Posted on 11/19/2012 6:06:56 AM PST by Zakeet
we won and we didn’t occupy
Do yourself a big favor: go back and brush up on your history before you comment next time.
When first asked to his face by several reporters if he denied help he wouldn't answer the questions. Following that he realized he couldn't keep ignoring the questions so since before the election he just says he can't comment due to the ongoing investigation.
He's not only a wimp but a total coward as CinC, he hasn't got the guts or the character to command a single member of our dedicated military nor be the leader of the free world.
I think so too!
However, he has his excuse that he told his NSA staff "keep those guys safe". Let's see heads roll and find out who did what. We know Gen. Ham was never given the order, so who didn't issue the order?
This whole issue will slowly disappear as we get caught up in campaign lies and sex scandals. However, Americans were denied help when it could have done some good and nobody is being held to account.
What are we telling those that choose to serve?
I would trust Patreus with anything I own before I would do so with a single employee of the New York Times.
None of them are fit to shine his shoes.
I fear you’re right about the whole issue slowly fading away, Obama and the thugs he’s surrounded himsel with as well as the media will not be bringing the subject up.
Petraeus hasn't touched his uniform in years, I guarantee you. That's why he has a LTC aide.
What are we telling them?
That they will be left behind, abandoned.
What this results in:
1. Disengage from the enemy too soon, so they can be sure to have safe routes of retreat so they won’t be left behind.
2. Refusal to engage except when the numbers are overwhelmingly in our favor. (The George McClellan syndrome.)
3. Refusal to consider a career in an unreliable organization.
4. Bad battlefield decisions such as suicidal defenses and attacks due to a “we’re on our own” attitude permeating the force.
2.We had a war going on.
3.His article in the Village Voice attacked the Army/supported the enemy's efforts.
4."Getting an unlawful order to go to Vietnam" should've been considered reward to a hard-charger patriotic young officer.
Clearly Truscott IV wasn't a pimple on II or II's behind. I haven't "wrongly and disgracefully smeared his reputation" - I have only illuminated the obvious. The officers we did have in Vietnam were dedicated, courageous professionals. The deadbeats who stayed back and did things to support the opposition were worse than cowards: their support of the enemy was treasonous.
And the rest of the world would KNOW that you are wrong.
In l965 he entered West Point, via an appointment from Patsy T. Mink, Democrat of Hawaii, where the family had long ago established residency. He graduated, after what might be called a checkered career, in June of l969, entering the Army as a 2nd Lt. of Infantry. He attended the Infantry School at Ft. Benning, Georgia, and moved to Ft. Carson, Colo. to command a Mechanized Infantry Platoon, which he did until May, l970. In that month, he found himself in a dispute with the Army over an article he wrote for the Village Voice about the rampant, yet un-acknowledged problem of heroin abuse in the Army, specifically, in the 5th Mechanized Infantry Division at Ft. Carson. The Army refused permission to publish the article, and Mr. Truscott refused to withdraw the article from publication. The Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army for Personnel, a Lt. General in the Pentagon, threatened on the telephone, with both Mr. Truscott and his father Col. Truscott listening, to order Mr. Truscott to Vietnam immediately if he didn't withdraw the article. Mr. Truscott refused to withdraw the article, and refused the order to Vietnam, and told the General on the telephone that he would have him (the General) court martial led for attempting to punitively assign a soldier (Lt. Truscott) to a combat zone, one of the Army's most heinous crimes, punishable by 30 years on prison, if he attempted to carry out his threat. What they used to call in the Army “a flap” ensued, and resignation from the Army came soon thereafter.
We could have saved tens of thousands of lives by bypassing the Philippines and going on to Formosa as Admirals King and Nimitz recommended, but that would not have allowed Doug to declaim "I have returned".
Protected his soldiers, my ass.
MacArthur won a couple of Silver Stars and a CMH in WWI before your uncle was even born. But I guess you figure it would have been better if he took the hit instead of your uncle. Your opinion. Not necessarily that of historians though. His assessment of Pacific strategy was why he was the commanding officer. As to lives lost..I repeat, he lost fewer men in the entire Pacific campaign than Ike did in the invasion. That photo of him wading ashore was a giant stimulus to the people of the Phillipines who were suffering untold misery from their occupation. It gave them the courage they needed to resist and help drive the more than one million Japanese troops dug in on a thousand islands into the hands of the American forces. Propaganda is also a mighty force or haven’t you been following politics here in the USA?
