with no facts or logic to back it up.

I'm for our boys who are being killed senselessly; I believe in the Constitution which is being violated on every level in this war. I join with TW in asking the question "when do we go after bin Laden?" How can ANYONE possibly support a president who has engaged this country in the wrong war against the wrong enemy?

I whole heartedly agree Bin Laden is the target we should have kept our eye on, instead of being distracted with Iraq.
Now, the question is WHERE do we go to find him? Do we invade every country in the middle east until we find him? Maybe we should look in Rumsfeld's freezer. :confused:

number of times tw refers to lookout in condescending manner - 5
number of times tw provides documentation of Franks anger - 0

There were, and are, a large number of flag rank officers that disliked Franks for the fact that he is the quintessential purple-suiter. he is a devout disciple of joint ops, not cooperative ops. as the commander of CENTCOM he stepped on lots of toes by reminding single service commanders that it was his way or the highway and rumsfeld backed him on it. the joint chiefs and many on their staff have produced leaks for political reasons in the past and Franks is notorious for his hatred of leaks. again, rumsfeld backed him over the service chiefs. this transfer of power from title X commanders to a unified command left no shortage of bitter officers, many of the same names that have popped up as experts to point out the flaws in the war planning.

CENTCOM plans for Afghanistan were for limited troop numbers right from the very beginning. Franks and many in the military have moved from the school of thought where an invading force needs a 3-1 ratio for entrenched defenders. instead they favor PGM's and a small invasion force.
that being said, phase I of Afghanistan's operations began on 10/7/01 with TLAM strikes, as well as heavy and tactical bombers.
phase II involved insertion of SOF personnel, nearly simultaneously. due to mechanical failures, equipment limitations, and weather situations the SOF were not inserted until 10/19/04 - 10 days behind plan.

the plan was for SOF, primarily, to lead and assist the leaders of the northern alliance and the rebels in the south against the taliban and then insert standard US personnel for cleanup action at a later date. that is exactly what happened in preparation for operation Anaconda in March of '02. you may not like the plan, but that was the plan.

Nov27th, Franks was told again, and not out of the blue to update warplan 1003 - the plan for an invasion of Iraq that had been on the books since 1998. a plan that Franks thought was ridiculously out of date as it called only for a massive coalition and a frontal assault. Franks hadn't liked the plan when he assumed command of CENTCOM and he had told Rumsfeld in March of 2001 that the approach to Iraq needed to be changed. from march of 01 Franks had Iraq on his desk for a strategy change - it was acknowledged that the no-fly zone policy was inadequate to the situation. In Nov, Franks was told to develop a commander's concept on how best to affect regime change. Franks was getting what he wanted - a crack at the master plan. I have found no examples of Franks displaying anything other than his usual gruff attitude when told to step up planning in November.

source documents?
the invasion began on 10/19/01, after 12 days of airstrikes. Franks was told to update 1003 on 11/27.

tw, there were generals who stepped up to say that going to Iraq was a mistake, there were more that said we weren't using the "right" number of troops, or the right order of battle. many of them either had some political knife to sharpen, a book to publish, or a desire to be on the talkshow circuits. some of them had legitimate concerns they were expressing. Tommy Franks and his CENTCOM staff were not among them.

i am not bush's biggest fan and am certainly not a fan of rumsfeld, wolfowitz, and feith (who Franks labeled "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet). i believe that there were and are better ways to fight the war. i believe OBL should have been caught or killed already. i also believe zarquawi is an equal or greater threat at this point.

do i believe that the attacks were avoidable? yes, if we had not gone into Iraq or Afghanistan. Do i believe that there were better ways to handle and prevent these attacks? yes. Do i believe an increase in attacks leading up to the elections was inevitable? absolutely, there is a lot riding on the upcoming elections. it would be foolish for those who do not want to see some form of representative government in the middle east not to attack.

i choose to look beyond the mantra that it is all George, Jr's fault and look at the reality of the situation. it is a very ugly situation over there. whether we should have gone or not is no longer the central point - what do we do now is the most crucial question.

and each person will approach the question with their own personal philosophy and come to an answer that they feel is right. some will rant and namecall, others will simply cast their vote. you decide, remember?

Kerry says bin Laden's in Afghanistan so that's where he must be. :eyebrow:

Pssst, UT, everyone knows Osami is in the Federal Witness Protection Program and is currently working at The North Pole Amusement Park outside Colorado Springs as an elf! (adjusts tinfoil hat firmly around her ears) ;)

Again you promote the George Jr mantra. You mix Afghanistan and Iraq as the same war. How is it that a war justified by virtually every nation in the world is same as the war condemned by most every nation? Only those who would promote George Jr propaganda or are completely misinformed would imply an Afghanistan war and an illegal invasion of Iraq are same. My god sir. Some Arab nations would have even sent troops into Afghanistan if we had asked. Name one that even thought Saddam was a threat to anyone? You cannot. Saddam was a threat to no one. bin Laden was even a threat to every secular Arab government. We should be talking about George Jr's impeachment for illegally invading a sovereign nation without any justification.

The enemy was in Afghanistan. The enemy attacked America in 11 Sept 2001. US support to Afghan war lords began about second week in October. American troops (15th and 26th Marine Expeditionary) finally began serious operations about Thanksgiving 2001 - after administration demands for plans to attack Iraq. Operation Anaconda did not happen until well into 2002. But before Marines started occupying Afghanistan and long before the 10th Mountain Division arrived, on November 21, George Jr's administration was always asking for invasion plans of Iraq. So when did Saddam attack America? Clearly he must have if you put Afghanistan and Iraq wars in the same sentence.

Lookout123 - where does the invasion of Afghanistan - with approval of virtually the entire world - have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq - that was not justified according to most of the world including Canada, Mexico, and the UN Secretary General? Where do you find any logic in associating and justifiying wars in Iraq and Afghanstan as one in the same?

