A soldier's viewpoint

[lookout123]

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.

It was leaked to the press sometime after the Iraq war started. It was reported as part of some news articles

He literally exploded over that absurd request - and justifiably so.

It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense.

It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense.

Gen Franks was clearly furious when told to plan for the Iraq invasion. And he should have been.

Franks was furious that we were even talking about an Iraq invasion - because unlike the president, Franks is intelligent.

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.