Vice President to CNN’s Blitzer on Bush Blunders: Your Question Is ‘Hogwash’

Vice President to CNN’s Blitzer on Bush Blunders: Your Question Is ‘Hogwash’

By Scott Whitlock (Bio | Archive)
January 24, 2007 - 17:43 ET

Vice President Dick Cheney squared off with CNN host Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday in a contentious, multi-part "Situation Room" interview. Blitzer seemed to openly adopt the mantra and talking points of the Democratic Party. In fact, in a tease for the interview, Blitzer promised, "The Vice President takes on his critics, including me." Cheney, whose wife Lynne aggressively sparred the cable anchor back in November, told Blitzer that a question about administration blunders was "hogwash." Elaborating on a clip of Democratic Senator Jim Webb, the "Situation Room" host asked Cheney about Bush failures:

Wolf Blitzer: "And it’s not just Jim Webb. It’s some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and in the House are now seriously questioning your credibility because of the blunders, of the failures. Gordon Smith– Gordon Smith--"

Dick Cheney: "Wolf. Wolf. I simply don’t accept the premise of your question. I just think it’s hogwash."

Blitzer: "That what? That there were no blunders? The President himself says there were blunders."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
<a href="http://harvest.AdGardener.com/noscript.aspx?s=16&c=fa99ab07-42c2-43e0-abfb-b47f96e4b9b9" target="_blank"><img src="http://harvest.AdGardener.com/noscript.aspx?s=16&w=336&h=280&c=fa99ab07-42c2-43e0-abfb-b47f96e4b9b9" width="336" height="280" border="0" /></a>

Cheney: "Remember me– Remember with me what happened in Afghanistan. The United States was actively involved in Afghanistan in the ‘80s, supporting the effort against the Soviets. The Mujahideen prevailed and everybody walked away. And in Afghanistan with in relatively short order, the Taliban came to power. They created a safe haven for al Qaeda. Training camps were established where some 20,000 terrorists trained in the late ‘90s. And out of that– Out of Afghanistan, because we walked away and ignored it, we had the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the embassies in East Africa and 9/11 where the people trained and planned in Afghanistan for that attack and killed 3,000 Americans. That is what happens when we walk away from a situation like that in the Middle East."

A transcript of the tease and the segment, airing at 4:42 pm, follows:

4:31pm (tease)

Wolf Blitzer "The Vice President takes on his critics, including me."

4:43pm

Wolf Blitzer: "Let’s return now to my exclusive interview with the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. We pick up with Iraq once again and the Democratic and Republican criticism of the administration’s war policy and plans for a U.S. troop build up. [Taped interview begins] Here is what Jim Webb, the Senator from Virginia said in his Democratic response last night."

Jim Webb: "The President took us into this war recklessly. We are now as a nation held hostage to the predictable, and predicted, disarray that has followed."

Blitzer: "And it’s not just Jim Webb. It’s some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and in the House are now seriously questioning your credibility because of the blunders, of the failures. Gordon Smith. Gordon Smith."

Dick Cheney: "Wolf. Wolf. I simply don’t accept the premise of your question. I just think it’s hogwash."

Blitzer: "That what? That there were no blunders? The President himself says there were blunders."

Cheney: "Remember me. Remember with me what happened in Afghanistan. The United States was actively involved in Afghanistan in the ‘80s, supporting the effort against the Soviets. The Mujahideen prevailed and everybody walked away. And in Afghanistan with in relatively short order, the Taliban came to power. They created a safe haven for al Qaeda. Training camps were established where some 20,000 terrorists trained in the late ‘90s. And out of that– Out of Afghanistan because we walked away and ignored it, we had the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the embassies in East Africa and 9/11 where the people trained and planned in Afghanistan for that attack and killed 3,000 Americans. That is what happens when we walk away from a situation like that in the Middle East."

Blitzer: "But there were– But there were blunders--"

Cheney: "We might have been– We might have been able to do that before 9/11. But after 9/11, we learned that we have a vested interest in what happens on the ground in the Middle East. Now, if you are going to walk away from Iraq today and say, ‘Well, gee, it's too tough, We can't complete the task, we just are going to quit,’ you'll create exactly that same kind of situation again. Now, the critics have not suggested a policy. They haven't put anything in place. All they want to do, all they’ve recommended is to redeploy or withdraw our forces. The fact is, we can complete the task in Iraq. We're going to do it. We've got Petraeus, General Petraeus taking over. It is a good strategy. It will work. But we have to have the stomach to finish the task."

Blitzer: "What if the Senate pass a resolution saying this is not a good idea. Will that stop you?"

Cheney: "It won't stop us and it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops. As General Petraeus said yesterday, he was asked by Joe Lieberman, among others, in his testimony about this notion that somehow the Senate could vote overwhelmingly for him, send him on his new assignment and then pass a resolution at the same time and say but we don't agree with the mission you've been given."

Blitzer: "So, you're moving forward no matter what the Congress does."

Cheney: "We are moving forward. We are moving forward. The Congress has control over the purse strings. They have the right, obviously, if they want, to cut off funding. But in terms of this effort, the President's made his decision, we've consulted extensively with them. We'll continue to consult with the Congress. The fact of the matter is, we need to get the job done. I think General Petraeus can do it, I think our troops can do it, and I think it's far too soon for the talking heads on television to conclude that it's impossible to do; it's not going to work, it can't possibly succeed."

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.

Read comments Free email alerts Take action

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Competition is good, and, ABC

January 24, 2007 - 17:53 ET by uc

Competition is good, and, ABC's Niteline last night by Terry Moran(?) deserves an award for segment replaying past Bush State of Union Speach segments!!! Maybe on review this blog post will deserve a comment as well.

Note: the President has had

January 24, 2007 - 17:56 ET by uc

Note: the President has had the best minds in the world trying to confince him they were smarter than those still being heard, instead of, for many years now. Am I factually acurate?

Could you rephrase the questi

January 24, 2007 - 18:14 ET by mattm

oops, double post.

Could you rephrase your state

January 24, 2007 - 18:14 ET by mattm

Could you rephrase your statement please?

Dems don't have a plan, all they have is criticism. If they do win it all in 08, they will no longer have the privilege of standing on the sidelines and throwing cold water on their opponents, they'll have to actually do something...what it will be, I shudder to think.

uc, I am not one to critique

January 24, 2007 - 19:01 ET by JAB

uc, I am not one to critique anyone one their spelling or grammer BUT (being nice) what was that? As you were asked earlier, could you restate that statement in English, if so you might get a logical reply?!

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful to the Ignorant"

Blitzer: "So, you're mov

January 24, 2007 - 18:10 ET by bigtimer

Blitzer: "So, you're moving forward no matter what the Congress does."

Cheney: "We are moving forward. We are moving forward. The Congress has control over the purse strings. They have the right, obviously, if they want, to cut off funding. But in terms of this effort, the President's made his decision, we've consulted extensively with them. We'll continue to consult with the Congress. The fact of the matter is, we need to get the job done. I think General Petraeus can do it, I think our troops can do it, and I think it's far too soon for the talking heads on television to conclude that it's impossible to do; it's not going to work, it can't possibly succeed."

About says it all...much to the enemy within's chagrin.

I partly heard and saw the in and out interview...it was great.

Cheney also got very angry when Blitz brought up his daughter when he was talking about how happy he was to be welcoming his 6th grandchild....if looks could kill he was saying more that HOGWASH to Blitzer.

(Btw...do not ask me about exact quotes for this, check it out yourself with googling, I was in and out and caught enough of the last part of this particular part of the interview to know he was not a happy camper and Wolfie knew it)

Cheney: Hey Wolfe, your ratin

January 24, 2007 - 18:42 ET by Mica the Magnificent

Cheney: Hey Wolfe, your ratings are always WAY below that of the Fox News Channel. Do you admit your show sucks?

Oh, c'mon! Who hasn't gone home only to find documents from the National Archives down their shorts? - Old Sandy Berger Proverb

Unfortunately for Mr. Cheney'

January 24, 2007 - 18:59 ET by j. frank wilson

Unfortunately for Mr. Cheney's remarkably narrow point of view, it isn't just "talking heads on television" who have concluded the "new way forward" isn't going to work.

Gen. Barry McCaffrey, Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, and Lieut. Gen. Wm. E. Odom testified before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee (01/18/2007) that this isn't going to work. Of course, they have a bit more military experience than Mr. Cheney. And they certainly are not "talking heads on television."

But to respond to them, Mr. Cheney would have to deal in facts. I'm sure he was wishing he'd stuck with Sheer Insanity's "interviews."

With all due respect, Mr. Wil

January 24, 2007 - 19:11 ET by Mica the Magnificent

With all due respect, Mr. Wilson, can you tell us WHY the generals said 'this' isn't going to work? What does 'this' mean? How about telling us about what other generals said who support the Bush plan?

I think you'll be more at home on the move-on.org website.

Oh, c'mon! Who hasn't come home only to find documents from the National Archives down their shorts? - Old Sandy Berger Proverb

Let these gentlemen speak for

January 24, 2007 - 19:42 ET by j. frank wilson

Let these gentlemen speak for themselves. Their prepared remarks may be found at:

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2007/hrg070118a.html

I found Lieut. Gen. Odom's remarks particularly well thought out and enlightening - although it is difficult to argue with Gen. Hoar's brief presentation (or his credentials).

Why is it important to search for generals (or anyone else) who agree? When one is making a difficult decision - in business or politics (or life, for that matter) it makes more sense to listen to people one does not agree with. I've seen plenty of businesses go under from far too much me-too-ism. And that's one of the primary problems with the present administration - the complete inability to listen to other points of view.

It's tough to learn anything talking things over with people one agrees with. Abraham Lincoln brought into his war cabinet opponents. So did FDR. Just as soon as President Bush gets a hint of disagreement he prefers to toss the bum out. And therefore he never learns anything new.

And before folks call these honorable soldiers names [please see below] why not read what they have to say and give it some thought? Did Josephn Hoar become a USMC general because he's dumb or a wimp? Kinda doubt that one.

Yes j frank wilson, great advice, we all no doubt agree

January 24, 2007 - 21:36 ET by SportPolitics

Yes j frank wilson, great advice, we all no doubt agree. Why just last night they had the young entrepreneurs on, and by golly one of the successful teenage millionaires said, " Only use detractors for motivation. "

I guess that's how I would approach your hand picked whiners and wimps with bars or stars. Since you aren't capable of posting a few lines of theirs you agree with, I guess though I'll have to wait for some other whiner to come along and make the motivational talk happen.

See, that's how it works when you're not a loser in life j frank. That's how we winners live. When some whining skumbucket wails and moans it's impossible, you can't do it, we prove them wrong, and get 'er done.

Just think, if we took your advice, we would have never gone into Afghanistan, since that was mission impossible and the Soviets and every other former superpower were repelled. 'Member that expert advice all you whining losers gave us ? lol - I do !

Here's some cheese bud, bind it up.

Have a nice day, I really don't think you can with that BDS problem, but heck, give it a shot.

If your idea of a success is

January 24, 2007 - 23:18 ET by j. frank wilson

If your idea of a success is Afghanistan, Lord save us from a genuine failure.

There certainly could have been a success there. We did have the chance. If we had formed an international cooalition of all the folks who wanted to help us (if we had not been so arrogant as to believe we could do it alone) and if we had sent in enough troops with enough training (say, some language skills to work with the warlords) and if we had stayed with it. But we didn't, did we?

Personally, I don't recall anyone saying it was impossible to beat the Soviets. Sure the local people needed our help, but they got it. It would have been far more logical to predict failure on the part of the Soviets - the list of successful conquors of that little country (not invaders - it is a remarkably easy country to invade) is mightly short.

Uh, J. Frank, have you ever heard of NATO?

January 24, 2007 - 23:21 ET by Free Stinker

Uh, J. Frank, have you ever heard of NATO?

That's a question you should

January 25, 2007 - 12:59 ET by j. frank wilson

That's a question you should ask the Bush White House. After 9/11 when our NATO allies tried to invoke the mutual defense provisions of the NATO Treaty (for the first time in history) we turned them down. That's why we went in on our own - when we could have had a true international coalition.

Actually, I was there when th

January 25, 2007 - 17:54 ET by BD

Actually, I was there when the appropriate article you discuss was invoked. My counterparts from the Dutch and German militaries actually celebrated that they were going to be alowed to do their jobs without UN hamstringing.

NATO was not turned down, sorry.

Regarding the lack of a true international coalition in Afghanistan as you specify in your last paragraph. I will promptly tell my contacts from the Dutch, German, UK, Canadian, and Australian militaries who served in Afghanistan that they do not count as members of a truly international coalition because they are not Frogs....

If you don't recall anyone sa

January 25, 2007 - 10:54 ET by danbo

If you don't recall anyone saying it was impossible to beat the Soviets, you must be about 15 years old.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken

Yes, I recall the press accou

January 25, 2007 - 17:57 ET by BD

Yes, I recall the press accounts saying that we in NATO were going to get absolutely hammered by the Sov's because we were coddled.

Likewise, I recall Time Magazine predicting that the Untempred US forces would lose at least 10,000 KIA to the battle hardened Iraqi forces who had real combat experience.

The earlier posters complaine

January 24, 2007 - 23:21 ET by j. frank wilson

The earlier posters complained about the opinions of a colonel. Wasn't a high enough rank. So I answered with 3 generals - massive amount of experience. Now that's not good enough for you.

Problem is, you just don't like what they say.

Why would I post what they say - particularly only part of it - when their full statements are so easy to read? Do you need someone to chew your food for you, Gramps, before you eat it?

You would have quit after Kas

January 25, 2007 - 11:01 ET by danbo

You would have quit after Kasserine Pass. I don't think you realize there are times you need to keep going. Pitty. Pretend it isn't real. A lot of people did that in 1938.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken

Of course there are times to

January 25, 2007 - 14:37 ET by j. frank wilson

Of course there are times to keep going. This simply isn't one of them. Read "The Bitter Heritage" - he demolishes the 1938 comparison. And it doesn't fit this time, either.

Hu Hun. Yawn. A lot people ag

January 25, 2007 - 14:43 ET by danbo

Hu Hun. Yawn. A lot people agreed with you in 38. Trashing old men again?

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken

Hu Hun. Yawn. A lot people ag

January 25, 2007 - 14:47 ET by danbo

Sorry it was a double post.

I will only present the opini

January 25, 2007 - 18:00 ET by BD

I will only present the opinions of THIS lieutenant Colonel.

I disagree with your three generals. Enough said?

Please don't pay attention to

January 25, 2007 - 20:05 ET by j. frank wilson

Please don't pay attention to the disparaging remarks about Colonels over on that other NB blog (Van Rippen? I'm sure it wasn't Jack D. Ripper) on the next page. I don't believe them. You certainly shouldn't, either.

"although it is diffic

January 24, 2007 - 22:52 ET by ckc1227

"although it is difficult to argue with Gen. Hoar's brief presentation (or his credentials)."

Read his presentation, and, well, since Gen. Hoar doesn't seem to know what the President's surge plan entails, I'm not sure how much credibility he has. And when the third sentence in your presentation basically implies we were lied into the war, it pretty much confirms to me that he is making a political statement more than a military one.

Furthermore, if a group of senators want to get an accurate assessment of whether or not this plan will work, shouldn't they hear from both sides of the aisle instead of only bringing in 3 generals that are going to tell you what you want to hear, which is the same thing you allege the President does?

Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.

Now there's a logical positio

January 24, 2007 - 23:24 ET by j. frank wilson

Now there's a logical position. A gentleman who has earned the rank of general in the United States military is asked to testify before the Senate - and you believe he didn't bother to do his homework? Based on what? You don't like what he said? And you call me "stupid?"

PS: The reasons we went to war in Iraq didn't prove to be true. The administration keeps changing the reasons but they still don't make sense.

PS BS on Iraq

January 24, 2007 - 23:28 ET by Free Stinker

P.S. - http://newsbusters.org/node/9071

We had plenty of reasons to go to war in Iraq. I did the research already.

Very nice, even if one were t

January 25, 2007 - 18:03 ET by BD

Very nice, even if one were to only refer to the reasons for war spelled out in the speaches to the joint session of congress and the UN, sixteen seperate and valid reasons for war were spelled out, most had nothing to do with WMD.

It is a liberal "Truism" that we went to war over only over WMD's, further propogated by the press. This is incorrect and we need to set the record straight whenever possible.

frankie frankie frankie...It

January 24, 2007 - 19:16 ET by bigtimer

frankie frankie frankie...

It is the talkin' heads that do not stick to facts and want us defeated...at you and all your leftists buddies peril in the end....

But hey, you fools are too simple to realize it, you are seething walking talking hatred machines with no conception of the danger you all are creating, let alone the deaths you all have with your complicity to the enemy, the left always has been and always will be the pansies who don't fight, but when they are in danger scream the loudest for help and point fingers at others if something wasn't done to prevent their pathetic butts, and if they are alive, well, hell, they just sue...on and on you leftist fools go....

Whiz-bang ungrateful silly little useless creatures all...your own agenda's will do you in.

WOW, Bigtimer. But you may h

January 24, 2007 - 19:23 ET by Mica the Magnificent

WOW, Bigtimer.

But you may have been too subtle for a liberal.

mica,frankie j always throws

January 24, 2007 - 19:49 ET by bigtimer

mica,

frankie j always throws things out there...and then cuts and runs...typical leftist weenie. (he may come later, usually much later, when it safe...remind you of anyone or any one party....or just say people in general, there are those that fight, those that don't. He is a first class wimp-a$$.... I am so tired of them all.)

I am dazzled by the logic of

January 24, 2007 - 23:25 ET by j. frank wilson

I am dazzled by the logic of your post.

Took ya long enough frankie..

January 24, 2007 - 23:39 ET by bigtimer

Took ya long enough frankie...

Geesh... those slow learners.

Getting pretty tired of the "

January 24, 2007 - 19:24 ET by BuffNBone

Getting pretty tired of the "this won't work" crowd.

Time to hold their feet to the fire until we get something, anything, that they propose.

If they can't tell us about Iraq, I might settle for them saying what they think the next 1 or 2 "hotspots" will be and what we should be doing about them.

"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"

B&B,They won't do it...be

January 24, 2007 - 19:44 ET by Blonde

B&B,

They won't do it...because they can't. Or refuse to commit to a position. Talk about cowardly.

As to wilson's reference to a bunch of early-retired stars, who cares?

LTG Petraeus (who's testimony yesterday was overshadowed by the SOTU), authored the latest doctrine on infantry tactics in a an urban environment. He has a masters and a Ph.D. from Princeton, IIRC. And already has a succesful record in Iraq. Everything I've read from the military community has been about 95% positive....he's a hard charger. But what impressed me most about the man is that he identifies young field grade guys (majors) to mentor.

We need to give him a couple of months. I think he'll be able to do it.

And hopefully, shut the defeatocrats up, permanently.

And if you bother to read the

January 24, 2007 - 23:30 ET by j. frank wilson

And if you bother to read the new Field Manual, it spends a great deal of time talking about the political solution to an insurgency. Iraq at this stage no longer has a military solution. It will be a political, economic, and diplomatic solution. With the overlay of the information solution.

Of course the FM doesn't talk about how to resolve a civil war. No US Military doctrine for that. Or how to resolve the criminal element to the war in Iraq. That would require a police force - and we never seem to have gotten around to starting one, although we did a good job of disbanding the one they had.

Read "The BItter Heritage." Forty years later we're in the same situation - and we're trying the same "solution." It didn't work then and it won't work now.

Or we can continue to mint new terrorists.

Or maybe we could do what the

January 24, 2007 - 23:32 ET by Free Stinker

Or maybe we could do what the British did in Malaysia . . .

Obviously you didn't take the

January 24, 2007 - 23:58 ET by j. frank wilson

Obviously you didn't take the time or make the effort to read what Lieut. Gen. Odom said about Malaysia. Demolished the comparison. Game. Set. Match.

Of course, I'm sure your mastery of military is superior to his. After all, he's just a general who put his name and reputation publically on the line. Your posting under a fake name on the Internet. Same thing, I'm sure...

I think you didn't read what

January 25, 2007 - 00:10 ET by Free Stinker

I think you didn't read what he said.

Wow. They had a better idea of local politics in Malaysia than we do in Iraq.

The point of Malaysia, was that the British let the SAS go after the rebels with out any restrictions. What did General Odom say about that?

BTW - You never answered my question about NATO. You know, when you posted that we didn't bring a coalition into Afghanistan? You have heard of NATO, haven't you?

Re: NATO, please see above.

January 25, 2007 - 13:34 ET by j. frank wilson

Re: NATO, please see above. We had the chance to see if we could make it work working with NATO, but we were not interested in working with anybody. So we didn't.

Re: Malaysia, here is what Gen. Odom had to say about it:

"The oft-cited British success in Malaysia is only superficially relevant to the Iraq case. British officials actually ruled the country. Thus they had decades of firsthand knowledge of the local politics. They made such a mess of it, however, than an insurgency emerged in opposition. A new military commander and a clean up of the colonial adminstration provided politicial consolidation and the isolation of the communist insurgents, mostly members of an ethnic minority group. This pattern would be impossible to duplicate in Iraq."

Do you honestly think a US Military General who has made a careful study of insurgencies around the world wasn't familiar with the SAS? Of course he was. And it is conclusion "This pattern would be impossible to duplicate in Iraq."

Of course, this makes me wonder if you actually read what Gen. Odom wrote, but that's another story.

All of my compadres in NATO c

January 25, 2007 - 18:06 ET by BD

All of my compadres in NATO currently serving in both Afghanistan and Iraq will now promptly embark on aircraft and leave those countries because J Frank has indicated we do not work within NATO.

I will be sad to see them go....

BD Thank you for doing what y

January 25, 2007 - 18:13 ET by danbo

BD Thank you for doing what you do.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken

Sir: In the world of financ

January 25, 2007 - 18:51 ET by j. frank wilson

Sir: In the world of financial review this is know as a "timing issue." I was discussing when we went in several years ago - not as it sits today.

It is my personal opinion that a NATO-led or other form of international force should have been sent to Afghanistan when we first tried to clean it out after 9/11. I think it was a mistake to go it alone. Too late now.

I would like to say something about your service - but since those sentiments are always shot down on this blog I've learned to keep it to myself.

Gee Frank,Try again.There is

January 24, 2007 - 23:36 ET by Blonde

Gee Frank,

Try again.

There is plenty of military doctrine about how to take down the insurgency. After all of your most beloved politically correct rules of engagement are taken down.

Of course the critics don't address any of this.....

CUT AND RUN = DEFEAT.

What the hell are you trying to imply about "forty years later"?

You are a losing loser.

LOSER.

Just don't take me and my country along with your losing loser journey, Loser.

Here's a concept - read a pos

January 25, 2007 - 00:00 ET by j. frank wilson

Here's a concept - read a post before you attempt to respond to it.

