Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Democrats' General Incompetence
IBD ^ | November 27, 2007

Posted on 11/27/2007 7:42:00 PM PST by Kaslin

Iraq: Democrats can't seem to handle America winning the war, having invested so much in losing. But why enlist as party spokesman a discredited — and disingenuous — general, whom they themselves used to attack?


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, give the Democrats' radio address last weekend. That's beyond puzzling.

Back in 2004, during the investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison abuse flap, Pelosi and other prominent Democrats wanted to see Sanchez's head on a platter. Abu Ghraib was a big reason Sanchez was forced to retire.

Not too long ago, Senate Democratic whip Richard Durbin was comparing U.S. troops to Nazis because of Abu Ghraib. Now Democrats want the highest-ranking general tainted by the episode to be their poster boy.

This month, Pelosi even appeared with Sanchez at a San Antonio fundraiser for a Texas Democratic congressman. Is the Texas native being groomed for a congressional run — or even to be the running mate of whoever wins the Democratic nomination for president next year?

Sanchez has called the Iraq War over which he presided "a nightmare with no end in sight," and has accused the president of failing to devise a victory strategy for it. But his real beef seems to be that the victory strategy entailed the removal of Gen. Sanchez.

In a widely read article in the Armed Forces Journal earlier this year, Army Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, who served in both Iraq and Bosnia, seemed to have Sanchez in mind in criticizing the silence of top brass when things were going wrong in both Iraq and Vietnam (though he made no mention of Sanchez by name).

(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 110th; democratparty; iraq; pelosi; ricardosanchez

1 posted on 11/27/2007 7:42:02 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Pelosi, et al, continue to show their blatant hypocrisy and pathetically weak and useless liberal politics. Wake up America.


2 posted on 11/27/2007 7:44:58 PM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

I feel bad for Sanchez; he has aligned himself with those who maligned him....all for publicity. It makes him look a fool, something I hate to say because he served honorably for so many years and in some of the most difficult days of the war. He has now sold his soul to the democrats and is dissing the troops who once served under him. For that, he has lost my respect.


3 posted on 11/27/2007 7:48:46 PM PST by Laverne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Do you truly expect the Sheep to remember Sanchez and Abu Ghraib? Ask them about past episodes of “Friends”, and they’ll quote you dialogue - but ask them about anything bad about Democrats, and it’s “I cannot recall”...


4 posted on 11/27/2007 7:51:28 PM PST by Old Sarge (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

My worry is that people will be blinded by the prospect of never having to provide for themselves and not wake up.


5 posted on 11/27/2007 7:58:52 PM PST by Perdogg (Elections have consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

Right, the American people has a short attention span, and the media won’t bring up anything inconvenient and remind them. Sanchez has a Spanish surname, so anyone (other than a Democrat) attacking or criticizing him can be called a racist.


6 posted on 11/27/2007 8:03:36 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Sanchez has a Spanish surname, so anyone (other than a Democrat) attacking or criticizing him can be called a racist.


7 posted on 11/27/2007 8:08:33 PM PST by Old Sarge (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

My worry is that people will be blinded by the prospect of never having to provide for themselves and not wake up.
:::::::
This is exactly what the socialists are banking on. The big nanny goverment, which they will devote their lives to (they have not figured that part out yet) will take care of them....like a rat’s rear they will. They only want the absolute power, and once they have that, the people become just like Lenin’s USEFUL IDIOTS. Which many of them are now, in reality. We call them Democrats.


8 posted on 11/27/2007 8:18:27 PM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

My worry is that people will be blinded by the prospect of never having to provide for themselves and not wake up.
:::::::
This is exactly what the socialists are banking on. The big nanny goverment, which they will devote their lives to (they have not figured that part out yet) will take care of them....like a rat’s rear they will. They only want the absolute power, and once they have that, the people become just like Lenin’s USEFUL IDIOTS. Which many of them are now, in reality. We call them Democrats.


9 posted on 11/27/2007 8:18:28 PM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The mistake is try too hard to make sense of everything the Democrats do. It’s not possible.


10 posted on 11/27/2007 8:20:20 PM PST by tear gas (Because of the 22nd Amendment, we are losing President. Bush. Can we afford to lose him now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laverne

...and another sad thing is that he was very right in much of his criticism of President Bush. Thank goodness the president has finally set aside the disastrous Rumsfeld ways and started letting information and recommendations from his mid-level commanders make it up to where it could get enacted. For years, we could have used a surge and victory.


11 posted on 11/27/2007 8:39:07 PM PST by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Laverne

I agree with you. Sanchez looks like a fool. Those who risked their lives to support this country, do indeed have a genuine right to speak even if they are wrong, and that includes Sanchez. My grandfather was a WWII combat vet, and we didn’t see eye to eye on some things. But my grandfather wouldn’t think much of an officer like Sanchez who undermines men who are still in harm’s way.

Sanchez has done a disservice to those who served under him by challenging the POTUS during war time. Even if he is retired. Just because he is not in the chain of command anymore doesn’t mean he is not judged as an officer, a patriot and a man. This is a self-serving act that shames the men who risked their lives for this fool. Sanchez is apparently the Demonrat’s convenient fool for the week.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one, and everybody knows one.


12 posted on 11/27/2007 10:10:59 PM PST by ChinaThreat (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The parallel in President Bush's removal of Sanchez to Abraham Lincoln's firing of the ineffective Gen. George McClellan during the Civil War is remarkable.

Actually Bush already has his own McClellan. Not George but Scott.

13 posted on 11/27/2007 10:32:09 PM PST by paudio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Unfortunately I agree with you. Rumsfeld’s insistence on smaller, lighter and faster force protracted our involvement in Iraq. I was initially a supporter of Rumsfeld, and I don’t completely fault him in his approach for various reasons, but history has proven him wrong in his strategic approach to Iraq. His ideas and choices in the Afghan war were brilliant. Too brilliant. His success in that conflict led him to believe it could be applied in Iraq with the same results.

Rumsfeld really makes me think of McNamara. Both are brilliant thinkers with an extraordinary gift for managing behemoths like the US Armed Forces. But his insistence on pushing for a lighter force, in conflict with his generals recommendations, created a political, social and institutional vacuum in Iraq after a brilliant combat operation.

What he did as Def. Sec. during the Afghan conflict though is simply breathtaking and he should be given historical credit for that. The initial liberation of Iraq was also a brilliant combat operation. Unfortunately, his cavalier attitude towards his commander’s troop level recommendations during the planning phase caused quite a bit of consternation among the officer corp involved in the planning of the liberation. This resulted a strategic flaw that protracted the operation.

We will still win. It will just take us longer. A lot of folks on this board want to bash Powell. He was right about a lot things. Good officers don’t challenge the POTUS publicly when they are active. And good men don’t undermine their comrades during a time of war. Sanchez didn’t learn that in Officer Training School i guess. They need to require that on the exit exam at West Point I suppose.


14 posted on 11/27/2007 10:37:14 PM PST by ChinaThreat (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson