Posted on 10/18/2007 3:11:47 AM PDT by The Raven
Over the past weekend there were front-page accounts everywhere of Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez's description of the war in Iraq as a "nightmare." The New York Times led its story this way:
"In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top commander of American forces there called the Bush administration's handling of the war 'incompetent' and said the result was 'a nightmare with no end in sight.' " Gen. Sanchez said this last Friday to a gathering of reporters and editors in Washington who cover military affairs. It was a dramatic denunciation from the man who led U.S. forces in Iraq from 2003 to 2004.
On Monday my colleague John Fund wrote an item for the Journal editorial page's daily email newsletter, Political Diary, noting that most of the news reports of the speech had failed to note that Gen. Sanchez had also severely criticized the press's performance in Iraq. "For some of you," Gen. Sanchez said to the reporters, "the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas."
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Try him for treason.
Try who for treason?
Did you read the article, or just the headline? General Sanchez says the same things that are said by 90% of the people on this board. Including, I’ll wager, you. Don’t try him for treason, give him a medal.
And he condemned the press for misrepresenting facts to the American public and proceeded to undercut their neo nazi misrepresentaion of facts. But the leftist dominated press did not tell the whole story, they took one sentence and used it to destroy Bush, who I am not happy with because he tried to work with the evil left of America, as Rudy or Mitt or McCain will also and therefore bring our nation to its end with neo nazi political correctness.
Please find out the facts of ALL HE SAID and then decide what he meant. Sanchez has been misrepresented by the neo nazi left of America.
The U.S. officer corps is aware of this. While no one is talking about a stab in the back, they may conclude that the home front and its institutions are unable to, or will not, protect their back.
• Congress and politics. “Since 2003, the politics of war have been characterized by partisanship as the Republican and Democratic parties struggled for power in Washington. . . . National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from devising effective, executable, supportable solutions. These partisan struggles have led to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had greater priority than our national security objectives.”
nothing treasonable about the truth.......this war should have been fought, starting with saturation bombing, not surgical strikes.....we didn't surgical strike Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.....That kind of terror WORKS
During WW II we were ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. the politics of both houses are despicable
I repeat, nothing treasonable there at least no more treasonable than MacArthur defying the wishes of Truman and saying his peace about attacking the chicoms and using Nukes if necessary.
I propose deportation and Turkish prison for those that post without reading the article.
What? That's not the subject of this thread? Oh...never mind.
Exactly !
You see how the press of all western cultures has degenerated into communist misrepresentives of facts by taking one statement and ignoring the rest of the context. A ploy used by the devil also, how can his minions not do the same.
Please. We did saturation bombing in WWII mainly because of the limitations in accuracy of our weapons. I agree that would should have gone all out in Iraq, though.
Sanchez was 'filtered'... by the DBM. It's part of their mission in 'managing-the-news'... along with outright scams such as the forged, Bush memo's and Valerie Plame's 'outing'.
America is getting spoon-fed a false reality by a compromised, socialist media... and most are too lazy... or too dumbed-down to question it.
Try whom? For what?
Since you don’t have a profile I don’t know your background. You might want to read mine.
“Taco” Sanchez (as he is known in the military) has done nothing but tell the unvarnished truth. Something that was NOT done during Vietnam and we know where that one ended up.
The difference that the military knows about Iraq is this is the main event not a side show like Vietnam. Yes, I call it a side show and I was there and lost friends. In Vietnam the real war was against the old Soviet Union and its allies. As such there was territory and people we could, and did, “hold at risk”.
Iraq is the opening battle against a religion that wants to destroy us. Unlike Vietnam there is no territory or population we can “hold at risk” to contain the war. We either win in Iraq NOW or the war will spread.
“Taco” is absolutely correct that State has never “played” in this war. The military breaks the enemy’s power base so State can go in a rebuild a more friendly state afterwards. See Germany, Europe, and Japan 60 odd years ago. State didn’t play in Vietnam and isn’t playing today.
Don’t start me about Congress.
And the Press should be using green ink and praying to Mecca 5 times a day. Sixty years ago I don’t know to whom they were praying but they did read Mao’s little red book a lot.
Does any one from State or the media want to debate this?
I hope you were being sarcastic. Because if not, you are one of the dumbest sonofabitches I’ve seen on FR in quite some time.
Did you read the article, or just the headline? General Sanchez says the same things that are said by 90% of the people on this board. Including, I’ll wager, you. Don’t try him for treason, give him a medal.
-
yes but they were said 2003-2004, not now when the surge is working
>> Please. We did saturation bombing in WWII mainly because of the limitations in accuracy of our weapons.
Not true.
Where the targets were military in nature, that is partially true. Even then, we really didn’t do “saturation” bombing as much as “drop more bombs than needed”, because bombing technology was less sophisticated then.
But the firebombings of cities (Japan and Germany both) were BY DESIGN large-scale saturation bombings for the purpose of terrorizing civilians, with an indirect military goal: demoralize the enemy.
Note that the Germans did the same thing to England; and Japan engaged in large-scale terror operations against civilian populations (Nanking, Manila, many others). The “rules” were a bit different then: civilian casualties were strategic, not merely collateral.
Note also that the requirement for unconditional surrender imposed by the Allies had the potential side effect of turning entire populations of civilians into “soldiers” who were expected to fight to the death with whatever they had handy. So in a sense, under these conditions the civilian population WAS a target of military importance — especially in Japan. (Hitler also wanted the German civilians to fight to the death, but they had more sense than to obey him.)
We got a taste of “fight to the death” resistance on Okinawa, where 60,000 to 70,000 Japanese soldiers were killed — along with **150,000** Okinawan civilians, in many cases pressed to fight or be shot in the back by the Japanese.
After Okinawa, extrapolating the same sort of battle to the invasion of Japan, who could possibly blame Truman for ordering the dropping the atomic bombs? They actually saved lives.
bttt
The irony is the press does not even realize their reporting of what he said proved his point.
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.