Woods was there first from the annex to go to the mission, I think Doherty was later, part of the group of mixed US and Libyan forces sent from Tripoli to aid the mission who ran into an ambush on the way but who did finally get there to rescue 30 people.
Since anyone else -an in extremis force, etc, would have had to come from outside the country, they would need, as FR’s Travis McGee has said, “cross border authority” to go in armed. There is only one person who can grant or deny cross border authority, and that is the President of the United States.
Which is why the Obama admin is stalling, and why the people most concerned - Sec of state and Defense, and the pres himself, have left the country to go on wine tasting expeditions to Australia and to hug human rights activists in Burma.
It’s unclear(to me) whether Doherty was there originally as part of security for the CIA annex or came later as you indicated from Tripoli. Regardless, who told Woods and others to stand down when they wanted to go to the consular base to rescue the inhabitants?
Petraeus claimed it wasn’t him, but who was responsible for the CIA? Wouldn’t it have been Petraeus? I get the “feeling” that whoever told them to stand down did not want the terrorists making it back to the CIA annex. Their cover would have been blown at that point. The fact that a few did ignore an order(s) is what led the terrorists back to their annex, and indeed, their cover WAS blown. So whoever knew this would happen, why didn’t they also make sure they would survive the eventual attack with manned drones, with a quicker QRF from Tripoli? If Petraeus is clueless about what went down that night...WHY is he clueless?
His involvement or lack of involvement makes no sense.
I'm not qualified to pass judgment on MacArthur's personal courage, so I do not question it. He did come ashore on Leyte before that beach had been fully secured, so I will give him credit for that at least.
stimulus to the people of the Phillipines who were suffering untold misery from their occupation
By that argument, I suppose you would criticize Churchill and Ike for not rescuing the occupied populations of Norway and Denmark before going after Germany proper.
MacArthur was awarded the CMH by FDR for his service in the Philippines. MacArthur was a great and courageous soldier, but he didn’t deserve the CMH IMHO. An interesting fact is he and his father were the only father-son to be awarded the CMH.
A couple of notes IMHO might be worthy consideration:
A) Is the publicly recognizable CIA chain of command actually the intel chain used by the NCA?
1) Obama attends very few of his intel briefings.
2) Dir of the CIA is politically appointed and might routinely be a 1-3 yr post.
3) Intel ops by their nature must endure with wherewithal for periods longer than their adversaries, say 4-40 yr periods.
4) Since Clintons have been involved at national level politics, has the CIA leadership controlling the processing of intel been controlled now at a lower level by liberal leaning analysts having ulterior motives?
5) If so, this might nicely explain why Obama doesn’t pay much attention to either his intel briefings and why Petraeus was allowed to be the Director,...a figurehead which was disposable, when convenient, without threatening their intel resources upon which they actually relied.
B) POTUS doesn’t think like a Christian
1) His interpretation of justice is confused with vengeance without due process.
2) He will have an anti-Israeli leaning.
3) He already has won the 2nd term, though not yet inaugurated.
4) Throughout his life, he has been given all his worldly success with minimal effort or competition. When he has competed, he has done so as an accusatorial adversary. He tends to associate his victories with that expression of his volition.
5) Whenever he has won a position he has sought, he never seems to advance society in that position, but meanders towards something else to satiate his lust for power.
6) He likely will not be satiated by US level political achievement. He will seek more power on the world stage.
7) If Egypt and Libya were being attacked on 9/11/12, why would his response to a briefing of that situation lead to him not taking active measures on either situation, but calling Nethanyahu for an impromptu discussion?
C) Regarding CIA Annexes
1) Watching public perceptions of the CIA underworld, a movie called Safehouse was recently released.
2) The movie portrays CIA BlackOps, where one side of the CIA will kill another side, and neither know whats going on except by that which is provided them by others, or their own selfish interests.
3) What evidence do we have Benghazi wasn’t a BlackOp gone bad?
4) What do we know that indicates Benghazi may have been intended to appear like a BlackOp gone bad?
5) If wasn’t a BlackOp, why hasn’t every foreign Tom, Dick and Harry attacked other CIA networks?
Ha ha, obsessed with uniforms? When Truman met him at Wake to discuss Korea, Truman said MacArthur was dressed like a 2nd LT. He was pissed about that but not as much as MacArthur's not saluting him.
Why don't you try placing the blame where it really belongs Mr. Truscott: on the pussies who have completely taken over the civilian government and the media over the last forty to fifty years. A general who actually wanted to crush the enemy and win the war would never even be allowed to run one now!
A CIA black-ops gone bad... that’s an interesting twist. What is the NCA?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.