I said we don't have a military doctrine for intervention in a civil war. Of course we have a counterinsurgency doctrine. Just came out with a new one that makes a tremendous amount of sense. Now all we need is a pure insurgency where we can try it out.

SASO Doctrine not good enough

January 25, 2007 - 18:08 ET by BD

SASO Doctrine not good enough for your J Frank?

Hmmmm... It has been in effect for at least ten years and seems adequate to me.

Please help me out here. I'

January 25, 2007 - 19:06 ET by j. frank wilson

Please help me out here. I'd like to learn. Regarding third party military resolution to a civil war (and I apologize if my statement was poorly written) what does military doctrine tell us other than to support one side or the other? Would that be the first "S" of "SASO?"

Seems to me Iraq is sort of like Kentucky or Missouri in 1863. Only along with the civil war, criminal and internecine aspect Iraq has the terror element happily missing from those locales.

j frank,And you'd know that h

January 25, 2007 - 19:33 ET by Blonde

j frank,

And you'd know that how?

As a recent grad of the War College perhaps?

Why don't you try voting for victory, instead of the typical liberal cut and run defeat?

1966: 4,000 Americans kille

January 25, 2007 - 00:03 ET by j. frank wilson

1966: 4,000 Americans killed in Viet Nam. Arthur Schlesinger writes the extraordinary book "The Bitter Heritage." Points out there isn't a military solution to the Viet Nam problem. Addresses every arguement raised today about staying in Iraq except for WMD - and there weren't any of those after all, were there? By the time we leave Viet Nam over 50,000 lives lost. Just on our side.

That's what I mean about "forty years later." If you fail history you have to take it again next semester.

Let's see. Iraq - dictat

January 25, 2007 - 00:11 ET by Jerry

Let's see.

Iraq - dictator overthrown, cities under U.S. control, free elections held, enemy = terrorists.

Vietnam - uh... South Vietnam.. uh.. enemy = communists.

The only parallels I see are that John Kerry and Jane Fonda and the aging "peace at all costs" hippies and the MSM are once again on the side of our enemies.

When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

And do you know what happened

January 25, 2007 - 00:11 ET by Free Stinker

And do you know what happened after we left?

Sure there was j frank

January 25, 2007 - 00:16 ET by SportPolitics

Sure there was j frank, a military solution to the veitnam problem, and you idiot democrats employed it, pulling the funds after promising not to, and holding up the white surrender flag for our ally, who then got crushed with the military victory for the enemy.

I guess only a liberal constantly believes there is no way to win, "except for the enemy" - whom has already won in the liberals mind. You and AS* are just that, and so pathetic since you openly parade that babble.

Glad you ****in idiots never convinced Harry S Truman. Thank God for that !

Frank - you waited too long a

January 25, 2007 - 00:17 ET by Free Stinker

Frank - you waited too long and SP answered for you. :-p

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing that seperates liberals from conservatives is that liberals are craftier and work without the hinderance of a conscience." --Lynn Wooley

Well, Since you're so hung up

January 25, 2007 - 00:20 ET by Blonde

Well,

Since you're so hung up on Viet Nam...

There absolutely was a military solution to Viet Nam....the same one we have as an option in Iraq.

WIN.

But all of you whiny, losing "war protesters", and the media you love so much...hurt the effort. You cannot possibly "support the troops" (you freaking liar) while protesting the war.

You are just a pitiful loser. So have at it, loser.

So "forty years later"...you still love the same resolution.

You are a LOSING LOSER, and in love with losing. Keep on protesting though. It's so attractive.

And if YOU fail history, I hope it's your city that gets nuked, and not mine.

Why don't you just move to France now, and save us all a whole raft of aggravation?

"Hung up on Viet Nam?&qu

January 25, 2007 - 16:31 ET by j. frank wilson

"Hung up on Viet Nam?" Of course not. Willing to learn from a horrendous mistake? Of course.

"Hung up on Viet Nam?&qu

January 25, 2007 - 16:32 ET by j. frank wilson

"Hung up on Viet Nam?" Of course not. Willing to learn from a horrendous mistake? Of course.

The mistake in Vietnam was pu

January 25, 2007 - 16:38 ET by florida_chad

The mistake in Vietnam was pulling out too early. We were winning. The Vietnamese admit that. The islamacist are following that template. Your helping them to defeat America. Lets not repeat the same mistake again.

Chad. He's a troll. His goal

January 25, 2007 - 17:07 ET by danbo

Chad. He's a troll. His goal it to get you worked up. He's an arrogant coward so caught up in his self hate. He's only worthwhile as an example of the problems within this country. His stuff good. Your stuff worthless. He's going to put me on trial.I hope he invites me to it.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken

Do you refer to this Administ

January 25, 2007 - 19:23 ET by j. frank wilson

Do you refer to this Administration's position (remarkably confirmed by the Supreme Court) that we must follow laws we are not allowed to read? Or this administration's position that the US Constitution does not acknowledge we each have the habeas right? Or this Administration's position that it is perfectly acceptable to hold a United States citizen for any length of time without ever charging them with anything?

What do you mean there is no

January 25, 2007 - 18:14 ET by BD

What do you mean there is no military solution to the Vietnam problem?

The VC were virtually destroyed in 1969 (Insurgency done - virtually over.) by US and ARVN forces following TET Offensive.

From 1968 onward the only viable enemy forces in the field were not insurgents, but rather PAVN injected into the south by the North Vietnamese. Even these forces were routinely destroyed by US forces as the moved including the incredible success of the Cambodian Incursion which virtually assured that a stabilised ARVN would succeed at the COunter-Insurgency IF US forces took the lead int he conventional war.

US policy nose dived based on the leftists supported by SOV money protesting in the streets.

We bought it, paid for it, and the leftists gave it away by withholding support to the ARVN in 1974-75.

j. frank wilson's sheer illogic

January 24, 2007 - 23:48 ET by Unsane

Explain this sentence then, frank, you being the superior intellectual and all:

"War is the continuation of politics by other means" - Carl von Clausewitz, On War

And as to your asinine last sentence - "Or we can continue to mint new terrorists." Perhaps we should conmpletely dismantle the military then. According to the logic in that sentence, if we don't have a military AT ALL, then there will be NO TERRORISTS. Tell me, frank:

When was the last time you heard of a mayor/police chief respond to a crime wave by saying "We have too many cops. They are making more criminals. Therefore to deal with this crime wave, I am reducing the size of the police force"?

When was the last time a mayor/fire chief suggested that the way to curb arson was to shut down fire stations and get rid of firefighters, for they are making more arsonists?

Did Operation Overlord cause a dramatic rise in the membership of the Nazi party?

Did the firebombings of Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cause the Japanese to hate us even more?

Why didn't all of Korea turn itself over to Kim Il-Sung and the Korean Worker's Party by the mere PRESENCE of Task Force Smith?

Why did the Berlin Wall fall six years after the delopyment of intermediate range missiles to Europe? According to your logic, that just made more Communists. Hell, why didn't the Federal Republic of Germany demand a merger with the German Democratic Republic (and rule by Erich Honecker and the SED) by the end of 1983 if what you said holds any water?

I eagerly anticipate answers to your questions. In the meantime, why can't you accept the lessons of history, and the time and time again proven fact that violence WORKS and has worked every single time it has been tried?

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

Back to "On War?"

January 25, 2007 - 00:08 ET by j. frank wilson

Back to "On War?" You talk about this one book as if you were the first joker to discover it. Do you read anything about the military that has been published since the 19th Century? If you want to read something old about war, how about "The Art of War?" If we'd followed that we don't be in Iraq.

What does Von C say about the information war? Guess I couldn't find his chapter on the Internet.

Violence WORKS? What a wonderful philosophy. Explains the successes of Napoleon and Hitler in Russia at the same time.