Lets see. In a previous post, I listed 14 successful, thwarted, or possible attacks by bin Laden on the US. Name one attack by Saddam during those last ten years. By mixing Saddam with bin Laden, you intentionally confuse the issue. Its called propaganda. A technique often used to mask the truth or to promote outright lies. Do you feel personally spoken of in a "condescending manner" because I exposed your propaganda?

Iran and Afghanistan wars have almost nothing in common. In the meantime, to quote Bob Woodward, "Franks was incredulous". He should have been. He was about to and had not yet occupied Afghan territory when the George Jr administration was already calling for plans to attack Iraq. An attack on a nation not even involved in 11 September and that was not even a threat to the US.

On about March 2002, America stopped military attempts to capture bin Laden. In less than one year, American troops had invaded Iraq. Some years later, and we still don't go looking for bin Laden? So yes. Your logic is publically condemned until you start answering some simple questions like when are we going after the real terrrorists? The fact that George Jr has no such plans should be enough to demand his immediate removal from government. Somehow you still post unjustified support for George Jr who still claims terrorists were also in Iraq. Nonsense.

Some officers also did not like Swartzkopf. So what? Where is that or their opinion of Franks at all relevant? It is not. No matter how you spin it, the administration was demanding plans for an Iraq invasion before we had even started occupying Afghan terrritory. That is fact. An Iraqi invasion that would let bin Laden go free. Yes, Franks was incredulous even if you refuse to admit it. And he should have been as every Cellar dweller should be. Bin Laden - not Saddam - was the threat to America. Even Zarquawi is only a minor player (nothing more than a serial killer in a country now chock full of criminals) - once we eliminate the White House hype.

An idea that Zarquawi is as dangerous as bin Laden is more White House propaganda. When did Zarquawi conspire to take out 10 Pacific airliners, kill hundreds outside an American embassy, or kill thousands in an American city. Get real. Zarquawi is only a major threat when the president is promoting hype to justify his illegal war. You are representing the George Jr logic which is why your positions are exposed and not based upon facts. Gen Franks was angry on 21 November and he should have been.

Lookout123 should be publically condeming George Jr for getting us into a quagmire when there was absolutely no reason to invade Iraq. Please feel free to prove that Franks was not angry.

"Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at the same time. Not only UBL"...quote from a memo sent out by Dick Cheney, at 2:40 pm on September 11, 2001

Source

Political-Military Plan For Post-Saddam Iraq, dated Jan 31 2001, sent to Paul O'Neill. The plan is still classified (though it's easy to find, just google for "Blank fucking sheet of paper").

The neo-cons have been wanting to go into Iraq to serve their own political agenda since just after they managed to heist the oval office. There is no Iraqi threat, never was. 9/11 is just an excuse, and the fact that most Americans can't tell one Arab from the next makes it easy. In the words of a comedian whose name I can't remember right now, "My government isn't doing a good enough job of bullshitting me."

At a speech in W.Va. yesterday, former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Bremer, said essentially the same thing that John Kerry is saying. He said that the Iraq war was handled wrong by not sending enough troops in, and after we "won", we should have guarded more than just the oil refineries. Bremer said that by allowing the widespread looting and other lawlessness in the early stages of the occupation, we allowed the climate of lawlessness that exists today.

also
Bremer remains a staunch Bush supporter, but I think it's pretty telling when Bush's people break ranks like this and make comments about the administration's failure to plan for the next step after winning the war in Iraq. You've been hearing from the Democrats that Bush invaded Iraq with no exit strategy or plan for winning the peace. Now you are hearing it from some Republicans too.

i don't dispute that there were better ways to fight the war. i am a believer in maneuver warfare combined with overwhelming force, not in place of overwhelming force.

my dispute in this thread has been tw's assertion that Franks was outraged at the idea of going to Iraq. Franks supported the idea and the plans that we used were of his own design. my personal belief is that Franks as well as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith are addicted to the school of thought that technology is the key to all. I believe that was the mistake that was made in the invasion. Appropriate use of boots on the ground would have changed the course of events that lead us to where we are.

there was no need to send 500,000 troops in similar fashion to Desert Shield/Storm, but i believe the number should have been in the mid-200's.

but that is a debate on how a war is fought. tw asserts that Franks and the military leadership were enraged at the idea of going into Iraq. unfortunately, he doesn't provide any proof of this outside of a short quote from Woodward's book.

hmm, tw steps in and claims repeatedly that Franks was furious at being told to dust off 1003. I've seen no evidence that this is true and yet tw's response is to say that i must prove he wasn't angry.

i wonder if that would work in court?

Prosecutor: John Johnson diddles little boys!
Defendent: I do not.
Prosecutor: Prove it! I rest my case your honor.

how about this - if you allege something, provide some support. i think that is fair.

That makes sense. The people in Iraq lived in a repressed state for a very long time. The powers that were, would torture and kill people they even thought might step out of line. It became the national sport.
If you pen up an animal for a long time and then throw open the gate, chances are they won’t bolt. Cautious, timid, afraid to make a sudden move.
The Iraqis have discovered they can raise hell, almost with impunity so it would take a major slap down to control them now. I think our window of opportunity has been blown to shreds.
Because they don’t understand that we’re technologically superior, they’re kicking our ass. :(

The expression "mini-explosion" in Woodward's book does not prove that Frank's was incredulous? He was ordered to plan an attack on Iraq when he had not yet even invaded Afghanistan - this sentence in direct contradiction what Lookout123 posted previously. Of course Frank's was angry. Anyone in his position would have been, considering that the Afghan war was only just starting and was far from success. bin Laden was not captured or killed. Lookout123 says a "mini-explosion" could not happen because, "I've seen no evidence that this is true". That is his proof? Lookout123 has been accused previously of having opinions without sufficient information. Just because Lookout123 did not hear of this means it did not happen? That proves Gen Franks did not have a mini-explosion?

