“I think once you are retired, you have a responsibility to the nation, to your oath, to the country, to state your opinion.”
No General, if you had any honor and you believed yesterday, what you are saying today, you should have been a man and stepped up and resigned. You did not. You wanted to wait till you were safely retired and receiving your pension. That is not responsibility. It is something less than honorable.
Sanchez, former U.S. commander in Iraq, calls war 'a nightmare with no end in sight'
By Jeff Schogol, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Saturday, October 13, 2007
ARLINGTON, Va. – The former top commander of U.S. troops in Iraq slammed the handling of the war and gave a bleak assessment of the current situation in Iraq.
“There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight,” retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez told a convention of military journalists on Friday.
Sanchez commanded U.S. troops in Iraq from June 2003 to July 2004. His controversial tenure saw the capture of Saddam Hussein and the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi government, but also the rise of the insurgency and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
While cleared of any wrongdoing, one report found that Sanchez and his deputy, "failed to ensure proper staff oversight of detention and interrogation operations."
Abu Ghraib was a sore subject Friday for Sanchez, who lambasted the media for using phrases like "dictatorial and somewhat dense," "liar" and "torturer" to describe him.
"I also refused to talk to the European Stars and Stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany, for their extreme bias and single-minded focus on Abu Ghraib," he said.
But Sanchez reserved most of his venom Friday for U.S. officials, saying the U.S. government still has not brought all the resources needed to win in Iraq.
“From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration’s latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize the political, economic and military power,” Sanchez said.
Continuing changes to military strategy alone will not achieve victory, rather it will only “stave off defeat,” he said.
“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable.”
Even now, the U.S. government has yet to launch a concerted effort to come up with a strategy to win in Iraq, Sanchez said. Such a strategy should involve political reconciliation among Iraqis, building up the Iraqi security forces and getting Iraq’s regional partners.
Sanchez acknowledged that U.S. officials have adopted that idea, but added that they do not have the necessary nonmilitary resources to carry it out.
“And it is not synchronized, and there is no enforcement of the strategy,” he said.
Sanchez said he realized there were serious challenges to the U.S. military’s strategy in Iraq as soon as he became the top military commander in Iraq.
Asked why he did not speak out about his concerns, Sanchez said general officers take an oath to carry out the orders of the president while in uniform.
“The last thing that America wants, the last thing that you want, is for currently serving general officers to stand up against our political leadership,” he said.
However, general officers do have the option of stepping down if they disagree with the country's leaders.
Sanchez said he felt he could not resign and go public with his reservations while he was in Iraq, because he feared that move could further jeopardize troops serving there.
“I think once you are retired, you have a responsibility to the nation, to your oath, to the country, to state your opinion,” he said.
Your sentiment in the first paragraph is spot on.ReplyDelete
How nice that, several year into a padded, comfortable retirement, the estimable LTG Sanchez, at long last, dares to provide what he deems an honest assessment on the Iraq war.
The assessment would have appeared more sincere if Sanchez dared to offer the public a candid analysis of his own flawed performance.
if he couched "this administration has failed to employ and synchronize the political, economic and military power” with statements like "I had neither the training nor the aptitude to take on such a complex nation building endeavor like the one I faced in Iraq", or "I must admit that my opinions on the Iraq war are clouded by feelings of personal failure and bitterness at the abrupt ending of my military career in that damnable conflict.
Had the comfortably retired general offered a few of these honest, insightful self assessments, he might have elicited some pity or respect in this corner.
Alas, no dice.
You folks are jumping the gun. He served 33 years, and only the last 3 1/2 years were in the Iraq War. In the military you get a pension after 20 years, and if Sanchez went out after 30 years (just when the Iraq War was going down the toilet) so he could speak his mind without raising the objections of the righties, he would have taken only a 6% hit on the level of benefits he obtained at 33 years. So what this really is about is you don't like what the messenger is saying so you want to shoot him.ReplyDelete
I am puzzled as well by you vehement reaction to his public statements. When you were in the service and you disagreed with what you saw about you did you resign? Did you go public with your objections? Did you voice your objections through the 'proper channels' (i.e. not calling the local news rag with your 'story')?ReplyDelete
You beat me to it, Ms T.ReplyDelete
The General would have been "comfortable" reegardless.
