From the Folks Who Know Whereof They Speak

Subj: Fw: From the Folks Who Know Whereof They Speak Date: 3/3/2004 12:14:22 AM Eastern Standard Time From: BWillard@citcom.net

----- Orig ; Adolph Staub Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 7:07 PM Subject: From the Folks Who Know Whereof They Speak

For you poor working folks who don't have time for long e-mails, save this and read it when you have time. It should be read by right, left, and those who don't have a clue or care. If you think the next election doesn't matter, "because they are all crooks", think again. If you don't vote or waste your vote on a "greeny" or a turncoat, you will be making a big mistake. I have not edited a single word or mis-spelling. Spark ********************************************************************************************************************************************** ---- Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 12:49 AM Subject: Fw: Rpt. from Geraldo Rivera

Here's a great letter from a recently retired Army Colonel who worked in Army intelligence. He went to school with one of my patriotic neighbor widow lady's son. She's only 80 years old and I hope she lives to 120 because she is an avid "Right-Wing conspirator." She's a retired Federal Civil Service person who spent over 20 years in Panama with the Army.

Your article about Geraldo Rivera went all the way to my son in Florida and you must read all the E-mails to him that followed. Bob Baggot went to school with my son, Steven, was in the Army and retired as a full colonel in Intelligence. Thought you might like to see the information that he forwarded to a cousin of his that is a bit on the liberal side and Bob just got tired of listening to him bash Bush! This is a good read.

From: Steven Clarke Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 2:22 PM To: Edna Subject: Fw: Rpt. from Geraldo Rivera

Hi Hank. The attached is a long e-mail from Bob Baggott to his cousin who is a staunch liberal weenie giving everyone a bad time about Bush. I've been getting these e-mails almost daily for a while and I love the fact that Bob and his Brother Frank have the background as Army officers to shut him up. Thjis one sounds like Bob has finally had enough and decided to puit his cousin in his place.

----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Baggott To: Uscier, Gordon Mr (98 ASG - INT REV) Cc: Frank Baggott ; Steve Clarke

Hey Cuz, Always glad to hear from you. Interesting discussion on both sides. I'll rise to the bait of your statement that it does not equate to Bush and company doing the right thing.

My perspective is from my experiences. It derives from real world lessons learned at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels in the "Intel World." Yes, I admit I was a member in good standing of the secret handshake society while on active duty. I've also provided my credentials when applicable, something truly missing in the media or your debate. You will see very clearly why I think going into Iraq was the right thing to do. In turn, it will be interesting to see what you've got.

I understand clearly the nation building aspects the U.S. military brings to the table in Iraq. I was involved in supporting similar USA efforts in the 1980s in Latin America. In Honduras those efforts were part of a policy to counter the Nicaraguan Sandinista efforts to over throw the government in El Salvador. The strategic mission was to stop Danny Ortega, who was receiving help from Fidel and the Soviets, from using Nicaragua as the base to launch communist in Central America.

In Iraq it is clearly to take away base support for terrorists to train their forces and launch their attacks. In essence it is to carry the battle directly to them. The reaction from Iran, Syria, Libya, as countries, and the various terrorist groups tells me more about the success of the Bush policy than the negative rhetoric from the left that damns his policy without providing an alternative.

On the tactical side, in 1984-85 I commanded the sole American signals intelligence site in Honduras that reported directly to national agencies. The intelligence we provided directly influenced national policy. I know first hand what it means to use single source intelligence and the dangers it represents to decision-makers if not further developed through all-source capabilities. I also know personally what it means to be on the "short end" of the Iran-Contra affair - the end not reported by the press, but effected by Congressional limitations passed by liberal democrats - when you have to accomplish a legitimate mission without resources.

But everything we did wasn't all about solving the El Salvador problem. We also supported the efforts to rescue villages and rebuild facilities in Colombia and other countries that suffered earthquakes and mudslides. We were involved in a military to military effort to rebuild US. cooperation with Latin American governments that the Carter administration almost destroyed.

During that same period I also had direct support with and ties to Intel resources from the CIA, FBI, DEA, NSA, and DIA and capabilities existent within the U.S. Embassy on missions to directly fight the drug cartel in South America. I experienced first hand the value provided by human intelligence by "bad guys," especially the ones "debriefed" for our mission support. Could I have experienced more success. Yes, but limitations placed upon us by Congress directly impacted the mission limitating us in many areas.