That "Franks was not angry" position is to avoid the more serious questions. Reasoning by Lookout123 is same as those who preceded him to support Nixon. He is our president; therefore he must be right to invade Cambodia. He must be right to even censor the news and letter going to the troops. Lookout123 endorses people who have no problem with boldface lying. Today's new lie - it was just an honest mistake about those aluminum tubes; but those lies are justified; the ends always justified the means. What happened to the word - credibility.

Saddam was a threat to no one. Iran's adjacent neighbors said same even before 11 September. George Jr supporters even forget that little fact to endorse a lying president. What happens if George Jr must decide to launch nuclear weapons? Will he be as responsible as Kennedy; use the doctrine of containment? Or will he use the principles of Tojo and Hitler - a preemptive strike only because they *might* be a threat. A future and possible threat always justifies unilateral war. Is a potential threat also sufficient to launch nuclear weapons? So we just lie a little. After all, a nuclear bomb is just another bomb. Does anyone remember the definition of the word 'integrity'?

Once the US said we would never execute a "first strike". Already, Lookout123 endorses principles of "first strike". He supports George Jr and those who say "first strike" is good. It is called preemption.

We are talking about White House credibility: people who literally encouraged war with China over a silly spy plane. People who have no problem with preemtive strikes on India, Russia, and Germany - if necessary (doctrine upon which the Project for a New American Century was created). Lookout123 endorses these neocons? Even Republicans such as Richard Lugar and Billy Kristol (Weekly Standard) have declared this administration as incompentant in Iraq. What will they do when we have a real crisis? These leaders could not even authorize fighter planes to go 'weapons free' - to protect US buildings when America was under attack. The leader even sat in a FL schoolroom for seven minutes and never even asked one question. We are talking about basic management competance that also considers outright lying as acceptable.

To avoid all this, Lookout123 argues whether Franks got angry.

Even Pat Buchanan says their fundamental concept - preemption - is a perversion of conservative principles. Same conservative principals that kept us out of WWIII on multiple occasions. Fundamental questions about management competance in George Jr administration. Questions that Lookout123 will avoid answering - instead denying that Gen Franks had a "mini-explosion". Questions will be reposted so that Lookout123 can provide answers; demonstrate that Lugar and Kristol are wrong; to justify his endorsement of George Jr. To demonstrate that the president is competant even though he even subverted the Oslo Accords andoutrightly lied about the WMDs. Do you really think this president is investigating who outted a CIA agent? What is one more lie? Ahh, but we return to other questions that Lookout123 side stepped.

To avoid these questions, Lookout123 argues that Franks did not have a mini-explosion even though we know any honest general in his position would have done same. Why does he waste time defending this nonsense? To avoid hard questions. Same questions that Lookout123 characterizes as condescending - so that he need not answer them. A sample of posts Lookout123 avoids so that he can support a mental midget president. Ignore what you cannot disupte? He hopes all other readers will forget these were even posted: The last and most major question that George Jr supporters must ignore. Not if - when. Not al Qaeda - bin Laden. Why those "Not..." clauses? Because George Jr supporters would have us believe we are looking for terrorists in Iraq. Lookout123 - when will we finally go get bin Laden? A supporter of George Jr clearly must know this answer because, after all, George Jr is constantly talking about waging a war on terrorism. Good. When does it start? When do we go after bin Laden?

We are talking here about supporting the troops. When the public blindly follows a lying president, then the troops suffer first and most. It was called Vietnam and Nixon. Support for the troops means we must demand competant leaders and never reelect lying leaders. Again lessons well taught by history. Blunt hard questions are asked here. To relect this president, George Jr supporters must avoid answering these questions. Still waiting for a George Jr supporter to answer these questions.

Maybe if we don't answer, he will stop asking, "When do we go after bin Laden?" Or was the invasion of Iraq just another honest mistake?

Righty essayist Bill Whittle has convinced me bin Laden is dead. It's too long for this thread, I'll start another.

well, those were some nice posts tw. you've used your wonderfully effective method of puking a variety of information on to the screen without stepping back to think about where the whole Lookout vs TW pissing contest started. you made claims of multiple sources as proof of Tommy Franks great anger over being instructed to update 1003 and prepare for a possible invasion of Iraq.

i simply asked for your sources because these statements are not compatible with the reading that i have done. i readily admit that i have not read every news story or book written - that is why i asked for your sources.
in reviewing what i have read, Franks' own book as well as numerous news stories, i still don't see any support for your statements. over the last couple of days i have searched the net for references to this. the only anger related to Franks that pops up frequently is the anger over the possible War Crimes charges that he was faced with.

in response you post a one sentence quote from Woodward's book as your "proof" of Franks great anger. no mention of the news articles that were originally mentioned, no quotes from Franks or other highlevel players to support your claims. you instead found it easier to target me and claim that my questioning you was due to a blind following of bush and an unwillingness to accept well known facts. when i went back and again asked you to answer the questions related to our original posts you again went on the attack and attempted to cloud the issue with a number of questions i was supposed to answer. all i asked for in the beginning were sources for your claims of Franks' anger - you have tried to divert the discussion in a number of different directions.

i have to ask why? is it because you don't have sources for those claims? is it that i don't deserve access to the knowledge that you hold? or is just easier to go on the attack than to answer a question? you may very well be correct in your claims but i've got no documentation to tell me that.

i also sought to correct your statement that Franks was ordered to prepare an Iraq invasion plan before we had invaded Afghanistan. i provided an accurate chronology based on news stories and Franks' writings.
you still make the claim that Franks was ordered to plan for an Iraq invasion before we went to afghanistan. what sources are you using? i would really like to know.