I was going to say, Iraq did not, would not have been an "Abrubt end" to the career of a LTG.
It was a poorly managed affair, right down the line. I recall many missteps and and their exposure. Then again, I was accused of wearing a burka in those long ago days. To bad I was so right and the name callers so wrong.
Those folk do not post the blogs much anyomore.
So, so sad.
Gotta keep digging, though
Yes, ash, after I finished my six years I walked away fom an inept military establishment.ReplyDelete
The further from the "front" the more inane the US military was, back in the day.
So it goes, the General tells his tales, as do many public servants upon their retirement.
Not a lot of history or tradition, in the US military of resigning in protest to policy.
You soldier on until ETS.
FTA, all the way
He's a pretentious asshole in the long tradition of General Officer Pretentious Assholes. Wesley Clark comes immediately to mind.ReplyDelete
He was an "incompetent" asshole, strutting around HQ with his cute little 9 mil in his shoulder holster while his subordinates were busily "fcking the pooch."
If Gen P actually turns out to be anything but an asshole it will put him in a rather select company. The last one that pops in my head was a guy named Patton.
Oh wait, there's the guy that talks on Fox News that lit up the Iraqis after the "cease fire." They had to either give him a medal, and make him a General, or Court Martial him. Thankfully they took approach number one. He's as dumb as a box o' rocks, but he's not an asshole.
Piss on a bunch of Generals.
Here is some more Iraq news, seems it has gotten so Peaceful that most of the civilian deaths that are reported are caused by US.ReplyDelete
Car Bomb in Baghdad Kills 4, Wounds 15 Voice of America
Inquiry after US air strikes kill 15 women and children
Then there is ...
BAGHDAD, Oct. 12 — Fresh accounts of the Blackwater shooting last month, given by three rooftop witnesses and by American soldiers who arrived shortly after the gunfire ended, cast new doubt Friday on statements by Blackwater guards that they were responding to armed insurgents when Iraqi investigators say 17 Iraqis were killed at a Baghdad intersection.
The three witnesses, Kurds on a rooftop overlooking the scene, said they had observed no gunfire that could have provoked the shooting by Blackwater guards. American soldiers who arrived minutes later found shell casings from guns used normally by American contractors, as well as by the American military.
The Kurdish witnesses are important because they had the advantage of an unobstructed view and because, collectively, they observed the shooting at Nisour Square from start to finish, free from the terror and confusion that might have clouded accounts of witnesses at street level. Moreover, because they are pro-American, their accounts have a credibility not always extended to Iraqi Arabs, who have been more hostile to the American presence.
Their statements, made in interviews with The New York Times, appeared to challenge a State Department account that a Blackwater vehicle had been disabled in the shooting and had to be towed away. Since those initial accounts, Blackwater and the State Department have consistently refused to comment on the substance of the case.
The Kurdish witnesses said that they saw no one firing at the guards at any time during the event, an observation corroborated by the forensic evidence of the shell casings. Two of the witnesses also said all the Blackwater vehicles involved in the shooting drove away under their own power.
The Kurds, who work for a political party whose building looks directly down on the square, said they had looked for any evidence that the American security guards were responding to an attack, but found none.
“I call it a massacre,” said Omar H. Waso, one of the witnesses and a senior official at the party, which is called the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. “It is illegal. They used the law of the jungle.”
Many of the American soldiers were similarly appalled. While Blackwater has said its guards were attacked by automatic gunfire, the soldiers did not find any casings from the sort of guns typically used by insurgents or by Iraqi security forces, according to an American military official briefed on the findings of the unit that arrived at the scene about 20 minutes after the Blackwater convoy left. That analysis of forensic evidence at the scene was first reported Friday by The Washington Post.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the matter, added that soldiers found clear evidence that the Blackwater guards had not been threatened and had also opened fire on civilians who tried to flee the scene. “The cartridges and casings we found were all associated with coalition forces and contractors,” the official said. “The only brass we found where somebody fired weapons were ones from contractors.”