Violence does work for you j frank

January 25, 2007 - 00:18 ET by SportPolitics

Violence does work for you j frank, as long as it's the enemy producing it. Then it really works for you, and is - according to you idiot post nam freaks, "unstoppable".

For j. frank wilson

January 25, 2007 - 02:15 ET by Unsane

"You talk about this one book as if you were the first joker to discover it." - Much as you do with your links, and quotations of sources, correct?

frank, as a Reservist officer, I read more on the military than you have in your lifetime. That's not counting my time as an Army brat; being raised in a military family exposed me to more of a military viewpoint than you dare dream.

I quote him because you keep whining about political solutions, and I am merely pointing out that war is in fact political.

Just like someone who cannot grasp history, you are immediately dismissive of anything not written in today's time, as if the lessons of the past have no bearing on today. Surprise, frank: human nature doesn't change all that much. Therefore much of what von Clausewitz is as applicable today as it was in 1832.

Now allow me to quote another military tactician for you, because you do not read history at all: "The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice." On that standard, I recommend you stay the hell away from all matters military.

Violencs DOES work, and it is a wonderful philosophy. If you disagree, I will pay for your airfare to Carthage so you can explain the joys of talking out problems to the Carthaginians (hat tip to Heinlein). Napoleon's invasion of Russia was an ill advised campaign that he wouldn't have bothered if he knew anything about logistics. That wasn't the first time his ignorance of the subject burned him, but this time it reduced his forces from 691,000 to less than 30,000 in six months time. If you think Alexander I just rode up to Napoleon and taked him out of Russia, you would be mistaken. The territory that the Grand Army had to march back over was ruined and provided poor resources for the troops; that was not aided by the arrival of winter. There was a more southerly route, but that was covered by a force of Russians. Therefore, violence - and the threat thereof - was as responsible for Napoleon's failure as much as poor logistics, intelligence, and proper planning.

As for Hitler...your ignorance of Eastern Front history is inexcusable. Google "Stalingrad" sometime. Ribbentrop and Molotov TRIED talking it out, remember? Oh, and when they DID talk it out, they DID agree on the VIOLENT occupation/partition of Poland. That little event triggered a very violent episode in world history, one which was necessary to purge the world of evil.

You see, again, talking failed miserably. What would have happened if Britain and France had the guts to stand up for the Sudetenland, instead of talking to Hitler and giving away the store as you would have us do with our enemies? Millions of lives may have been saved - if the leaders of that time just had the courage to resort to violence.

As for Sun Tzu advising us not to go into Iraq - I for one would LOVE to see that interpretation, on your own. But it doesn't really matter, frank. You don't want us to be in Iraq because you ignore the wisdom of winning freedom for Baghdad in order to protect freedom in London and New York as well (hat tip to John F. Kennedy). That, and you are a spoiled, whiny crybaby Leftist who hates the fact we have the military, for in your little world, the fact we have one means j. frank wilson isn't getting coddled, spoon-fed, nannied and babied by a Nanny State.

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

He's got another Nom de Plume

January 25, 2007 - 11:33 ET by danbo

He's got another Nom de Plume.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken

What are you talking about?

January 25, 2007 - 15:40 ET by j. frank wilson

What are you talking about? And why is this capitalized?

Remarkable how you manage to

January 25, 2007 - 13:51 ET by j. frank wilson

Remarkable how you manage to know so much about people you've never met..."Often wrong, but never in doubt."

And if what you way is true, why does FM3-2 so carefully define "Counterinsurgency is military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychologocial, and civil actions...?" What's the point of spelling it out if it all the same?

"This administration's handling of the war has been characterized by deceit, mismanagement and a shocking failure to understand the social and political forces that influence events in the MIddle East." - Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, USMC (ret.). Of course you know more than Gen. Hoar! What was I thinking?

Regarding your position on F

January 25, 2007 - 18:18 ET by BD

Regarding your position on F 3-2, what is your point?

Is your position that the miltiary CANNOT perform Civic Action programs, diplomatic, nor political functions in foreign lands while in conflict? I would be surprised by this as it is clearly stated in SASO Doctrine that I used to teach.

Of course it isn't. I sugge

January 25, 2007 - 19:28 ET by j. frank wilson

Of course it isn't. I suggest you read what I wrote. The previous poster repeats his mantra about "politics by other means." I was pointing out if that simplistic statement was enough, why would FM 3-2 make such a careful definition?

I think (well, I would hope) most posters here could manage to agree that whatever problems they are willing to admit we are experiencing in Iraq are at least to some extent driven by our inability to bring politicial, diplomatic, and economic solutions to bear.

I'm curious, what did you think of George Packer's article on counterinsurgency in that December issue of The New Yorker?

I will agree you with somethi

January 25, 2007 - 19:55 ET by danbo

I will agree you with something. the reason we are unable bring this to a rest is because of the inability to bring political solutions to bear. And you sir are one of the reasons we are unable to bring these political solutions to bear, As BD had pointed out. You have much mis information. So in your pompus arrogance to lecture. As you always do you give misinformation.

You sir are one of the reasons our men and women are sheding blood. You aid and abbet the enemy. You and your friends are the best friends of those who whould kill you.

Stop expressing your love for our military and those who protect you. It's shallow. Join your friends who scream that vietnam vets deserve what the suffer. Join your friends who don't want our service men and women going through the SF airport.

I appreciate the sacrifices of our men and women in arms offer. But spilling their blood to save your sorry rear isn't worth worth it.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken

So I can believe your tripe o

January 25, 2007 - 20:11 ET by j. frank wilson

So I can believe your tripe or I can believe Sen. Hagel, combat vet and a gentleman willing to stand up and express his opinions in public with his own name on them.

Boy, there's a tough choice. Al Gore, John Kerry, Viet Nam vets. John Murtha, decorated combat vet. Golly, even Charlie Rangle is a veteran.

You, Sir, are a fool.

And a jerk.

Um, do you even know what your're talking about?

January 25, 2007 - 07:46 ET by blackrain4xmas

The 21500 reinforcements sent to Iraq are barely 1/4 of the President's modified strategy. The WH website has the PDF detailing the rest. Most of the revised strategy on Iraq

IS POLITICAL

The 21500 is only there to enable the political movement

Violence DOES work-toward enabling peaceful political and diplomatic efforts to take place in the midst of lawlessness.

Me thinks. We're dealing with

January 25, 2007 - 11:10 ET by danbo

Me thinks. We're dealing with an old friend under another of his nom de plumes. A dellusional chap. Pulling stuff straight out of his talking point websites again.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken

Are you sure you should be hu

January 25, 2007 - 15:42 ET by j. frank wilson

Are you sure you should be huffing before posting?

danbo,Who is it? Or whom do

January 25, 2007 - 20:03 ET by Blonde

danbo,

Who is it? Or whom do you suspect?

I have my own ideas on the topic....but I'd surely enjoy yours.

Search all you want. Every

January 25, 2007 - 20:14 ET by j. frank wilson

Search all you want. Every post I have ever made on NB has been under "J. Frank Wilson." A pround name - now if I just knew where my Baby is...

j frank,Well you are certainl

January 25, 2007 - 20:19 ET by Blonde

j frank,

Well you are certainly rude and crude enough to be the sock puppet for the worst of the worst who've distrupted this board in the past.

I am rude and crude? What,

January 26, 2007 - 12:06 ET by j. frank wilson

I am rude and crude? What, do you only read every 10th post? Or doesn't it count if you agree with the poster?

In other words, it's ok for others to dish it out (although I suggest I've been remarkably restrained) but you can't take it.

No surprise.

FM

January 25, 2007 - 09:45 ET by PawpawN

So just tell me how do you get a copy of a classified document?

What classified document is t

January 25, 2007 - 13:41 ET by j. frank wilson

What classified document is that? I would say you'd lost our train of thought, but that would imply you first had one.