tw, i'm not saying that you are lying or have sought to deceive anyone. there may very well be support for your claims. i would like to see that support if it exists. you might take comfort in your theory that i am a blind and foolish bush supporter, but you would be wrong. i am a realist. i want the real unspun facts gathered from the actual sources rather than facts as filtered through the childhood game of "telephone". we won't always agree on the correct course of action based on the info at hand, but we should always be able to discuss what the facts are without it becoming some sort of emotional pissing match.
i hold a world view that is definitely in the minority in the cellar, yet i spend a lot of time here. why? it's not because i'm a hannity/limbaugh sycophant or a bush/cheney disciple. i like to see a lot of info, from differing views because this helps me to constantly shift and adapt my view of the world. if i was the type of disciple of bush that you describe, i wouldn't be able to absorb and accept ideas that people like HappyMonkey, Glatt, and Hot_Pastrami argue. the reason that they are able to sometimes bring people to their view is that they aren't insulting and condescending in what they post. they answer questions with specific, precise replies usually with links to their sources. what they don't do is lash out at anyone who dares to question them.

I don't want to get into it between you and tw, either way. However, just for myself, I'd like to thank you for the little reminder about being polite and substantiating one's facts. I have a tendency to loose my temper (bet you never guessed!), and I don't like it when someone does that to me. I'll do my best to be more civil around here, maybe even to you, as well! ;)

Had a thought.
After the first Gulf War, the people in the middle east must have been impressed at the awesome display of power we presented, the carnage of that column fleeing Kuwait and the speed of our victory.

After this debacle in Iraq, they must be thinking, the mighty USA ain’t so tough. They(we) can be bitch slapped and eventually beaten. Driven out of their sacred land with our tails between our legs.

I know all about the relatives of “collateral damage” becoming terrorists on a revenge trip, but more than that. Has Bush’s mishandling of this war actually given the terrorists a boost by convincing recruits that maybe they are joining a potential winner rather than a suicide squad? :confused:

George Jr and his Project for a New American Century political agenda has literally undone in 3+ years everything that America stands for since WWII. Upcoming is a very serious election. Clearly the reelection of George Jr will have severe and long time consequnces for every American - especially American soldiers who will suffer with those consequences. I have great fear of these consequences literally with everything I read. And I am reading more and more about this - a most dangerous president - every month. He even just sat there for seven minutes in a FL classroom as America was under attack. He waited to be told what to do. This President literally has undone decades of work that made the world stable. This from just too many of America's best people. This from too many of the best in science, politics, and military study.

George Jr literally undid all the work by Jimmy Carter and Kim Jong-il to bring a country chock full of extremists back into the world community. Having undone all that work, there is no doubt that N Korea now must go nuclear. Thank you George Jr. Only an irresponsible N Korean leadership would avoid nuclear weapons considering 1) the introverted perspective of his Kim's top people and 2) because George Jr has already listed countries that the US will attack. We now know George Jr (actually his people who control the puppet) cannot be restrained even by the American public, the UN, the world, or any other reasonable people. US has demonstrated that it intends to unilaterlly attack Iraq (done), Iran (probably next), and North Korea. N Korea must go nuclear - thank you George Jr.

I cannot wish for a worse group of leaders to hold nuclear power. The North Koreans who provide Kim Jung-Il with his power are some of the most introverted in the world. They will be nuclear empowered because George Jr outrightly and ignorantly destroyed all the work of Jimmy Carter, et al.

US will probably attack Iran next. Troop movements, military base construction, and changes being imposed on world treaties (including the elimination of verification inspections) all suggest that war will be next. If Iran is not bluffing, then the invasion of Iran will go nuclear. Again, Iran would be remiss to avoid making nuclear weapons because George Jr has an attack list - the axis of evil.

If these are not enough, George Jr did as European foreign minister predicted. He undermined the Oslo Accords; replacing them with what is a joke - the roadmap for peace. That roadmap is only so that Americans without news sources (the classic George Jr supporters) actually think George Jr wants peace. More destruction to what America and the western world spent generations working to avoid.

Just a few of many reasons why George Jr is bad for the world. All this nonsense about whether Franks was angry is to avoid those hard questions. And so we have hard questions that George Jr supporters fear to answer. The consequences of reelecting George Jr are exampled in this post. That means soldiers gets stuck with consequences of right wing extremist agendas. When confronted with hard questions, the president's supporters again obfuscate the post. Lookout123. Posted are THE questions - making Gen Frank's anger a classic example of avoiding those questions. Answer the questions. You can't because those questions demonstrate how dangerous this president really is.

Lookout123. Answers those hard questions. You avoid those questions because you are a strong George Jr supporter. You will not even answer one question - when are we going after Osama bin Laden. I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over. Yes, long term consequences mean that much instability, death, and destruction would be created by this mental midget, extremist president.

A reelection of George Jr is that dangerous to every one in every country. Those who support the mental midget president will not even say when we will go after bin Laden. A damning question that George Jr supporters fear to answer because it exposes presidental incompetance. Notice not one who favors George Jr will even answer that question. Damning evidence. Presidental incompetance that has not been seen since Richard Nixon. Lookout123. Answer the questions.

Bottom line point - he cannot answer. Instead he avoids those questions with nonsense about General Frank's well justified mini-explosion. Anything to avoid talking about presidental incompetance.