After the shootings, American soldiers found plenty of empty bullet casings 7.62 millimeters in diameter. Had the 7.62-millimeter casings been from an AK-47 rifle, a common insurgent and Iraqi police weapon, they would have been 39 millimeters long. Had they been from a PKC machine gun, another common Iraqi weapon, they would have been 54 millimeters long. The soldiers did not find any of those, the military official said.
That new Romney ad must be Great (Gateway Pundit has it up.) The Dems are Screeching like Banshees.ReplyDelete
"Oh wait, there's the guy that talks on Fox News that lit up the Iraqis after the "cease fire." They had to either give him a medal, and make him a General, or Court Martial him. Thankfully they took approach number one. He's as dumb as a box o' rocks, but he's not an asshole."ReplyDelete
You're thinking of Barry McCaffrey. Though I would call him far from dumb.
That doesn't sound good, Rat; but, I'm still going to wait for the fat lady. I don't trust the Kurds any more than I trust the rest of them. They ALL have their own agendas.ReplyDelete
Well, what kind of 7.62 round would the Blackwater guys be using? I know they're not running around Baghdad with M-14's.
There's something "hinkey" about that story.ReplyDelete
7.62 NATO, rufus.ReplyDelete
These guys are contractors and carry NATO.
Most likely M60s or the SEAL version, shortened and chopped.
What's "hinkey" is that they fired up a bunch of civilians and took no incoming.ReplyDelete
The Army would have found the enemy brass, if it had been there.
If it wasn't a dirty deal they'd not be having Federal employees riding herd on them, with every mission.ReplyDelete
The truth may never be made public, but the results, the chaperones and perhaps even letting Blackwater's contract lapse.
Carrying an M60 around in an SUV? I don't know. Seems kinda unlikely.ReplyDelete
They got there 20 minutes after the shootemup, Rat. The Bad Guys could have policed their brass. I know it sounds unlikely, but a bunch of ex-Seals and Special Forces "panicking" and firing wild because a car backfired, somewhere, sounds just as unlikely, to me.
Like I said, I think I'll wait. Murtha didn't, and now he's getting sued.
I guess they could have been carrying mini fourteens. A lot of people like that weapon, but it seems like they would have ammunition issues.ReplyDelete
This M60 version rufus.ReplyDelete
The SEAL Special, right up the alley of Spec Op "contracting cowboy", riding for the "Brand".
It's a radical weapon, if you're not humpin' but rather riding around in SUVs.
Take off the bi-pod. it'll swing and fling ...
The M60E4/Mk 43 Mod. 1 7.62mm light machine gun represents significant reliability and user-friendly improvements over the M60, M60D, M60E3 machine guns.
Reliable and user-friendly for dependability and ease of use.
Light and compact for maneuverability and transportability.
CNC lightweight Aluminum forearm/pistol grip for improved control and protection during firing. New integrated fire control system bracket gives the weapon 24 hour capability (U.S. standard foot or Picatinny rail; Stanag mount)
Stellite®-lined, sustained fire barrels (short and long) and assault barrels; for application flexibility and 500,000+ rounds receiver life.
Rate of fire at a lethal volume, yet helps to conserve ammunition.
Dual safety features for maximum user safety: ambidextrous safety switch, and a weapon loaded, not charged feature.
Major components are directly interchangeable with other M60 configurations.
Easy conversion from earlier M60 configurations to M60E4, at unit level.
Employed by U.S. Navy Seals
That is what they used,
betcha $100 digital dollars
One in every SUV, if it were me.ReplyDelete
Brings a world of hurt with you, in your favorite caliber.
In Suburban, plenty of room for light artillery, compared to the M4s and their 5.56. Can't blast through block walls and heavy doors with 5.56, sure can with an 7.62 NATO.
The founder of Blackwater was a SEAL. He'd be a believer ...
