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 ↓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.
Comments Policy
Competition is good, and, ABC
January 24, 2007 - 18:53 ET by ucCompetition 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 - 18:56 ET by ucNote: 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 - 19:14 ET by mattmoops, double post.
Could you rephrase your state
January 24, 2007 - 19:14 ET by mattmCould 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 - 20:01 ET by JABuc, 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 - 19:10 ET by bigtimerBlitzer: "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 - 19:42 ET by Mica the MagnificentCheney: 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 - 19:59 ET by j. frank wilsonUnfortunately 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 - 20:11 ET by Mica the MagnificentWith 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 - 20:42 ET by j. frank wilsonLet 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 - 22:36 ET by SportPoliticsYes 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 25, 2007 - 00:18 ET by j. frank wilsonIf 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 25, 2007 - 00:21 ET by Free StinkerUh, J. Frank, have you ever heard of NATO?
That's a question you should
January 25, 2007 - 13:59 ET by j. frank wilsonThat'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 - 18:54 ET by BDActually, 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 - 11:54 ET by danboIf 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 - 18:57 ET by BDYes, 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 25, 2007 - 00:21 ET by j. frank wilsonThe 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 - 12:01 ET by danboYou 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 - 15:37 ET by j. frank wilsonOf 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 - 15:43 ET by danboHu 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 - 15:47 ET by danboSorry it was a double post.
I will only present the opini
January 25, 2007 - 19:00 ET by BDI 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 - 21:05 ET by j. frank wilsonPlease 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 - 23:52 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 25, 2007 - 00:24 ET by j. frank wilsonNow 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 25, 2007 - 00:28 ET by Free StinkerP.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 - 19:03 ET by BDVery 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 - 20:16 ET by bigtimerfrankie 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 - 20:23 ET by Mica the MagnificentWOW, Bigtimer.
But you may have been too subtle for a liberal.
mica,frankie j always throws
January 24, 2007 - 20:49 ET by bigtimermica,
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 25, 2007 - 00:25 ET by j. frank wilsonI am dazzled by the logic of your post.
Took ya long enough frankie..
January 25, 2007 - 00:39 ET by bigtimerTook ya long enough frankie...
Geesh... those slow learners.
Getting pretty tired of the "
January 24, 2007 - 20:24 ET by BuffNBoneGetting 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 - 20:44 ET by BlondeB&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 25, 2007 - 00:30 ET by j. frank wilsonAnd 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 25, 2007 - 00:32 ET by Free StinkerOr maybe we could do what the British did in Malaysia . . .
Obviously you didn't take the
January 25, 2007 - 00:58 ET by j. frank wilsonObviously 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 - 01:10 ET by Free StinkerI 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 - 14:34 ET by j. frank wilsonRe: 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 - 19:06 ET by BDAll 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 - 19:13 ET by danboBD 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 - 19:51 ET by j. frank wilsonSir: 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 25, 2007 - 00:36 ET by BlondeGee 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 - 01:00 ET by j. frank wilsonHere'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 - 19:08 ET by BDSASO 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 - 20:06 ET by j. frank wilsonPlease 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 - 20:33 ET by Blondej 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 - 01:03 ET by j. frank wilson1966: 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 - 01:11 ET by JerryLet'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 - 01:11 ET by Free StinkerAnd do you know what happened after we left?
Sure there was j frank
January 25, 2007 - 01:16 ET by SportPoliticsSure 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 - 01:17 ET by Free StinkerFrank - 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 - 01:20 ET by BlondeWell,
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 - 17:31 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 - 17:32 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 - 17:38 ET by florida_chadThe 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 - 18:07 ET by danboChad. 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 - 20:23 ET by j. frank wilsonDo 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 - 19:14 ET by BDWhat 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 25, 2007 - 00:48 ET by UnsaneExplain 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 - 01:08 ET by j. frank wilsonBack 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 - 01:18 ET by SportPoliticsViolence 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 - 03:15 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 - 12:33 ET by danboHe'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 - 16:40 ET by j. frank wilsonWhat are you talking about? And why is this capitalized?
Remarkable how you manage to
January 25, 2007 - 14:51 ET by j. frank wilsonRemarkable 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 - 19:18 ET by BDRegarding 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 - 20:28 ET by j. frank wilsonOf 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 - 20:55 ET by danboI 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 - 21:11 ET by j. frank wilsonSo 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 - 08:46 ET by blackrain4xmasThe 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 - 12:10 ET by danboMe 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 - 16:42 ET by j. frank wilsonAre you sure you should be huffing before posting?
danbo,Who is it? Or whom do
January 25, 2007 - 21:03 ET by Blondedanbo,
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 - 21:14 ET by j. frank wilsonSearch 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 - 21:19 ET by Blondej 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.