I finished the 1980s as the Branch Chief within a JCS organization. In that capacity I was responsible for selecting all the military targets of the U.S's nuclear foes for the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). From that perspective I fully understand how national policy, Presidential Directives, and preemption works and doesn't work. I also fully understand policies of deterrence, treaty talks, and military strength.

Want a real fun time? Be the guy who unwittingly comes up with the process that actually will downsize the nuclear arsenal of the USA for the first time in 30 years. Try briefing it to each of the service chiefs in their office. Stand up for your ideas when briefing the DOD nuclear proponents who are against it because, in their view, success means a cut in their share of the defense budget. Be part of the scene - the actual fly on the wall - when the Vice Chairman takes no prisoners among the senior members of the joint staff because you have unknowing presented him with the solution for how the USA can proceed in the SALT talks with the Soviets and still retain the advantage in a world governed by nuclear deterrence, but destabilized by media and political unreality.

I have a very real understanding of the national debate on policy and how it effects agencies within the government responsible for executing that policy. In 1989 I also experienced the results of a President, secure in his beliefs, who did not waffle on American policy. When the Berlin Wall came down, I saw up close and personal how a strong consistent hand led to the results that changed the world and American nuclear policy forever.

The 1990s presented different Intel challenges. In the Gulf War I was responsible to produce all the Intel products for 18th ABN Corps for Desert Shield and Desert Storm at the operational and tactical levels of war. I can attest to many of the problems that faced the military and national Intel organizations concerning Iraq, including the possible use of chemical weapons.

For the record, it was our guys, the 307th Engineer Battalion (ABN), 82d ABN Div who found chemical rounds in the bunkers at the Iraqi air base in Talil. It was our guys who destroyed those war heads. It was my assessment that they were not produced on site, but delivered there by special handling units. It was also my assessment that the South African procured 155mm Howitzers that Saddem had in the inventory of his most capable divisions were capable of firing those chemical rounds.

Why those rounds were not used is a subject for a different day, time and place. However, I am convinced, because I saw them, that Iraq had a chemical capability in 1991. His use of those weapons against the Kurds and Iranians assured me of his intent.

After the Gulf it was Hurricane Andrew when I had to fight to use national intelligence assets to support US forces in the humanitarian role. The fight was over limitations again put on our capabilities by Congress.

Another fun time in life -- try convincing national civilian authorities of the importance of developing military maps for an area in the USA that has been utterly destroyed. My perspective -- overhead imagery provided the only means to develop useable maps within 48 hours for XVIII ABN Corps humanitarian deployment into Homestead. Civilian authority perspective -- it was against the rules and constituted spying on our own population.

You may not know, the destruction left by Hurricane Andrew was so great, not even a street sign left standing, that all civilian maps were useless. The Congressional rules that tied our hands were the singular most difficult obstacle to overcome in that particular situation. I was the catalyst that pushed to get the "national rules" broken so we could use satellite capabilities to actually image the Homestead area and make maps. As a result, I don't appreciate Congressional limitations that are studpid. Thank God for some risk takers in an emergency. It still pisses me off that that law required so much effort to get around.

As Andrew operations were ending, I found myself working Somalian intelligence problems as part of the effort to support the 10th Mt Division's deployment to Africa. I know what got us into that fight and what the mission originally was. I know first hand the human intelligence problems we encountered in understanding the capabilities and intent of the various tribal clans.

I can also attest to the problems of putting U.S. forces under the command of the UN and a non-USA commander and how mission creep changed everything. I fully comprehend what it means when intelligence agencies later had their hands tied by liberal Democrats in Congress preventing them from working with "bad guys" to gain human intelligence.

Unfortunately, I also experienced what it means when the President of the USA cuts and runs because he lacks the stomach to fully support the military and see the mission through. From my stand point, I don't want the next generation to experience the same hard lessons. That lack of back bone in a crisis is the primary reason why I believe we can not afford any of the current Democrats running for the party's nomination to be the next president. It is also why I will never support putting US troops under the UN unless the command is given to an American.

Clinton's actions badly bruised American prestige around the world. They were the underlying current to Saddem's propaganda on the 'Mother of All Battles," that Americans could not stomach casualties in Iraq. It remains the under lying purpose behind the terrorists efforts to kill American soldiers and now Iraqis. Clinton's legacy haunts us in many different ways around the world. This is just one of them.

After Somalia came the Haitian "Boat-People" problem in the 1992-93. In 1993 I saw first hand how national policy fails when our political leaders refuse to deal with reality. I understood it so well I was actually tapped by XVIII ABN Corps to be the next Colonel to command the Gitmo "Boat People" camp in the summer of 1993 for Atlantic Command.