Posted here is a serious concern for the soldier and what he will see. When I advocate war (ie the rescue of Kuwait), then I first and foremost advocate a problem that soldiers can really solve - and be proud of what they do. Therefore I ask hard questions that supporters of George Jr fear to answer.

an entire post again demanding answers to questions that, although valid, weren't the source of contention in this discussion.

tw, can you, or can you not provide support for your claims? if not, just say so and we'll move on to another discussion. if yes, then enlighten me - i want to know.

as far as all of your questions you keep hammering at me? what do you want? is it important that you see me post yet again that i don't think Bush is the best choice in america for president? that i think his battle plans were flawed? that the execution was poor? that Bush & Co have made many errors? that OBL should be a higher priority?

ok. no big deal. those are all things that i have posted about it in the past.

this whole putrid thread has been about nothing more than you refusing to admit that you may have gone a little overboard in your claims about Franks' anger. i asked you for support documentation. you got pissed and lashed out and have repeatedly argued all these other points that i don't believe need to be argued. i agree with you on more than you are willing to admit but you wouldn't know that because you've got some misguided idea that to admit you made an error would lower someone's estimation of your intellect. when, in fact, just the opposite is true. every person on this board has admitted at some point or another that they were arguing an incorrect point. everyone except you. in the past i have backed away from several arguments with you in the name of goodwill. not this time though, i will stay in this little pissing match with you even though i and everyone else in the cellar have been bored with it for a couple of days.

so i ask you again; do you have any support for your claims (other than woodward's book) that Franks was furious about his orders to prepare a commander's concept updating 1003 on Nov 27th, 2001, 20 days after operations began in afghanistan?

I don't want to get in the middle of this pissing match either, :greenface , but I've noticed that TW keeps posting the statement that Saddam was not a threat to anyone.

I think the Kurds that he gassed in his own country would beg to differ on that point. Also the people of Kuwait whose country Saddam invaded and set their oil wells afire would find exception to that statement.
What brought me to speak up on this was a piece on the news this morning, Fox News, where Kerry was quoted saying, "Saddam Hussein was a threat." in a mini press conference yesterday.

Just my .02 cents, carry on the pissing!

Quoted was one source that General Franks - as any general would have done - had a mini-explosion when ordered to plan for an Iraq attack before Afghanistan was even invaded. Your counter proof - you could not find any such outburst mentioned. Therefore it did not exist? But then this has been answered to a brick wall again and again.

Attached to and ignored in that original post are far more important and serious questions. Questions that George Jr supporters must avoid answering. We are talking about a president so bad - so incompetent - that nuclear war is a real possibility. A president that is currently trying to eliminate verification from international arm treaties. Lookout123 refuses to defend this danger to world security? This president that makes Americans the number one target of terrorism.

Again you avoid answering even a simple question - when are we going after bin Laden? Avoid these answers to mask the incompetence of this president. Attached to these questions are answers that say this president would even lie in order to create a war. That is impeachment material. When are we going after bin Laden? Are George Jr supporters so ill informed that they cannot answer that one question about current events? Are they so mentally deficient that they even believe Saddam was an active threat to his neighbors? Even the retired generals said Saddam was contained. Yes he was a threat that was totally contained. Where does a contained threat endanger anyone? It does not. Saddam was a threat to no one - meaning other nations.

Sorry that you are being made the poster boy. Notice not one supporter of the mental midget and therefore anti-American president is willing to answer these questions either. Notice once we go for hard questions, then there is not one George Jr supporter even willing to show us how little he knows about this liar president. Bottom line - only the ill informed would vote for George W Bush - outright lying president and front man for Cheney, Rice, et al. The president who let bin Laden go free and instead blamed Saddam. Those who would vote for such proven liars must be either deceived, mislead, or uneducated. People who fear to even answer simple questions about competency of this president and about a presidental threat to the troops.

Clearly I have struck gold. George Jr supporters fear to defend their man because they cannot. Not one is even willing to answer one simple question.

When do we go after bin Laden? Don't ask George Jr. He starts talking about Saddam. Don't ask George Jr supporters. They fear to answer. Lookout123's missing responses - asking about Gen Franks mini-explosion to obfuscate more important questions - tells us much about those who endorse George Jr - a proven liar.

These are damning questions. The only thing putrid about this thread is that George Jr supporters fear answering hard questions so they don't have to lie. Questions such as when will we go after bin Laden?

ever feel like you're on a merry-go-round?

tw, if you bother to read my posts at all, you would see that my take on things comes from Tommy Franks own book American Soldier, a number of interviews with Franks and his subordinates which make no reference to him losing his temper, and i've googled and otherwise searched for this event to no avail.

you are the one that referenced numerous articles that described this event so surely you must be able to provide proof of your position. what you're suggesting is that i provide proof that something didn't happen. that is fairly difficult because the media doesn't generally write stories with headlines stating General Tommy Franks Did Not Lose His Temper Today, there aren't any interviews where he is asked "Gen Franks - why didn't you lose your temper on Nov 27th."

does this make any sense to you? tw, you certainly wouldn't accept this type of debate from someone else on the board - so why should it be acceptable from you?

Of course you are. George Jr is a spin doctors dream. And you are playing the spin doctor game. Tommy Franks had a mini-explosion as any responsible general would have when all but ordered to let bin Laden go free. But that is irrelevant. Clearly you cannot answer important questions. So you masterbate on whether Tommy Franks got mad - to avoid answering hard questions. Its called spin. Ted Koppel says, "you did not answer my question so I will ask it again".

When do we go after bin Laden? Who was George Jr waiting for to tell him what to do ... for seven miniutes ... in a FL classroom? Lookout123 fears to admit the president did not even ask "Who is in charge". No sense discussing that example of presidental decision making. It demonstrates what a fool this president really is. So Lookout123 repeats the irrelevant so that others will never get an answer. Nothing condescending in that sentence, Lookout123. It is exactly what you are doing. Avoiding the hard questions by masterbating the irrelevant. When do you return to reality? When will we go after bin Laden?