FM & Other Info

January 25, 2007 - 09:51 ET by PawpawN

Do you have access to Classified Info? Did Sandy Burglar contact you? There are so many Indian Chiefs in our teepee that all the terrorists are dancing with glee!

Sandy "Burglar."

January 25, 2007 - 13:53 ET by j. frank wilson

Sandy "Burglar." How clever. Did you remain awake all night thinking that up yourself? Wow! Original, too...

Sandy "Burglar."

January 25, 2007 - 13:54 ET by j. frank wilson

Are you one of those dumbasse

January 24, 2007 - 19:31 ET by chris_gill

Are you one of those dumbasses that are constantly beating the "critics have more military service than Bush and Cheney" drum?

Bu these same people were also wringing their hands that not enough troops were sent to Iraq initially. Now more troops are bad, but before it was good?

Kind of like Democratic Congressman Silvestre Reyes, chairman if the House Intelligence Committe, stating in December 2006 (4 weeks ago) that a 20,000-30,000 would be good to dismantle the militia. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/

One month later after Bush proposed the troop surge, Reyes now oposed it http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070118-120639-5251r.htm

Reyes is also a Vietnam vet, and has more military experience than Cheney and Bush. He also did not know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite, but that aside.

This is called "Politics". It's good for entertainment, but not a good component in running a war. How many generals do you think the Alphabet Networks and the Democratic controlled Congress had to call before they found generals who opposed the plan. And what was the alternative plan they offered? Who actually listens to generals speak on matters of executing a war, who don't have any accountability in the lives of those at war now? Am I also to assume CNN and the other networks could not find one general who supported the troop surge plan? That is what your statement implied.

Look, your axe to grind is with Bush. Don't pretend to actually give a rat's ass about the troops or how the war turns out.

chris...Well stated.

January 24, 2007 - 19:35 ET by Clear thinker

chris...

Well stated.

I look forward to your commen

January 24, 2007 - 19:48 ET by j. frank wilson

I look forward to your comments after you've read the generals' remarks.

Actually, I don't give a rat's ass. You're obviously not going to learn anything no matter what facts are presented. These three individuals have a breathtaking amount of experience and knowledge. But because they don't agree with you they obviously don't know what they are talking about.

PS: It was the US Senate that asked them to testify, not the F Nothing Channel or any other media.

And your point is Mr. Wilson

January 24, 2007 - 20:37 ET by Jonah Johansen

Is there any military decision which all the generals agree with? Are you claiming that every general that the VP has consulted agrees with you not him?

I personally have no idea what the right tactics for the next several months are.

What I am certain of is that people who oppose the president, use phrases like "the generals all say..." "the troops beleive..." . Webb last night made a very questionable use of one of those.

Mr. Wilson, I think your venom, use of terms like the 'F nothing Channel', your certainty about things which are complex and difficult for even experts to figure out and the appearance that you can not seperate your feelings about the President and VP from what is best for the nation in Iraq, undermine your apparent desire to have a serious educated debate.

I know you feel strongly about your politcal beliefs, if those beliefs are founded on sound logic and good evidence, you should be able to present them in a convincing fashion without demeaning or questioning the good will of others on this site.

JJ

January 24, 2007 - 21:54 ET by SportPolitics

I consider them gnats or sandflies. We heard this crap before going into Afghanistan, and then before trekking to Bagdad - 100,00 dead on the desert sands, biosuits that leak, a nuke will be dropped on all of you west of Bagdad...and on and on and on... and then they all had egg on their face and they "blamed Bush for fooling them" for how many YEARS now...

So, what have here is a case of IDIOTS, who have said the greatest, the most powerful, the best equipped, forward trained military force in the world cannot win against sand scrubs. Well, even in past decades with an insurgency, THAT HAS NOT BEEN TRUE.

So, with history, and with the facts DIRECTLY opposing any whining bars and stars, yes, they too can hit the crapper can, exactly where they belong, without a shadow of a doubt.

Your post is well reasoned an

January 24, 2007 - 23:34 ET by j. frank wilson

Your post is well reasoned and well written. However, the "venom" you so willingly ascribe to me is, I suggest, far more prevelent in the posts of other. Read 'em again - the name calling and all the rest. If I hurt the feelings of the Faux Nothing Channel, I can live with it. While I am not an expert I am certainly willing to listen to those who are. The whole point of the post has been lost. The earlier posters complained because a Colonel was interviewed and asked his opinion. I brought out 3 extraordinary generals who agreed with that Colonel. Actually, they didn't agree because their opinions are far more strident. Other posters here didn't like it, didn't want to learn, and responded with the typical mindless drivel....no surprises so far...

FEAR

January 24, 2007 - 23:55 ET by Unsane

Once again, frank - why this overwhelming, intense, palpable FEAR of ONE, little, harmless news channel that MIGHT reach ONE PERCENT of the U.S. population on a busy news day?

It is also very good to see that you are so willing and eager to cough up your critical thinking skills to others, just because you deem them "experts" and you happen to agree with them. I can read their views, but it doesn't mean I agree with them.

You see, frank, I know you hate the military and all, but bear with me. As an officer, I have been in many a heated discussion where a decision had to be made, and we let the fur fly in the meeting, behind closed doors and out of the view of those to be effected by our decision. When said decision was reached, we might have not liked it, but we also knew to back whoever was senior in the meeting all the way (so long as the decision was legal), as this is what professionalism decreed.

You might be surprised that indeed, we DO have our own thoughts in the military; we just know what to do when the decision has been reached.

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

Why would I hate the military

January 25, 2007 - 00:16 ET by j. frank wilson

Why would I hate the military? I think our armed forces have suffered from serious leadership problems at the very top, but I certainly don't hate them. That's a crazy statement. Makes no sense. If anyone really hated the United States military - and I haven't met someone who says they do since the 1960's - then logic dictates that sick person would want all the military possible sent to Iraq. I have tremendous respect for our military and think they have done an outstanding job. A couple of people have done things they shouldn't and they will be punished for it as they should be.

I proudly wear a "Never Forget #40" braclet every day, to remind myself of the sacrifice many of our citizens are making. I've sent...well, no point in going on. You are completely wrong, and that's just something you've got to live with. I know me and you don't. Thank the Lord.

Across the board posters here are far to quick to talk about others hating this or that with no proof. You don't need to make this stuff up. You don't need to read anything into anything. The way you're going you'll change a note to the milkman into "War and Peace."

Well you don't leave many o

January 25, 2007 - 00:27 ET by Jerry

Well you don't leave many options frank.

Who wants / wanted the U.S. to pull out?

The terrorists

Ramma-damma-dean-jad of Iran

Kim Jong Ill

Saddam Hussein

Osama Bin Laden

Liberals

The MSM

Who thinks we are losing?

Liberals

The MSM

Baghdad Bob

Even the terrorists aren't stupid enough to think we are losing.

What's the common thread?

When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

You hate the military, frank,

January 25, 2007 - 02:27 ET by Unsane

You hate the military, frank, because from your posts on here, you clearly do not support the mission. You can cry to me all you want about your bracelets and your ribbons and the other trinkets you adorn, and talk great game about how you support the troops - but its all a smokescreen, since you do not support the mission.

"When we protect the freedom of Berlin, we protect the freedom of London and New York as well." - John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States (1917-1963) That is a quote I hold in high regard and it is as true today as it was in the 1960s when it was uttered. By winning the freedom of Baghdad (which we are doing over time, slowly but surely), we are protecting the freedom of other cities around the world. Is this not worth fighting for somehow?

Someone once wrote this, about oceangoing vessels: "They look great sitting in the harbor; however, that is not what they are designed for." The same with the U.S. military. Oh, I know that they make for a great parade, but the military does a teensy bit more than that. They HAVE to, for freedom is not free.