With the national leadership we had establishing policy, Gitmo was, for me, no briar patch. I wasted no time using my "blue chips" to get assigned to NATO avoiding Gitmo. As it turned out, Clinton deployed XVIII ABN Corps into Haiti shortly after I left Ft. Bragg. Just as quickly, he got the UN to take charge. It is now 2004 and with Haiti it is "Here We Go Again."

My assignment to NATO proved to be a continuing eye opener for a political party unwilling to face the realities in the world. Bosnia and Kosovo were not and are not important to our strategic national interests. (Ruwanda was the same.) Troops went in any way. They are still stationed in the Balkans. From the beginning the UN and NATO leadership were both involved. As of today, their culminated efforts have not rebuilt either nation, solved the political problems existent at the time or since, and provide no plan to get out.

My personal experiences (Africa, Balkans, and Middle East) give me serious concerns about the credibility of the UN and NATO. The recent departure of the UN from Iraq and the consequent grandstanding to return only reinforces my concerns. While the left continues to cry out for UN and NATO involvement, the most important two lessons I learned -- 1. don't waste our most precious national resources on missions that don't involve USA national interests and 2. know who your real friends are.

Today our focus is on Iraq. Where are they chemical rounds? I don't know. Neither does anyone else. I will go on record to say I have seen nothing from 1991 to 2004 to assure me they were destroyed. When I ask myself if that is good enough the answer is always no.

Now you are welcome to believe what you want too about Bush, Intel and WMD. The nation will soon debate his national priorities and directives. One thing for certain is he has fixed that problem of muddled guidance. The intelligence community knows exactly what Bush wants. They are focused today in their efforts because he has provided real leadership.

I have been grilled at the national, operational and tactical level on my products, conclusions and beliefs. It was not always comfortable, but for sure it was a character developing experience. For those Intel weenies, the left, and the media whining about the pressure put on analysts -- if you can't stand the heat your product produces, get out of the kitchen.

In 1986 I was the guy who wrote and initially presented at the four star level the briefing that the USA be preemptive in going after the drug labs with military forces in Bolivia. It was the right thing to do! Many "Intel pieces" we briefed later turned out to be something less than accurate. Some turned out to be totally wrong.

I provided the Chairman, SEC DEF, Attorney General, and VP the best information I had at the time. There was never any intent to deceive the Vice President of the USA who actually authorized the mission. He used what we provided. When the press broke the story I did not subscribe to the effort that he deceived the nation.

Seventeen years later I fully understand President Bush's position; especially with Intel agencies from around the world all in singular agreement. Unlike the press and those crying foul from the left, I truly know how the system works. From my view point I have listened to the press and the left very carefully in their attack on the President to see if there was any real information. They don't have a clue what they are talking about. I applaud the President for having a pair of balls.

Having been on the wrong end of Iraq's chemical weapons capabilities my thoughts on WMD are pretty simple -- I want verification those warheads were destroyed. I have no desire to add a third date to Dec 7, and 9-11. A Scandinavian working within the UN bureaucracy saying they don't exist, but he has no proof isn't good enough. The fact Saddem refused to hold up his end of the agreements made to end the war in 1991 puts our nation at risk. If it means preempting and going in without two or three of our "NATO Allies" for something clearly in our national interest than I'm glad we have a real decision-maker in the White House.

I question the thought processes of people who make Middle East oil and the companies connected to it to be something bad. Reality is Middle East oil is a strategic resource for our country. We can debate all day about alternative fuels and Halliburton. The government's job is not to come up with alternate fuels. Its job is to protect the resources that support our national economy. At the end of the day, the reality is oil drives the world's economy. Currently, it is the singular most important strategic resource we should go to war over.

I understand the reasons Halliburton got the original contract and why it was written the way it was. I deployed with XVIII ABN Corps in August 1990. I know what it is to enter a combat zone without logistic support. So does the current Chief of Engineers, LTG Bob Flowers who I served with in that fight. I know for a fact he is dead-on honest. I can and do attest to his focus on war fighting and doing his very best to support our troops. I will bank my reputation that the Vice President could not influence Flowers to let a contract illegally. I also have no doubt that Flowers is watching my tax dollars very carefully.

Bottom line on oil and Halliburton -- when we needed fuel to go to war and be successful, Halliburton was the reason fuel was not a show stopper. Why the left can't admit what worked right and than look to see how to make it even better in the next fight, I don't understand. I will say there are thousands of troops who are glad that Bob Flowers did the contract the way he did. For sure his actions were based on his experiences, similar to mine, in the first Gulf war.