We literally invaded another sovereign nation for no legitamate reason. Lookout123 loves it. We let the enemy of America go free. Lookout123 approves of that also (notice he will not deny it). Lookout123 wastes good bandwidth quoting Tommy Frank's book. A book Franks said he would not use to offend the administration. IOW a book written to be politically correct rather than honest. Does his book answer important questions? Does it ask when we will go after bin Laden? Please feel free to answer important questions. Quote the book if you must. Or did Franks also forget to answer that question. Lookout123, if you can stay on topic for just one paragraph - when will we go after bin Laden?

Lookout123 will avoid those previously posted hard questions because they suggest we should be impeaching George Jr - for incompetance. There is too much money to be made when Geroge Jr provides tax cuts to those earning over $200,000 annually. Lookout123, are you also happy that bin Laden is running free? Apparently. Since you fear to answer any real world questions, maybe then you are bin Laden.

Maybe you two should just pull out a ruler and measure your dicks. Or grenades? Maybe we can get each of you a grenade and whoever causes the most damage to the other wins. It would be faster and less annoying than this endless contest.

It is pretty amusing that the guy who posts the longest, most detailed, apparently well researched posts on this entire board keeps arguing the same points that he does in every single thread - George, Jr lied. Alright then, next question please? I've been following this thread for a few days waiting to see TW crush Lookout with the facts that he has been asked for repeatedly.

But what the hell do I know? I'm just a no good, no nothing. I'm down to writing my own name on the ballot.

still no answer? i'll wait if you're searching.

As much as I dislike him, I can't jump on this bandwagon. My gut tells me they told him bad shit was going down and they'd tell him more as soon as they had a handle on what was happening.
Can't picture Bush donning a cape and leaping to the bridge of Air Force One any more than I'd expect him to grab a tool box if the White House pipes break. Although, if they'd known ahead of time exactly when and where this would happen, Geppetto,...er,..Rove would have told him what to do.
During the debate, I kept getting the feeling Bush wanted to say things he'd been told not to, so he didn't.

I'd very much like to Bin Ladin nailed, but I wonder how important that is now. Of course the revenge would be sweet, but is he as big a player as he was. Maybe his job was done when he got the conflict off the ground and his associates are running their respective units now. He (or Bush?) has stirred a slew of other "leaders" to press their followers to confrontation rather than just grumbling about the Jews and "West".
If we get Osama there's a risk of making him a martyr but if we don't, his peers will feel we are incapable of getting him or THEM. :(

We could focus on those seven minutes. Or we could focus on the hard questions. TW prefers not to focus on the hard questions so he uses a lot of name-calling and invective and emotional appeal.

If Centcom is asked to draw up a war plan do they get "angry"? Or is that an obvious emotional appeal, since Generals are asked to draw up war plans ALL THE EFFING TIME, IT IS WHAT THEY DO. Isn't it possible that Woodward wanted an interesting narrative for his book?

Do you not think we have a plan to invade N Korea? Drawn up by Eastcom or whatever that sector is called? Do you think Centcom doesn't have an Iran plan on the table? Of course. They had an Iraq plan too, they just wanted it updated to reflect the current thinking. (And then they depended too heavily on getting rights to go through Turkey so it was a faulty plan from day one.)

Lookout123 demonstrates the knowledge and intelligence level of George Jr supporters who also says (lies) the world is safer because we invaded Iraq. Pakistan President Musharraf, clearly a long term expert on this subject, tells us quite bluntly this week that the US has made the world more insecure because we invaded Iraq. Even the entire panel on the McLaughlin Group does something rare - they agree entirely that the Iraqi invasion has made the world less safe.

Donald Rumsfeld admits there were not connections between the terrrorists and Iraq. Bremer admits he was denied sufficient troops by George Jr. Charles Duelfer report confirms what everyone knows - that George Jr was outrightly lying about Saddams Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Obviously. Mr. Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, said NBC's "Today," Saddam Hussein "had a lot of intent; he didn't have capabilities. Intent without capabilities is not an imminent threat." Or as the retired generals say, he was a threat that was totally contained. A diminishing threat.

Scott Ridder said same. Therefore UT called Scott Ridder a pervert and child pornographer. This is how George Jr supporters make the world safer? No wonder Lookout123 focuses on Frank's mini-explosion - to obfuscate the facts.

Lookout123 need not provide a single reason to support George Jr. He actually read a book about the world - Frank's 'politically correct' autobiography. Since Tommy Franks never mentions the reported mini-explosion, then that is proof that George Jr is an acceptable president?

When do we go after bin Laden? It is in Lookout123's personal interest (aminority that prospers from George Jr tax cuts) to not answer any serious questions such as: Why does George not read his memos and Presidental Daily Briefings? Why would George just sit there in a FL classroom, doing nothing, when America is under attack? Anyone interested in America (rather than their own pocket) would be fuming that George Jr did not even authorize fighters go 'weapons free' - to protect American buildings during 11 September. That from the September 11 Commission report. George Jr instead waited for someone to tell him what to do. Decisive leader? Lookout123 will tell us when he finishes Tommy Frank's book.

Lookout123 needs no facts. He is the classic George Jr supporter who just 'feels' he is correct - and therefore the world is safer. Ladies and Gentlemen. Lookout123 has no credibility - unless of course he dares answer hard questions here: Posted 7 October 2004

He won't. That is not the point. Lookout123 demonstrates why George Jr has supporters. But then Lookout123 finally read something - Tommy Frank's book. That makes him knowledgeable? Well at least he reads more than George Jr. But if Lookout123 answers, then we will discover Lookout123 has no knowledge when he recommends George Jr. Lookout123 wants us to make him richer.

In the meantime, when do we go after bin Laden? Lookout123 cannot even answer that question - hoping that others here will have sympathy for him. Do you feel a vote for the president - or do you ask hard questions? Lookout123 provides no supporting facts which is why his posts are so short and why he must hype on Tommy Frank's mini-explosion. Answering this simple question is too hard: when do we go after bin Laden? Rich people don't answer hard questions. Just like George Jr. - who avoids press conferences where he might be asked, "When do we go after bin Laden?"