You say we suffer from poor leadership. I argue you want PERFECT leadership, and I long since have resigned myself to the fact that we won't have perfect leadership, EVER. I can think of far worse leadership in war, and if you wish I would be HAPPY to give you examples. Besides, we are HARDLY losing this fight: you desperately in your heart want to believe that we are, yet you cannot cite for me a single battle or a center of gravity we have lost.

No war goes according to plan; no struggle of a people to be free and left alone by tyranny and those to act on its behalf is apple-pie easy. If you want an easy war, I suggest you go to a movie theater or rent some DVDs, and leave the real heavy lifting to those in the know.

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

But, but but but Unsane

January 25, 2007 - 02:49 ET by SportPolitics

But, but but but Unsane, j frankie really, really truly does support the troops, because violence is not an ideology that wins, and by golly our troops are not made for fighting or wars, since that violence is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's eeevil.

The just violence of the enemy minutemen rejecting and deflecting the occupation is j frankie's glorious and heavenly sanctified winner. How can the lie that Bush thrust upon the world be anything but an evil violent loss. Now j frankie is supporting the troops, because violence doesn't pay, especially Bushlie violence. It's not the USA, or the Iraqi people j frankie opposes( who are on the side of the m moore freedom fighters of iraq according to fatso and frankie), it's everything the GD republican Bushite jew cabal neocon war wackos have done.

Uhh, what did I just say ?

BWHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Thank God they never convinced Harry S Truman.

Let's see, the j frankie nam whine, the iraq whine, and the silence on the slick willie Balkans bombings, and on WW2. What doesn't it add up to, but a big fat pile of liberal BS.

You have not met a US citizen

January 25, 2007 - 18:22 ET by BD

You have not met a US citizen who hates the US military since the 1960's? Try flying through San Francisco International in ACU uniform like I did last month.

The denizens of that airport are quite happy to tell you all about it.

Totally unlike the proud citizens of Dallas.....

I would hope that had changed

January 25, 2007 - 18:29 ET by danbo

I would hope that had changed during this war. Especially since we were attacked. Sadly people have their heads in the sand pretending the problem isn't there. And thinking the rest of us don't see their big rears sticking up in the air.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken

Personally, I'm sorry that ha

January 25, 2007 - 19:41 ET by j. frank wilson

Personally, I'm sorry that happened. It is wrong.

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I know a great many of the people passing through SFO are not citizens of our community. Denizens of the airport, perhaps, but not of here.

Any person wearing our uniform deserves respect and, frankly, our thanks. And that's what you should have gotten. If it had been me I would have offered to buy you a beer.

Jfrank- you are wrong

January 25, 2007 - 18:45 ET by misterbill

Jfrank- you are wrong. I have told this story once before--It needs telling again because of your statement.

In 1986(or 87), I was in LA at a technical symposium. I was sitting in the lobby of the the Bonaventure hotel with a group of fellow employees, most of whom I did not know as they came from different cities. The TV had a piece on about trauma on the part of many Vietnam veterans and how bad it was. A young lady at the table (about 26-28 years old), said, "Good, they deserve it. They went over there and invaded and killed innocent babies and mothers. They should all suffer the same problem." I expressed my disgust with her and the fact that I considered her as unknowledgable as a person could be." And, yes, I even called her a traitor. That young fool had little knowledge and no facts. She only had a hatred inculcated in her by the "brave dissidents" of the 60s.

Reading your entries in this blog site, I see the same kind of "hate America" attitude. A lot of us are getting fed up with it. I am at the point in my life where I want you on the train or out of the country. You are no great hero speaking up for the downtrodden. Our troops are. They put their lives on the line for YOU and you don't realize it. You are a pismire spouting words that contradict themselves. You cannot be FOR our troops and AGAINST our War on Terror. You are a misguided dissident, a rebel without a cause.

Your every post says you hate the military, you hate President Bush and you hate US!!! Not the US, but us, the members of NB. Take your pusillanimous rantings to some other place on this planet you misbegotten gob.

Boy my feelings would be hurt

January 25, 2007 - 19:58 ET by j. frank wilson

Boy my feelings would be hurt. If I had the slightest interest in what you write.

But I don't.

"Love it or leave it.&qu

January 25, 2007 - 20:00 ET by j. frank wilson

"Love it or leave it." Talk about being hung up in the '60's!

How could I be wrong? You'r

January 26, 2007 - 12:33 ET by j. frank wilson

How could I be wrong? You're telling me I've experienced something I haven't? That's pretty out there - even for you.

Quotes don't do anything to convince opponents

January 25, 2007 - 07:55 ET by blackrain4xmas

Ask someone who disagrees with Pres Bush to provide a pre-OIF quote from the President stating that Saddam definitely had WMD, and you won't find it, but they'll still claim it.

Ask someone who disagrees with Pres Bush to provide a pre-OIF quote from the President claiming that Saddam orchestrated the 911 attacks, and you won't find it, but they'll still claim it.

Show someone who disagrees with the President quotes from veteran Democrats being even more fear-mongering about Saddam than Bush ever was, and they'll just blow it off as being tricked by bad intel, or manipulated intel...

...even if the Dem quotes come from the likes of Sen Rockefeller (D) who was head of the Sen Intel Com for years before OIF, had seen consistent intel on Iraq, AND WAS CHARGED WITH MAKING SURE THE INTEL WAS GOOD; not weak, not limited, not manipulated.

Show people who think that Iraq isn't part of the war on terror quotes from AQ claiming that they've lost 4000 fighters in Iraq, or from CENTCOM claiming 7000, or from tell all books by returning Sgts, Pvts, Cpt's, etc that put the number in the 10,000 or more-including THOUSANDS in the invasion...such quotes will be blown off.

Nah, people just want to believe that there's a different way to deal with suicidal Jihadis on this planet. Give them a better income, stop oppressing them, stop supporting those who oppress them, close up the McDonald's around the world that offend them, make sure no one writes a bad cartoon, let them wear full face veils for ID photos, do all this and more, and the problem will go away because in the end...it's all just neonazicon W's daddy-complex and Cheney's running-dog oil capitalist pigs who are behind this war on terror.

Having said all that, I would LOVE to see a list of before/after quotes like above showing the Dem leadership promoting, accepting, then raving against a surge. Man, that'd be TOO FUNNY!

Actually, Barry McCaffrey did

January 24, 2007 - 22:39 ET by jdhawk

Actually, Barry McCaffrey didn't say that, Wilson. He largely agreed with President Bush to stay the course. While he outlined a withdrawal timeline, it was over a 36 month period. And, then, only if the Iraqis were able to meet certain objectives.

If you listen to our President's advisors, they have as much as said that in the early summer of last year that they were talking about reducing the troops levels because the war seemed to be going so well.

For example, Barry McCaffrey said this about the time frame when he wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal, Saturday, July 2, 2005: "Many of these forces (perhaps 60,000 plus) are now operating in the cities and rural areas of Iraq and confronting the insurgency with courage and resolve. The ISF has taken horrendous casualties--600 killed and 1,800 wounded since the election. The losses have deepened their commitment. Recruiting has gotten easier--not more difficult. By next summer there will be 250,000 Iraqis in the uniforms of their Armed Forces and the Interior Ministry Police. The Iraqi units that I observed in training and action are patriots with a commitment to creating a new Iraq. I don't use these words lightly--the creation of the ISF is the crux of the war. In my view, these ISF units by next summer may well allow a significant drawdown of a third or more of the deployed U.S. forces.:

In that same article, he said this about President Bush, "From the beginning, I have believed Iraq was the right war, in the right place, at the right time. President Bush showed great political and moral courage knocking down the sanctuaries of both Afghanistan and Iraq."

It appears that Barry McCaffrey is both for the neccessity of the war and behind President Bush's waging of that war.

Tell us, Wilson, do you want us to win the war? If we lost the war, what do think the consequences of losing in Iraq would be? What are your thoughts on how we can win in Iraq?