The war on terrorism is in our national interests. I don't buy into the philosophy of the left that it is our fault the terrorist doesn't like us therefore it is us who should change. Terrorism is being developed and exported throughout the Middle East and the world by evil men who don't want to solve problems. These men are proponents of destabilization, murder, and fear. They are the cause of September 9, 2001, the attacks in 1993 on the WTC, our embassies, our warships, and our citizens. And that's just the ones that can be counted against the U.S. ledger.

Fighting terrorism is not a law enforcement, wringing of hand issue, today that it was under Clinton. Thank God the current President understands it is the first war of the new millennium. It is important to future generations that we win this war. As my daughter, a former liberal, told me in 2001, she was glad that Bush won the election. I understand fully what she was expressing.

Iraq is important not just because of the chemical weapons threat and its oil reserves. Iraq represents the first realistic effort to bring real peace to the Middle in over 100 years. It is a no shit, no compromise effort. It puts our greatest treasure, American blood, at risk and on the line. If it succeeds it will change the landscape forever. It is no less important to our future generations than the Marshall Plan in Europe and MacArthur's efforts in Japan were to our generation. Its not any easier either.

On Intelligence estimates for Iraqi and for 9-11 --- I categorically state the media is wrong. It was not Intelligence that failed us. It was the Congressional polices that limited our capabilities and failed to provide direction. I know because I was affected by what the Congress did for almost 20 years. In 2001 the Congressional policies ensured our national intelligence agencies failed. Congress, unwittingly, put the entire nation at risk.

We will never truly know if the intelligence agencies could have provided early warning for 9-11. Add to that the accuracy of Intel for Iraq. On these subjects we can only speculate.

What we do know is the hands of our intel ageancies were tied and the national leadership did not provide focus for those agencies for years. While Congress will ensure the finger pointing is not in their direction, that is where the real blame lies. All the Congressional hearings after the fact won't change that.

In summary, my experience and perspective differ considerably from yours. The no shit, been there, done that, set of experiences I have give me a real opportunity to measure the current President's actions as to Iraq. When people ask me today what is the singular most event for intelligence community successes since 9-11 my reply is we have a clear focus from a national leader who does not waffle in his duties to protect this nation.

----- Original Message ----- From: Uscier, Gordon Mr (98 ASG - INT REV) To: Robert Baggott Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:32 AM Subject: RE: Rpt. from Geraldo Rivera

It is nice to hear that progress is being made where ever it is in the world. And the US military is doing a great job. I recently saw a documentary (on AFN) on a PBS show called "Frontline". It was very telling The US military are doing a good job of trying to make things work. And they have lots to overcome. The program showed alot of animosity between various factions in Iraq. And the factions basically promise to eliminate each other. The military commanders basically acting as mayors or govenors appear to be fair and even handed and try to get both sides of a dispute to see and understand logical solutions

As I have stated in the past the military did a good job executing the war and they are doing a good job trying to "build" a nation. However, that does not equate to Bush and Company doing the right thing.

-----Original Message----- From: Robert Baggott [mailto:rbaggott@wf.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:58 PM To: Steven Clarke Cc: Frank Baggott; Mr. Gordon Uscier Subject: Re: Rpt. from Geraldo Rivera

I too am not a Geraldo fan -- to much focus on self. He did, however, give a good start and a left-handed slap to the media, which really needs a slam dunk. I give him a kudo for his overall conclusion. He is dead-on accurate when he says Iraq is being built, not rebuilt.

Contrary to the media reports, Iraq is not a quagmire. Time will tell how much of a success it truly becomes, but early numbers are staggering. CENTCOM is many different tracking items such as 12 hours of electricity per day prewar, but not throughout the country, to 16-18 hours available today throughout the country, prewar oil production capacity to current numbers, operational hospitals, schools, student numbers, food stuffs, and imports on non-military items.

Facts with figures are attainable from CENTCOM if the press wants them. They contrast comparisons from prewar to present are startling, and I repeat, the differences are eye popping. A snap shot of a growing (booming) economy that got my attention is cars. Imports now total over one million since war ended. Something good must be happening over there.

Almost every item CENTCOM can measure has increased tremendously on the plus side, a real credit to the efforts of the coalition, and the Bush administration's focus and support.

----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Clarke To: Frank Baggott ; Bob Baggott Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:17 AM Subject: Fw: Rpt. from Geraldo Rivera

Just a little food for thought. I'm not a Geraldo fan but this is pretty interesting.

Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:57 PM To: Tom Green; Ted Strassser; Skeet; Scott & Dianna; Rich Craveiro; Oscar Ferrell; Neighbor Brown; Nate; Monika Wilde; leroy & Ann munsch; Kristi Ruggles; Karen Fultz; Joan Counterman; Jim Barnett; Janet; IFerrell@aol.com; Eddie; Dexter & Pat; Dana Jill; Carla Subject: Fw: Rpt. from Geraldo Rivera

Love him, or hate him; Geraldo reports it as it is. Not selective as the alphabets and CNN are.

"They have a saying in the news business," Geraldo Rivera related this week. "Reporters don't report buildings that don't burn" And with that introduction, he told a TV audience about the story that is being systematically denied to our entire nation: the success story of post-Saddam Iraq.

Are we losing some soldiers each week? Yes,. Is there some frustration in the public about electricity and water service? Yes. Are some Saddam Hussein loyalists throughout the land, making trouble? Yes. Has this opened a window for some terrorist mischief? Yes. But that's ALL we hear. No wonder the country is in a mixed mood about Iraq. If you hear about the buildings that are not burning, though, it is a different story indeed.

Rivera is no shill for George W. Bush. But Bush, Condi Rice and Colin Powell together could not have been as effective as Geraldo was Thursday night on the Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes program.

"When I got to Baghdad, I barely recognized it," he began, Comparing his just-completed trip to two others he made during and just after the battle to topple Saddam. "You have over 30,000 Iraqi cops and militiamen already on the job.

This is four months after major fighting stopped. Can you imagine that kind of gearing up in this country? Law and order is better; archaeological sites are being preserved; factories, schools are being guarded." But what about the secondhand griping that the media have been so efficiently relating about power, water and other infrastructure?

"To say that Iraq is being rebuilt is not true," answered Rivera. "Iraq is being built. There was no infrastructure before; we are doing it. I just think the good news is being underestimated and underreported." At this juncture, one must evaluate how to feel about the voices telling us only about the bad news in Iraq, whether from the mouths of news anchors or Democratic presidential hopefuls. At best, they are underinformed. At worst, their one-sided assessments of post-Saddam Iraq are intentional falsehoods for obvious reasons. If I hear one more person mock that "Mission Accomplished" banner beneath which President Bush thanked a shipload of sailors and Marines a few months back, I'm going to spit. That was a reference to the ouster of Saddam's regime, and that mission was indeed accomplished, apparently to the great chagrin of the American left. No one said what followed would be easy or cheap, and that's why the dripping-water torture of the cost and casualty stories is so infuriating. Remember we pay our soldiers whether they are in Iraq or in Ft Bragg, North Carolina. We should all mourn the loss of every fallen soldier. But context cries out to be heard. Our present news media is not performing this task. As some dare to wonder if this might become a Vietnam-like quagmire, I'll remind whoever needs it that most of our 58,000 Vietnam war toll died between 1966 and 1972, during which we lost an average of about 8,000 per year. That's about 22 per day, every day, for thousands of days on end. Let us hear NO MORE Vietnam comparisons. They do not equate. What I hope to hear is more truth, even if we have to wrench it from the mouths of the media and political hacks predisposed to bash the remarkable job we are doing every day in what was not so long ago a totalit! arian wasteland. Local elections are under way across Iraq, Rivera reported. "Where Kurds and Arabs have been battling for decades, things have been settling down. Administrator Paul Bremer is doing a great job." So does Geraldo think his media colleagues are intentionally painting with one side of the brush? "I'm not into conspiracy theories,..but there's just more bang for your buck when you report the GI who got killed rather than the 99 who didn't get killed, who make friends, who helped schedule elections, who helped shops get open for business, who helped traffic flow again. "The vast majority of Iraqis are very happy to have us there. I would like to see a bit more balance." This needs to be reported to the American Public who are presently being duped. I expect the dominant media culture to nitpick and attack Bush, and Democrats to blast him with r! eckless abandon. But when that leads to the willful exclusion of facts that would shine truthful light on the great work of the American armed forces, that level of malice plumbs new depths.

This may have come from FR but I couldn't find it. I wanted to share this information because I have close friends who think President Bush is directly reponsible for the loss of our troups in Iraq, that we have no reason to be there and that the WMD was a scam. It makes me angry when I have to defend our President over and over. Here's an inside scoop that puts all that to rest if the sceptics will just care enough to read this long and informative piece. OK

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.