link





The chickens are coming home to roost.

Ok, read the article.

I respect the LTG's opinion.

But I believe he may also have an ax to grind, he didn't get the fourth star.

You're a smart guy Patton. You're also in the military. Do you really think there could have been a major redeployment of troops in a country we had just invaded, a combat zone, without the Secretary of Defense knowing about it? Or that he didn't know which of his generals was in charge in Iraq?

I'm not sure which is worse, if he knew or if he didn't, but I can't believe that he didn't. The thought of that is scary.

Doubtful, but, since you were in the military also, you know there are rouge elements everywhere, so it is possible.

Some General may have shot for "glory". Many things are possible.

Even for a rogue element, that seems a little unbelievable. But how much combat experience to Rumsfeld, Bush, and Rice actually have? What were we hoping for, from them, anyway?

Hoping for from whom?

I don't believe Rice knew much at all considering there are many documented incidents where Rumsfeld would indicate to her that she was only the NSA and not a cabinet member. He exlcuded her from many high level meetings particularly dealing with Iraq.

I think what this story really portrays is just how inept Donald Rumsfeld actually was. He was a failure during the Nixon administration and had it not been for the wisdom of President George H.W. Bush, Operation Desert Shield/Storm would have been a disaster as well!

As for Colin Powell and what his actual opinion was regarding invading Iraq in 2003 really didn't matter because he was always outnumbered by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. The biggest problem I have with Powell is showing the public a united front even when he knew he disagreed with many of the decisions being made behind closed doors. He should maintained his integrity, resigned his post, and stuck to principle.

Sanchez was after his 4th star no doubt and I imagine his memoirs could be more focused on sales so I'm sure he added some "yeast" to many of his recollections of what actually took place.

The bottom line in all this is that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the invasion of Iraq was poorly planned and there was neither a postwar strategy as well as a viable exit strategy, something the elder President Bush stated as his original reason for not sending masses of troops into Baghdad the first time but rather focus on containment which by the way was working just fine!

I disagree with the containment argument.

Sadaam was growing bolder by the week. He was constantly flipping off the UN (which to me is an inept organization anyway).

This isn't even debatable. Saddam flipping off the UN was more about presenting a smoke screen of strength to Iran. Defectors from Saddam's regime turned over numerous intelligence showing that Iraq was so weak after the @$$ whooping they got from the U.S. in the first Persian Gulf War.

As history reflects, prior to Operation Desert Storm, Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world and had a pretty good Air Force. After the war however, there are speculations that more than 33% of the Iraqi military was destroyed and almost all of the Air Force had been eliminated. The Iraqi military had no operations outside of it's borders (i.e. they couldn't invade Saudi Arabia or Kuwait) and all of it's activities were against people inside its' borders (i.e war crimes against the Kurds).

Containment was in fact working to do just that.....contain Saddam to activities within Iraq's borders and given the fact that no WMD were found, it's pretty obvious Saddam was only bluffing the U.N.

None were found, true, because they were PROBABLY moved to neighboring Syria.

I'm still towing the Administrations line on this one.

We were right.

We were justified.

We must complete the Mission, and stabilize the region.

Operative word 'PROBABLY' which is in fact speculation and propaganda regarding being justified for invading a sovereign country. Unfortunately the U.S. Constitution doesn't make provisions for the President to use the military for such a military operation based on probabilities. As far as the "Mission", I think it's fairly clear that there has never been a clearly defined mission and therefore impossible to complete something that is not defined in the first place.

At this point, I will have to say.

I am towing the Administrations line.

You are towing the Other line.

We disagree.

Thank you for the debate.

You are right, however it's pretty obvious the Administrations line is broke and I don't believe more lives, American or Iraqi should be lost because the Administration can't admit they got this one wrong!

The American military is the most powerful force on the planet and it didn't take 150,000+ soldiers to get Saddam. We could and should have done it a different way that would not have been so costly.

In your opinion.

What method would you have choosen to "get" him?

I would have had the CIA and Special Ops work with some of the militias in Iraq (i.e. Al Sadr) to "smoke" Saddam like a cheap cigar. No doubt I would have pursued measures to have Saddam assassinated.

Ah, ah, no good, President Carter signed a law forbidding the US from direct involvement in the Assasination of a foriegn leader.

True, but every President since then have signed secret orders to assassinate people like Saddam and and Osama bin Laden (Reagan, Bush, and Clinton). Besides, Carter didn't know crap especially when it came to military affairs and the threat of Islamic fundamentalist.

I have seen no proof of those, have you?

Yes, I have!

Ok.

You get the Hero Biscuit of the Day.

I can't say anymore.

Hero Biscuit, LOL. I'm going to have to remember that one.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...753C1A96E948260

Here I thought you meant real proof, not the NYTimes.

This isn't the proof I saw (with my own eyes) however the article is something for people like you to reference.

Got it.

You know what I like about you Patton is that you would originally suggest that anything is possible but then argue that our government is above secret assassination orders of war criminals such as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden all because Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter signed laws prohibiting it.

That's kind of contradictory don't you think?

Not at all. I believe the government is basically above reproach (is that the right word).

I am stating that some of the Generals in charge may be shooting for glory.

Got it.

So let me get this straight, although there was no proof of WMD because the evidence was PROBABLY moved to Syria you still maintain you believe they existed and therefore the invasion of Iraq was justified. You then disagree with the claim that former presidents signed secret assassination orders because there is no physical proof of it and in spite of a NY Time article which provides testimony from a person speaking anonymously?

That's a pretty interesting viewpoint.

Thank you

I know for a fact that our government (or certain members of it) isn't above assassination and worse. Case in point: Vince Foster. "Arkancide" is such a well-known phenomenon associated with the Clinton Crime Family that they even have a name for it.

Amen to that! There's been so many "strange" deaths of people "associated" with the Clinton's that it's unreal.

It's enough that I have heard people seriously say that they wonder what might happen to Obama one of these days. It's really kind of scary the stories you hear from people who've crossed the Clintons.