Americans `conned' into backing war, ex-general asserts

Chicago Tribune ^ | Dec. 31, 2003 | Thomas Ricks

[CWOJackson]

"Was the order to dock in Yemen lawful?"

It was utter insanity and demonstrated a gross callousness for the safety of this ship and it's crew.

[af_vet_1981]

For example, why has the Bush administration failed to make the same links between anti-American terrorist attacks (i.e., Salman Pak) and Iraq as you?

They know we have many enemies who are actively defending the Axis of Evil and Islamic terrorists trying to kill millions of us. They know we have envious and ambitious rivals who want to topple Bush so they can take back the reins of power and are perfectly willing to play the stooge for the enemy.

Some of the war will be fought publicly and some of it privately. Fortunately we have a President now that understands the threat and will act before there is a mushroom cloud.

[CWOJackson]

You sure are doing a great song and dance trying to cover Zinni's arse for his gross negligence in CAUSING the Cole disaster.

[af_vet_1981]

He is doing a song and dance. I wonder who calls the tune.

[CWOJackson]

The Zinni two step? Zinni was pretty good at that himself. At the Senate hearings on the USS Cole, when he was asked about the thread that swimmers and suicide boats could present to a ship sitting tied to a dock, utter defenseless, he said he would have to defer to someone with more knowledge them him on that.

No Shite!

[Cold Heat]

And cost us seventeen lives in the long run

Yes it did, and what did we do to correct it?

Nothing. We hired lawyers!

GWB is a totally different president. he is taking this animal head on and is winning.

Though, likely we will be looking over our shoulder for a generation, we are not laying down and taking it on the chin.

This is a good thing.

Now, to your questioning of motives, you have all the information you need here in the archives.

Many of the relationships that you claim the administration has not made and should have made are in deed in evidence.

The fact that the admin has not publically made them is expained by the nature and type of evidence. The evidence, while actionable intel, is not the kind of thing that you can take to a court.

Fortunately for you and I, and our loved ones. Actionable intel is all we need. We do not fight our wars in the courts or in the court of public opinion.

We fired those lawyers when we got rid of Clinton.

Lawyers and courts will lose this war if we let them get involved.

We cannot give animals rights. All they will do will be to dirty the court room and kill the witnesses.(after they crap on the floor)

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Just because some higher level administration officials hadn't read an outdate plan doesn't mean that the military wasn't aware of it.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Americans are a people unwilling to kill enough of our mortal enemies to ever win decisively before domestic politics assures ugly outcomes.

[Cold Heat]

Nukes, contrary to democrat BS were never cited as a critical concern.

Due to Iraq's past and the absence of inspectors, some theorized that they could reconstitute what the inspector had removed within a years or so.

We had no Intel to prove or disprove the theory but we knew they were trying to get equipment for the purpose.

Saddam, on the other hand, went to North Korea on a shopping trip. Too bad the Koreans screwed him royal. {hehehe}

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

What had changed in Iraq from 1999 to 2002?

For one thing, a whole bunch of US ground troops were on their way to the region.

[Cold Heat]

What had changed in Iraq from 1999 to 2002?

Iraq did not change, our military capabilities and assets changed.

Our knowledge that bombing from 40,000 ft changed.(after the total waste in Kosovo, because they did not hit squat except civillians and the Chinease embassy)

[Cold Heat]

And they were wrong.

And they figuered they might be so they never pressed nukes as a main issue. It was a side concern and no intel to prove it.