Rat, I've seen M60's. I've seen so many M60's I don't ever want to see another one. At least, not up close and personal. And, I'm still telling you I don't believe they would be carrying an m60 around in an SUV.ReplyDelete
Not quite the mini-gun that Jesse Ventura humped in "Predator", but about as close as you can get, in real life.ReplyDelete
Look, they might have been. I don't have a clue. BUT, there were about a kazillion different AK variants made, also. I'll still wait.ReplyDelete
A Pooch With Real HeartReplyDelete
You never hung with SEALs then, rufus. It's all about maximazing fire superiority from a small number of operatives. It's a religion with 'em, the ones we trained with. They were a step beyond Army SF, late 79 through 82.ReplyDelete
It wieghes in at 18 lbs.
Twice a loaded M16.
You'd rather carry a M16 varient, while road hunting in Baghdad?
Really, after all your 5.56 complaints, all these years, you'd not drive around with a real machinegun?
And would not expect Navy SEALs to, in varience with their SOP, you really believe it?ReplyDelete
according to the New York Times:ReplyDelete
..."General Sanchez said he was convinced that the American effort in Iraq was failing the day after he took command, in June 2003. Asked why he waited until nearly a year after his retirement to voice his concerns publicly, he responded that it was not the place of active-duty officers to challenge lawful orders from the civilian authorities."...
This reminds me of Robert McNamara, except it is worse. This piece of shit has an obligation not to get his men killed and maimed for stupidity. If things were so FUBAR, the day he got there, and he knew it, then one can assume that he had other ideas. It sounds a lot like "Jawohl, mein Kommandant." He makes me sick.
Here is another thought Who was that possum sniffer that used to hang around here?ReplyDelete
If Sanchez knew then Casey knew, too.ReplyDelete
They would have had to have discussed it. How to improve the situation, tacticly.
Or maybe that was why they spent so much time building bases, instead of training Iraqis.
Or not knowing which Iraqi to train. If "they" all knew that disbanding the Iraqi Army was an error, approved by the President ...
Bob w had a link to a pdf copy of the young Captain explaining the Anbar Awakening, about a year ago, now. Captain got himself killed, in Iraq. But he had the solution, which was local and tribal, in varience to US strategic goals of diwempowering the local tribal leaders.
By changing the political goal, by redefining success, the US has been able to begin to cut it's losses.
Great clip. That put me in good enough mood to go to bed. Nite all.ReplyDelete
I listened to the press conference of the general on c-span. Look for it under " recent program."ReplyDelete
General Sanchez is clearly a troubled man. I find myself agreeing with most of what he says. I just cannot understand him not speaking out in 2003 when he states that he saw the problem. Perhaps that is what troubles him today.
Where is the dividing line between loyalty to your office and loyalty to the trust between a leader and his subordinates? Sanchez, as DR points out, must have been just one of many officers that saw this mess developing.
Listen to one reporter at 43 minutes into this interview. The reporter was a trooper under Sanchez and directly asks him about his responsibility to his troops, when he knew what he says he knew. Sanchez gives a blunt contrite answer.
Sanchez is emphatic that serving American General Officers cannot stand up and challenge political leadership. He states that they can resign or retire. He does say the speaking out should occur after retiring.
Sanchez did not name those he blames but hinted that he will name names later. I think that remark in itself is disingenuous. Why would he protect these political leaders at this time? He does say that it is necessary to win the war.
What a mess.
This topic is worthy of more discussion. If Whit has no objection, I think we ought to let it run a little longer than usual.ReplyDelete
I'll leave that decision up to Whit and the Directors.
“The Charge of the Light Brigade” (Alfred Lord Tennyson)ReplyDelete
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!” he said.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred. Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismay’d?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Some one had blunder’d.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley’d and thunder’d;
Storm’d at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flash’d all their sabres bare,
Flash’d as they turn’d in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder’d.
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro’ the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel’d from the sabre-stroke
Shatter’d and sunder’d.