So nothing has changed in Ira

January 24, 2007 - 23:37 ET by j. frank wilson

So nothing has changed in Iraq between July 2005 and January 2007? Why go back a year and a half? What's wrong with last week?

Of course I want us to win the war. But we aren't going to win with a military only solution. And at this point it is very hazy what "win" even means. More of the same - the Israeli solution - isn't going to get the job done.

Well you know what frank?

January 24, 2007 - 23:53 ET by Jerry

Well you know what frank? We're doing something. We are taking it to the terrorists instead of just sitting back on our hindquarters and pretending that nothing was wrong, unless the scandals got too hot, which would invoke the flinging of a few missles here and there.

The world is not perfect. War is not perfect. The prosecution of war will ALWAYS throw you some curve balls. But you usually expect your own people to back you instead of tearing down your effort. If you don't think the constant bad mouthing of the war effort is demoralizing to our troops, just ask them. Talk to any Vietnam vet. If you don't think this constant threat to cut and run is emboldening our enemies, you are dead wrong. Talk to any number of N.Vietnamese commanders. Why do you think John Kerry's picture is on the "Wall of Heroes" in the North Vietnam War Museum?

This war could be over in a "flash" if we prosecuted the war in the same manner as our enemies would if they had the same military superiority. Even without resorting to that measure, this war could still be over in a matter of months if the damned media and liberal traitors would get out of the picture.

When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

I agree Jerry

January 25, 2007 - 00:08 ET by SportPolitics

I agree with your last sentence especially Jerry, and so do the special forces, who have been quite frustrated and angry, according to the calls and reports I've seen and heard.

We've got the insidious liberal element of a kinder, softer war that cannot be shaken, and it's tied in with tremendously pumped fears over the risk of newsed up casualties.

I have to admit, that keeping the average at 1-2 a day loss for these years is absolutely amazing in my book and resounds massive superiority, and it appears to me the liberals with their lying two-faced blather have successfully declared that unacceptable. They're so deeply entrenched in everything that tip-toeing around is required everywhere.

In the end, I guess the inevitable( USA on our soil destruction) is going to be demanded by the very same, in order for their curdled fetal position to take on the status of not seen or heard. The question is wether or not The Base has become keenly aware of that, and has therefore decided against a large follow on attack, in order to save their own behinds. It is my oopinion that have, and their choice has been to instead attack allies.

Ahh, the mysteries of conflict.

Jerry, the insidious liberal assumptive position

January 25, 2007 - 00:47 ET by SportPolitics

Jerry, the insidious liberal assumptive position, with the follow on cover-up of the agenda:

" We're not going to win with a military only solution. "

This is the liberal gasbag statement of the decade. First of all, we're not employing a military only solution currently, but the liberal idiot loves to slip in the implication so the attendant Bush bash lie is slammed forth.

Secondly, after the idiot liberal spews that no military only solution will work, they back the "no military" solution, and make it a pure liberal talk diplomacy scenario.

The sad truth is the ever present "diplomatic solution" the thousands of liberals in the bureaucracy have been pushing for years is what got us Sadr and his Mahdi Army in the first place. The same liberal forgiveness crap we see here for child molesters - after they take down children in rapes, over and over again. In Sadr's case, the murder was the moderate Shia who would have stopped the sectarian warring before it could start, and enjoyed wide popular support. Liberals are scourge to justice, and now we see that the solution they forbade must be employed anyway.

I am really , really sick of the two faced whining weasals of the left. They have their veiled stupidity statements that push forth assumptive and impled lies like water, and they use them all day long, and pretend they are putting forth a valid argument.

No thanks, I find them nothing more than sickeningly stupid. A big fat zero peacenick with a rear end cover called deception.

In the end, the bloviating pricks agree with GWB, except for the really insane freaks, who don't give a rats behind if millions get slaughtered after a pullout, and would be deliriously happy to have it happen so they could forever blame it on GWB, and forego any responsibility in the result they pushed and pushed for until they got it. Their answer would be " war is always bad for us ". How they assimilate that with WW2 is beyond me, but then as I pointed out insanity is a prerequisite. I see freakboy yammered about hitler losing in russia - in order to refute violence as a tool that works, and I suppose he assumes that russia tossed potatoe bread on the fields and caused a german loss. If the liberal idiot meant he believes an unjust agressor is destined to lose, then he should have said that. But of course, the stupid idiot liberals can't explain themselves.

I have noticed the democrats and their insane leaders slowly making the new Iraq government the enemy in their words and statements, in order that they may attempt to wedge the surrender pullout. After they scream Iran is a greater danger, and Bush is in the wrong war, and that Iran is fomenting insurgency and EID's, they switch that viewpoint 180 degrees around with their crew babbling there is no evidence of any such thing after this election and their lib columnists warning their is an administration uptick against Iran.

It is absolutely amazing the massive flip flops they pull off, and even more disgusting is their endless nam syndrome that fails all the lessons that should have been gleaned in favor of hugging a tree and surrendering to the enemy, the sooner, the better, accompanied by infinite loser defeatist syndrome.

The simple answer is the only right war is the last one a democrat president bombed in. Then of course, none of their insanities will ever be spoken, and never applied. This shows just what charlatans and fools they are.

You're on the money SP.

January 25, 2007 - 01:05 ET by Jerry

You're on the money SP. We are working hand in hand with the Iraqi people to establish their government and rebuild their country. How is that a "military only" solution. We are applying diplomatic pressure on Iran & N.Korea. But you know what? All the diplomatic pressure in the world won't mean a hill of beans without the threat of total annihilation behind it. And there is no threat of annihilation without having put it into practice somewhere (like we did to some degree by blitzing Iraq). This is evidenced by Mohamir Khadafi's voluntary abandonment of his WMD programs after Baghdad fell.

I think this quote by someone freed by the U.S. military sums it up perfectly:

"If anyone is to save us, it must be the Americans. Everyone else will talk until we are all dead."

When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

"Talk to any Vietnam vet

January 25, 2007 - 15:57 ET by j. frank wilson

"Talk to any Vietnam vet." Ok, here's one:

SCHIEFFER: ...Vice President Cheney says this [US Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution] sort of thing undercuts the troops. What's your response?

Sen. [Chuck] HAGEL: Well, let me say this. I served in Vietnam in 1968. Others did, too - Jim Webb, John McCain, John Kerry, other members in the House. In 1968, when I was there with my brother, worst year, deaths, I would have welcomed the Congress of the United States to pay a little attention as to what was going on. I would have welcomed that. That is complete nonsense to say we're undercutting the support of the troops. What are we about? We're Article I of the Constitution. We're a co-equal branch of government. Are we not to participate? Are we not to say anything? Are we not to register our sense of where we're going in this country on foreign policy?

"Bottom line is this: Our young men and women and their families, these young men and women who are asked to fight and die, deserve a policy worth of those sacrifices. I don't think we have one now..."

[Face The Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, January 21, 2007]

So you would rather listen to Sheer Insanity whine about "undercutting the troops?" What precisely is his military record? Dick Cheney talks about undercutting the troops? Five student deferments? I'll agree with John Murtha on that one.

Did you serve?

January 25, 2007 - 16:00 ET by florida_chad

Did you serve?

Nope.But unlike so, so many r

January 25, 2007 - 16:07 ET by j. frank wilson

Nope.

But unlike so, so many right wingnutz I don't eat my young. They'll blather all day about undercutting the troops but just let one veteran object to a poorly led war and immediately that proven warrior is an idiot, a traitor, a fool...Just read the posts on this blog alone. I don't suggest people exercising their Constitutional duties and obligations - let alone their rights - are undercutting our troops. Gen. Tommy Franks has said as much -

What's the difference between Jane Fonda and Dick Cheney? Jane Fonda went to Viet Nam.