Lookout123 - when do we go after bin Laden? Or are you bin Laden? Your interests are same - to keep George Jr in office.

When Scott Ridder said there were no weapons of mass destruction, then you called him a pervert and child pornographer.

Those seven minutes in a FL classroom prove what too many say about George Jr. He does not make decisions. Again, as Bob Woodward reports, "The president kicked everyone out of the Oval Office but Cheney. ... The others came back in. Finally at 7:12 PM, the president said, "Let's go." It was three minutes before Frank's deadline. Powell noted silently that thing didn't really get decided until the president had met with Cheney alone."

We know from the September 11 report that George Jr in FL had trouble contacting Cheney. Therefore Air Force One sat motionless on the runway in FL until finally the Secret Service demanded the plane take off now and decide where to go later. Where to go? George Jr waited for Cheney to tell him what to do. Tell me those seven minutes in a FL classroom don't expose how decisions are really made. The president could not even testify before the September 11 Commission without Cheney at his side. This is a decive leader? No wonder he need not read his memos. Those seven minutes in a FL classroom only confirm decisive George Jr leadership - waiting to be told what to do.

So those seven minutes of not authorizing fighter pilots to go 'weapons free' is not important? Seven minutes just sitting in a FL classroom, doing nothing; waiting to be told what to do while "America is under attack". George Jr never even authorized the military to defend America.

Please explain how this president is competant. And please explain how Scott Ridder went from being a responsible human being to becoming a pervert - only because he told the truth about WMDs. Unfortunately, this is the reasoning used to advocate "Four More Years ... in Iraq".

Scott Ritter's buddy got paid a lot of bribes in the food for oil program, and Ritter did completely fail to explain why he solicited sex from a 16-year-old in a Burger King. These facts are not irrelevant to trying to figure out what's really going on.

There is no statute of limitations on murder of 2600 people. Maybe we should also forget about the massacre of 7500 people in Srebrenica, Bosnia. At least we are still conducting searches for and seeking the arrest of those responsible. Responsible people never stop going after mass murders. Slobodan Milosevic trial is ongoing since 2002 and was expected to complete in 2004. Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are also to be captured and prosecuted. The alternative was previously noted: a nationalist revival.

If rule of law means anything, then the US must go after bin Laden. What is the alternative? Do we prosecute Saddam for those crimes?

And that proves that weapons of mass destruction existed? That is proof that the aluminum tubes were for uranium centrifuges? What you post is about as relevant as Lookout123's repeated claims that Gen Franks did not have a mini-explosion. Again nonsense posted to obfuscate the facts - that George Jr is an incompetant president. When do we go after bin Laden? Why is Iraq about terrorism when secular governments are the enemy of terrorist?

This is about being responsible to the troops. Those troops signed up to defend America - not promote a lying presidents political agenda.

Its called focusing on real problems - a president who does not read his memos. A president who let bin Laden go free. A president who cannot make his own decisions without first being told by Cheney, Rice, Rove, etc what to do. A president that has subverted 40+ years of diplomatic work. A president that subverts science. A president that makes adversaries even of our allies.

Where does Scott Ridder's sex life or the actions of a friend have anything to do with this. All this from the same person who outrightly ignored technical facts to say those alunumim tubes were for weapons of mass destruction? UT, you had facts that said otherwise. You denied those facts to support a lying president. You said Scott Ridder was wrong because of sex allegations (nothing proven) and allegations of a friend. At what point do we go back to the real issues and use relevant facts? At what point do you use real facts to defend this president?

Fact - this president lied like we have not seen since Richard Nixon. Fact - this president is so incompetant as to sit there for seven minutes - did nothing - after being told "America is under attack". I ask many others what they would have done. Everyone - literally everyone - says they would have gotten up out of that chair and left the room. George Jr, "god's choose president", could not do that? Those are facts that go right to the issue (without being sexed up). This president is not just incompetant. He is dangerous. He has literally subverted in only four years what took American diplomacy to accomplish in 40. This from major American diplomats dating back to the Nixon administration. This president subverts science - from tens of American Nobel prize winners. Where did I once mention anyone's sex life? Its called keeping the facts relevant.

You must post those allegations to promote the lies of George Jr just as you posted only George Jr progaganda about those aluminum tubes. Those allgetons remain as credible as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Is that were you got those allegations? Allegations posted to support and defend a lying president. I am not reading them in responsible news sources. Using sex to defame the president's critics? When do you use same to defame the Jersey girls? This is the stuff I would expect from sleazy politicians. Are they your news sources? Is that why you could not concede those outright lies about aluminum tubes? You are a supporter of George Jr. Can you even answer those hard questions? When are we going after bin Laden? No, instead we have unproven allegations of Scott Ridder's sex life. Its called relevance and credibility.

"Incompetent" is not spelled with an "a". (I only go after spelling when it's ironic.)

Ritter's woes don't prove anything except that he is, at best, an unreliable witness not to be trusted, regardless of whether he is right or wrong. I wasn't the one who put him in that position... he did that to himself.

Lastly I have not been a W supporter for some time now and regularly point this out to you. Your repeated insistent ignorance on this matter is really annoying at this point. Do you not have anything more substantial?

More news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh? Only allegations, unproven, that have no relevance to the president's lies. When do we go after bin Laden? A relevant question, without sex allegations, that George Jr supporters avoid.

Had to go back to my own post of early last year to remember the details. Funny how you people accused me of getting the details from Fox back then, too. A year and a half and it's the same old shit and only getting older. Newsnight is a CNN program:

Had to go back to my own post of early this year to remember the details...

What these add up to is: it doesn't really matter that Ritter was right, even if he was right on the basis of fact; his status as a Hussein bribee and non-denyment of internet sex predatordom makes him extremely suspect. No intellgent, unemotional evaluator of facts would take him seriously.

Good, let's send George W. Bush Jr. to the head of the "most wanted" list. In the 6 month period from April, 2004 when it first started keeping statistics through Sept 19, 2004, the Iraqui interim government estimates that 3,487 Iraqui civilians have been killed and an additional 13,720 were injured. For every one US military casualty, there are TEN CIVILIAN casualties.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9753603.htm

This is only for one 6 month interval. The actual number of civilian casualties is far higher. George Jr. has quite a bit of human blood on his hands, and his only response is to whine plaintatively that we didn't know Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction until we went in there. Unacceptable!

You misunderstand my remarks, TW. I'm not suggesting we let him skate, or even let him have a moments peace. I'm questioning where he ranks on the most dangerous list, which is reality, as opposed to the most wanted list, which is largely political. I'd be glad to put two in his head,.....without a trial.

You put "America is under attack", in quotation marks. That would imply that those were the exact words Bush heard at the beginning of the 7 minutes in question. Is that correct?


btw-Personal attacks on Lookout won't convince anyone and reduce your credibility. Never try to teach a pig to sing.

well, i thought i could do the impossible and i was wrong. i honestly thought i could get the great and all knowing tw to admit that he might have made an honest mistake with his "facts". foolish me. instead you brush aside my request for some sort of documentation and lash out in a personal manner. rather than posting some supporting documentation for your claims at the beginning of this thread you keep stating over and over how bush is the devil.

you disregard the post where i pointed out that i don't disagree with much of what you say. but you obviously are agitated because i still want to know where you got your proof of Franks' explosion. you reply by putting words in my mouth and attempting to portray me as a bush sycophant.

up until this point, although i disagreed with your views, i respected your ability to research and work with facts. i may have given you too much credit.

i acquiesce. here and now i throw in the towel in this little shit throwing contest. you may continue to insult me if you choose. i feel no sting from the insults of one who i don't respect.

Mari, the story counts insurgents as civilians. Nothing to see here, it's media bias.

If there are that many insurgents, then things are even worse than the news has reported. But then, these are the same statements made in Vietnam times. It was called body counts. If they were dead, then they must be VC. Certainly the press lies when they said "We had to burn the village to save it" and "We have met the enemy and he is us". Thirty some years later, with so many not then alive to watch the news, then another president can use the same lies all over again.

Either the number of insurgents has increased sharply, or the number of civilians killed is increasing. Which is it?

This president has been lying to us even when he told us we need an anti-missile system to protect rogue nations and terrorists. Right - bin Laden will launch missiles just like Chevy Chase (Spys Like Us).

George Jr's reasons for sitting in that FL classroom and not even asking one question is a classic example. He did get up so that he could "project strength and calm". Nice try. To "project strength and calm", he should have asked, "Who's in charge". Then maybe fighter pilots would have been given permission to protect America. George Jr did as he does so often - wait for Cheney to tell him what to do and say. He could not get in touch with Cheney until when? 9:55. Between 9:15 and 9:54, the president and his advisors could not even decide what to do or where to go! Of course. Cheney was not contacted until 9:55. So they sat around until a Secret Service agent and other little people demanded they take off (at 9:54) - and decide where to go later. Just sitting around waiting to be told by Cheney what to do? Read the report. Note the times.

George Jr lied. He said he was projecting strength and calm. In reality, he was waiting for someone to tell him what to do; same as his his Principles Meetings are conducted. Even there among Cabinet Officers, George Jr is handed a script as to how the meeting will be conducted. Staged is a better description.

He sat there in that FL chair waiting to be told what to do after hearing "America is under attack." We want him as president? No wonder Lookout123 fears to answer hard questions. Better to obfuscate when the president's action cannot be defended and his reasons are so often lies. He sat there for seven minutes, doing nothing, after being told "America is under attack". It is but classic example of how this president makes decisions.

The Pentagon says it has no plans to assess the number of Iraqi civilians killed http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer. Well, that leaves a rather large vacumn just dying to be filled, now, doesn't it?

"Nowadays civilian casualties, and even specific incidents, can have a strategic effect on a conflict out of all proportion to their size, especially in an age of instant video transmission around the world," says military analyst Marcus Corbin of the Center for Defense Information in Washington. "If the Defense Department doesn't have its own estimates, even if [only] a broad range, it cedes the territory to opponents who may use wildly inflated estimates, which may unfortunately be readily believed by gullible foreign populations." http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0331/p15s01-wogi.html

These "opponents" include such wild eyed splinter groups as these:
Human rights watch http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/iraq102103.htm
Amnesty International http://electroniciraq.net/cgi-bin/ar...iew.cgi/10/597
The Vatican http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=32380
Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html
And of course entities like these:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://civilians.info/iraq/

Gee, nobody like us. I wonder why? OK, let's say that the entire rest of the world is filled with an unreasoning hatred of the US, and the damn left wing media inflates civilian casualities all out of proportion. Here's my question to you: Since the Pentagon itself does not deign to estimate civilian casualities, upon what basis do you make your assumption that the majority of those killed were actively fighting for the other side? There are no grounds for you to assume that the civilians were actually enemy fighters. We have nothing to go by except reports from the Iraqi interim government, the Red Cross, and other international agencies like Amnesty International. Most telling of all, why on earth would the VATICAN express concern? These are not good church going Catholics we're talking about being killed here, but Muslim infidels. Why would the Pope wish to risk antagonizing American Catholics (who give a nice chunk of money to the Church) for the sake of a groundless expression of concern? The boys at the Vatican aren't stupid (remember the Jesuits?). They are not going to be influenced by every flimsy rumor that comes along. On what do you base your comment of media bias other than possibly some belief that we're the good guys and a few anecdotal stories about a nice old man with a bomb?