Then they rode back, but not,
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley’d and thunder’d;
Storm’d at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro’ the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder’d.
Honor the charge they made!
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
They gave 'em a Mission that did not qualify under the doctrine they'd trained their whole careers with.ReplyDelete
33 years plus one gets the LTG into the Army in 1973 or 74.
By '78 SecDef Wineberger championed the formulation of Doctrine that would become the bedrock of US miltary intervention policy for the entirety of the LTG's carrer, until 2003.
When Mr Cheney counciled that
"9/11 Changed Everything".
Now advocates, according to See-more Hersh, extending the "9/11 Changed Everything" miltiary strategy into Iran.
But the good Generals, loyal and true, do the best they can to accomplish what of the mission they could.
They certainly did not commit crimes to the "I was only following orders" Standard of Analogy.
Desert Rat: But the good Generals, loyal and true, do the best they can to accomplish what of the mission they could.ReplyDelete
Deuce, who is really astonishing me with this topic, claims that Sanchez ramained quiet during the Iraq War, despite his misgivings, so he could max out his pension. He retired almost a year ago, on November 1, 2006. In November of 2004 Bush won re-election because the war had not gone to shit yet. Many people say the February 2006 bombing of the al-Askari Mosque was the "Tet" moment in this war. William F. Buckley Jr., Mister Private Property, wrote a Cronkitesque piece the following day that the war was unwinnable. That means Lt. General Sanchez had a window of exactly eight months to decide there was no way to turn things around and resign before shooting his mouth off. 2164th is saying he wanted to stay in those last eight months to squeeze the last penny out of the retirement system!!
Ash: I am puzzled as well by you vehement reaction to his public statements. When you were in the service and you disagreed with what you saw about you did you resign?ReplyDelete
He was in command when the abuse of prisoners occurred at Abu Ghraib prison. Instead of stepping down at that time, Sanchez put the blame instead on a few individuals of the lowest rank, who went to the brig. Some people (Rush, possibly Deuce) condition a man's honor on what he says after he gets out of the service. I say a man's honor is based solely on the merit of that service.
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who served a tumultuous year as commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq, retired from the Army on Wednesday, calling his career a casualty of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. He said for a story in The Monitor in McAllen, Texas,
"that's the key reason, the sole reason, that I was forced to retire. I was essentially not offered another position in either a three-star or four-star command." He had been a candidate to become the next commander of U.S. Southern Command. But he was passed over after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal exploded into an international controversy. Sanchez has not been accused of any misconduct but has been criticized by some for not doing more to avoid mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.
If you watch the c-span program, it is obvious Sanchez ia a very troubled man. At one point he admits to losing 800 men. He says that after he left Iraq, he looked at every phpto and read every bio. Maybe he wanted that next star and his motivation was pure ambition. He claims that the system demands soldiers follow all lawful orders and the time to ask questions and express doubts is after retirement. A General has an obligation to his superiors. He admits that the civilians, so far un-named, were inept and wrong. He recognized that in 2003. He admits to that.ReplyDelete
He goes on and praises those who he is charged to lead. Their fate is different. They die or are maimed for little purpose other than saving what or who?
I am not so naive as to be astonished by the facts of the topic. I was never so driven by ambition or enamored with authority. I am astonished by those who are.
Ash poses an interesting question. What would I do standing in his boots? What should a person do?
T, your point is that had Sanchez received his fourth star, he would be less troubled, or his troubling would be in remission? Could be. Is that better or worse?ReplyDelete
Getting back to the c-span talk by Sanchez, his entire opening statement is a harsh rebuke of the press and how the Iraq war is being reported. Not much is being reported about that at all. No surprise there.ReplyDelete
2164th: T, your point is that had Sanchez received his fourth star, he would be less troubled, or his troubling would be in remission? Could be. Is that better or worse?ReplyDelete
I feel he should have retired voluntarily in the immediate aftermath of Abu Grahib. He said he was forced to retire by not being offered another billet. Otherwise he wanted to continue to serve. I do not think he is a dishonorable man. I agree with his assessment of the fiasco in Iraq, and I honor his keeping with tradition that military men are not supposed to influence the civilians who exercise Constitutional authority over them by running to the media during active duty. I disagree with your assessment that he made a purely fiscal calculation to string out his term of service to get a cushy pension.
