A Warrior's Warrior
Owen West has earned and deserves a listening to when it comes to Iraq, Gen. Petraeus and two fallen Marines named Zembiec and Mendoza.
posted by Spencerblog at
7:26 AM
|
|
|
Spencerblog |
|
||||
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
SpencerblogWednesday, September 12, 2007A Warrior's Warrior
Owen West has earned and deserves a listening to when it comes to Iraq, Gen. Petraeus and two fallen Marines named Zembiec and Mendoza.
posted by Spencerblog at
7:26 AM
|
|
||||
|
||||||
16 Comments:
Outstanding article. This is the kind of responsible press coverage that our country needs. Not biased in either direction. Right down the middle with the truth.
Bingo!
Ed-
It's an opinion piece, not "press coverage".
Disarming and capturing the enemy is a lot more noble than killing. (if you're not sure, think about how "noble" you would like the other side to treat us.)
As for "bipartisan" solutions, 70% of the country has made it quite clear what they want congress to do. One party is blocking the will of the American people (hint: it's not the democrats)
If anyone catches today's repeat of last night's Daily Show they can see a nice collection of Bush and Petraeus saying the same things. Petraeus could possibly be very sincere but have the same warped vision of reality as Bush, but I think Petraeus kept his focus VERY limited to avoid discussing the areas where he disagrees with his boss.
Even a leading Republican suggested that Petraeus's report was a "disconnect". (Polite way of saying it does NOT match GAO and other independent reports, and both assessments can't be right.)
Notice how Liberals hate even-handed military reports, reporting and opinion pieces. For all their chirping about “tolerance” they’re quite intolerant of anything that does not fit their preconceived notions they want to force on everyone else.
So much for “honest debate” from the Left. Since we already know what they’ll say we may as well just go ahead and preclude them from all talks on such topics.
What's even-handed about an ex-Military guy that loves a guy that loves killing?
It's hardly 'responsible' coverage. BTW, this is why there is civilian control of the military to keep the killing from getting out of hand. Sadly, Congress has lost control and allowed this to continue.
Aw, you Libs always weep when our enemies get killed.
It’s all part of your misplaced sympathies thing.
Heck, you guys don’t even like to see the violent criminal scumbags of our society put to death! Lol…
David,
I didn't see the Jon Stewart piece. From the way you explained it though, do you think maybe Bush is listening to his Military Commanders and echoing their thoughts, which could be good, common sense military strategies for where we stand right now in Iraq?
As far as the article we are commenting on, I thought that it was about as fair and straight down the middle as someone can be. I didn't detect a bias to any political party. The only side I detected the author was on was that of common sense and the United States of America, which are two teams that I will be a life long fan of.
Ed-
The Jon Stewart piece showed Petraeus echoing Bush's earlier speeches (with nearly identical words and sentences). This is part of the point that Bush (and the Democrats) already knew was Petraeus was going to say prior to the testimony. No one was surprised.
BTW, the Dems and key Republicans have been talking about the GAO and other reports. What the neocons like to portray as pre-condemnation of the report was more accurately an assessment independent of Petraeus. Parts Petraeus's testimony that are at odds with the consensus are the issue.
Back to the original article:
Besides the glorification of killing, West tries to dismiss the people that opposed the war from the start, as though they are living in the past.
This ignores that the anti-war crowd had a very good track record (and just the flipping a coin once type) of predicting the outcome of each stage of this war. They correctly identified preventable flaws and weaknesses in the Bush strategy. The right answer to the current situation is mostly like to come from the people that have been right all along.
Nah. Why on earth would we listen to the traitors of the Surrender Left?
And when did Jon Stewart become a serious political commentator? I musta missed that.
A few year ago.
Todays top Generals graduated from their respective Military Academies in the 1970's. They were in the top percentages in their classes. They have been involved in war planning for 30 years and they have held Command Positions at all levels of Military Units. They have all the information that is available to make decisions, including top secret info that we do not see or know about. Their agenda is to win the war. I trust their expert opinion.
Now I'm not trying to attack you personally here ( in accordance with the spencerblog directive) but do you have a resume like that? I know that you think you are right and feel passionately about this issue. Do you ever stop and think that maybe someone else, like a 4 star General who's been doing this stuff for 30+ years, could have a little more insight that you?
Another thing that has been bugging me is that everybody thinks these guy's are "Bush's guys". They have been Commissioned Officers in the US Military for 30+ years. They have seen both parties hold the White House. I don't know how you can check on this, but I'll bet some of these guy's, probably a lot of them, were recommended to Congress, by Bill Clinton, for at least one of their promotions as a General.
Ed-
The top generals that disagreed with Bush were pushed out or marginalized. The ones agreeing with Bush got the more important assignments. Most notably FOUR-star General Shinseki who is famous for his remarks to the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee before the war in Iraq in which he said "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq.
Money Quotes:
GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.
DEP. SEC. WOLFOWITZ: There has been a good deal of comment - some of it quite outlandish - about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army - hard to imagine.
Ed, what you guys are ignoring is the reports by GAO and other independent experts that disagree with Petraeus. Bush and Petraeus having closely matched rhetoric isn't helping as Bush's non-credibility damages Petraeus. If Petraeus had an assessment that differed with Bush, Bush would have had someone else deliver the report.
Petraeus may honestly believe what he reported and just be wrong.
The top generals that disagreed with Bush were pushed out or marginalized. The ones agreeing with Bush got the more important assignments.
Bush and Petraeus having closely matched rhetoric...
As is the case with every president.
This is from Wikipedia's take on General Shinseki:
Contrary to Democratic candidate John Kerry's claim, in the first debate of the 2004 presidential election, Shinseki was not "retired" for his testimony before Congress. His official term as Chief of the Army ended four months later and he retired as scheduled. [17] However, the tension between the civilians in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Shinseki were apparent.
Besides, you just proved my point. Listen to the General's not the Civilians! I will totally agree with you that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were wrong. You'll chastise them for being wrong and then do the same thing with General Petraeus.
Dave:
Is there anything that you can think of that the Republicans, including our President, does right?
It’s just disgusting how the Left will jump to attack their fellow Americans in all this when they say things they don’t want to hear. They really seem confused as to just who is the enemy.
And they call this "patriotism".
Post a Comment
<< Home