Posted on 11/19/2006 8:34:17 AM PST by TheTruthAintPretty
The weekend after the statue of Saddam Hussein fell, Kenneth Adelman and a couple of other promoters of the Iraq war gathered at Vice President Cheney's residence to celebrate. The invasion had been the "cakewalk" Adelman predicted. Cheney and his guests raised their glasses, toasting President Bush and victory. "It was a euphoric moment," Adelman recalled.
Forty-three months later, the cakewalk looks more like a death march, and Adelman has broken with the Bush team. He had an angry falling-out with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this fall. He and Cheney are no longer on speaking terms. And he believes that "the president is ultimately responsible" for what Adelman now calls "the debacle that was Iraq."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Et tu Neocons, as they jump madly from the sinking ship they built and swim quickly to suck up to the winning Democrats. There they will peddle themselves as Neolibs, the conservative shtick no more.
More worthless lectures, proving the adage, "Those who can't, teach".
I can't remember the name of the battle, but there was a battle during the Civil War where the Confederacy lost nearly 6000 troops in roughly 2 hours...
These people would have had the US surrendering after Pearl Harbor, after at least a short period of faking support for the war.
Mark
btt
We have to annihilate the militas on both sides and the terrorists irregardless of the collateral damage or tell Maliki he no longer has our confidence and unless he allows us to DO WHATEVER it takes to put down Mookie and the insurgency we will consider his refusal an invitation to DEPART IRAQ.
We won the war but the duly elected Iraq Government has lost the peace.
My piece on these "Neo Culpas" will appear in the New York Sun tomorrow.
PING!
Solutions:
As an illustration, let's assume that after winning the initial war and getting rid of Saddam, 140,000 Chinese or Russian troops took over to stabilize Iraq. They are by no means equivalent to our troops in quality or armaments. Let's also assume that the Chinese and the Russians didn't have any accompanying airforce or hi-tech equipment, just their poorly equipped ground troops.
This insurgency would have been over in short order with Iran and Syria sitting on the sidelines without ANY interference. They wouldn't dare fooling around with the "wrong" crowd!
Why is that? Would they do BETTER than the only superpower? The answer is yes because they would have served the hearts & minds with a bullet each and NO PC in sight.
If you want more suggestions click the URL below, a post I wrote a while ago, with some suggestions of how to deal with the situation in Iraq.
What d'ya think?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725530/posts?page=74#74
Sounds like about 95% of Washingtonians/Beltway residents. I feel sorry for the other 5%.
Think about it, you recommend we do what they're already doing. That would make us "own" all of the deaths on all sides.
So long as Mookie isn't standing at the end of the day...
We won the war but the duly elected Iraq Government has lost the peace.
They're not tired of killing and dying *yet*. The US expelled, sometimes brutally, about one third of our population before we could form our government.
I think you need to stop reading leftist blogs.
These are the times that try men's souls.
IOW, when the going got tough these clowns ran for cover.
Many here will come to Bush's defense and criticize the critics.
Who is right?
I suggest the answer is in the FreeRepublic archives.
If you remember what was being written here by Bush supporters just two+ years ago when there was any criticism of the war. It was Bush's genius of a go slow master plan. Syria and Iran would be taken care of (always soon) so that they can't supply the terrorists fighting us in Iraq. All the potential to victory that was just around the corner when Bush would get going.
All BS. When Bush held hands with the Saudis, when he appointed appeaser Rice for SOS, it was all over. A PC "war" followed.
Today's critics are right. I'm one of them.
I think you might the sides here mixed up. The Unoin army got their asses kicked at the first battle of Bull Run. That was the first battle of the war just outside of Washington DC. Lee was stunned when the Union army broke and ran. The Confederate chased the Union army and the civilian spectators back to the edge of town.
There is a difference between urban and mountain fighting. The Russians would have civilians to retaliate against when they harbor terrorists in a city but couldn't have done the same to find them in caves.
You don't have to underline your argument by accusing me of whatever you please.
Wise up and behave yourself!
Have a good day.
That doesn't mean we have to like it.
Unfortunately some Freepers are still in the "Bush can do no wrong" and "It's all the durn librul media's fault" mode. It's frustrating, but I do think that for most Freepers the reality of the incompetence this administration showed has set in. Team Bush screwed up royally by appointing yes-men like Bremer and Rummy to run things.
I disagree with you- and the critics- about Rumsfeld.
The US military- with Rumsfeld in charge-could have successfully accomplished any mission ordered. Where given carte blanche, to topple Saddam, the military performed magnificently.
If Rumsfeld would have been found incompetent we will never know.
What occurred was a loss of political will from the White House under pressure from State and their UN, EU, etc allies.
The military - including its civilian leadership- just takes orders from the "Decider". And the orders were not to do what it takes to "win".
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.