2164th: ...his entire opening statement is a harsh rebuke of the press and how the Iraq war is being reported. Not much is being reported about that at all.ReplyDelete
The Weekly Standard on censoring Iraq: Why are there so few reporters with American troops in combat? Don't blame the media.
I get all my Iraq news from Rachel Maddow's "Life During Wartime" segment, that kicks off every show. The rest of the media just wants to talk about O.J., or Ann Coulter, or whether John Edwards slept around on his wife.
Dr. Sanchez says the man is sick but I see precious little in the way of a precise prescription for a cure.But he says we can't leave an unhealthy environment, would be unhealthy for us in the longer term. What he offers in the way of a cure seem to be all the old prescriptions--political reconciliation, synchronization of political, economic, military power etc. What's he think we ought to do exactly? Says we shouldn't leave now.ReplyDelete
The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals.ReplyDelete
America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East. If this occurs it would have significant adverse effects on the international community. Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy we must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis maximum ability to exercise their soveriegnty in achieving a solution.ReplyDelete
All right, but what exactly does this mean? 'American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseable future'--'we must move to minimize that force presence'--'allow the Iraqis maximum ability to exercise their soveriegnty'--?--exactly what to do?
Keep on digging, bob.ReplyDelete
The "Way Forard" is always defined by the Goals that are going to be obtained.
When the objective is political, the route is not military.
Using a hammer when a scalpel is needed.
They say though that if the only tool in the kit is a hammer, all the problems begin to be look like nails
The shovel is blunt, the soil hard, Rat. We're going hunting today. You folks all have a good day. Idaho will inevitably lose another football game today, too.ReplyDelete
That means, bob. truth be known, we continue to draw down, slowly through the end of '08, down to around 100,000 bodies at the first of the '09.ReplyDelete
The withdrawa; continues at a slow pace, until the '09 Iraqi Elections. With the pace of pull out accelerating after that.
Down to a residual presence force of a size, yet to be determined, of about 50,000 troops, garrisoned in those big bases we built. By Jun '10. Seven years of Iraq, spun that we've won, saved from defeat by the democrats.
Seems the Turks went "Old School" in their attempts to derail the Genocide theme being adopted by the US.ReplyDelete
Inside Report: Turkey's Lobbyist
By Robert Novak
WASHINGTON -- Former Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, a registered lobbyist for Turkey, failed several months ago to get his successor as top House Democrat, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to withdraw her support from a long-pending resolution condemning alleged Turkish genocide of Armenians in 1915.
The Bush administration had urged Congress not to offend Turkey, a U.S. ally, but the measure passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday. Pelosi has pledged House action this year on the genocide resolution that in the past was blocked by Dennis Hastert, her Republican predecessor as speaker.
In addition to Gephardt, the Turkish government also hired a top Republican lobbyist: Bob Livingston, former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
The US Congress, following the Frenchies lead. Freedom fries all around, or now is it
"Viva la France!"
As we al rattle our sabres, together.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Coyoteblog has a danged good question, concerning Democrats, and Turkey.ReplyDelete
The Part that Deuce alluded to, that the Media ignored.ReplyDelete
Good Job, Deuce. Oh, I think I'm going to take down my recent, most vile post. Not because of this. My personal attitude toward him remains the same; but, it was too far over the top for a thoughtful post such as Deuce's.
H/T to Gateway Pundit on the Sanchez statement.
Yon now says exactly the opposite thing, re:
Military stopping reporters from entering Iraq.
...don't know if the A-Hole that kept him out is now gone, or what.
BOBAL: A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East.ReplyDelete
As if the Middle East has ever been a paragon of normalcy and stability.
If this occurs it would have significant adverse effects on the international community
It's about time America returned the one-fingered salute the "international community" has been giving us for years.