Okay enough of this... The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq by Kenneth M. Pollack From the US Department of Defense’s website of recommend books… http://www.politicsol.com/bush-administration/defense.html Defense Policy Choices for the Bush Administration, 2001-2005 By Michael E. O'Hanlon
Reading is fundamental. Go back and read what those two "critics" were writing before and during the early parts of the war. They were critics like I am a Bush bobblehead. By using their own writing as evidence, those bastards. And yet they STILL supported the war before, during, and after the invasion. And all of the people you use as examples still think the troops should be redeployed. It is not the "extended comments," it is the entire comment that was taken out of context that I am talking about. I am not saying that the "clarification" is what you should look at, it is the original comment before the pundits spun it. Look again, the "clarifications" consisted of the quoted people replaying or reading the ENTIRE quote rather than the single sentence that was spun into support for the administration. I would also like to see success: a successful redeployment of our troops out of the civil war they are embroiled in.
Michael O'Hanlon "I agree with the basic premise: that if I'm being held up as a "critic of the war", for example by Vice President Cheney, it’s certainly only fair to ask if that is a proper characterization of me. And in fact I would not even use that characterization of myself, as I will elaborate in a moment. " See the whole interview with Greenwald at- http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2007/08/interview-with-michael-ohanlon.html
Our guest blogger is Ret. Maj. Gen. John Batiste, the former Commanding General of 1st Infantry Division. For my first post here at ThinkProgress, I thought I would share something a little different from what you usually read here — something from a conservative perspective. I think this is especially fitting, given the new poll of foreign policy experts by Foreign Policy Magazine and the Center for American Progress, which shows 64 percent of conservative analysts feel the co-called “surge” in Iraq is having no impact, or a negative effect. The following is an op-ed I wrote two weeks ago, which neither the Wall Street Journal or Washington Times wanted to consider, so I’m posting it here… Over a year and a half ago, I made a gut-wrenching decision to leave the Army in order to speak out about the war in Iraq. I turned my back on over 31 years of service and what by all accounts would have been a great career. I realized that I was in a unique position to speak out on behalf of Soldiers and their families. I had a moral obligation and duty to do so. My family and I left the only life we knew and entered the political debate. As a two-time combat veteran, I understand the value of thorough planning and deliberate execution. I understand what it takes to win. As a life-long Republican, I am prepared to carry on with the debate for as long as necessary. I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back. As a conservative, I am all for a strong military and setting the conditions for success. America goes to war to win. I am not anti-war and am committed to winning the struggle against world-wide Islamic extremism. But, I am outraged that elected officials of my own party do not comprehend the predicament we are in with a strategy in the Middle East that lacks focus and is all but relying on the military to solve the diplomatic, political, and economic Rubik’s Cube that defines Iraq. Our dysfunctional interagency process in Washington DC lacks leadership and direction. Many conservatives in Congress have allowed the charade to go on for too long. It is disappointing that so many elected representatives of my party continue to blindly support the administration rather than doing what is in the best interests of our country. Traditionally, my party has maintained a conservative view on questions regarding our Armed Forces. For example, we commit our military only when absolutely necessary. In the same way conservatives have always argued against government excess in social programs, the lives our young men and women in uniform, our most precious resource, are not to be used on wars of choice or for nation building. The military theorist Carl von Clausewitz taught us that wars are to be fought only as a last resort–the extension of politics by other means. These principles are apparently not understood by many of the Republicans in our Congress. Besides the fact that many conservatives allowed President Bush to jump head-first into a war of choice, the bullheadedness of Congressional Republicans who argue for staying the course runs contrary to conservative values. Many politicians of my party continue to argue that we must liberally use up whatever our military has left. Bottom line, the Republican Congress of the last six years abrogated its Constitutional duty and share in the responsibility for the debacle in Iraq. Our all-volunteer military cannot continue the current cycle of deployments for much longer. America’s national strategy in Iraq is akin to a four legged stool with legs representing diplomacy, political reconciliation, economic recovery, and the military. The glue holding it all together must be the mobilization of the United States in support of the incredibly important effort to defeat world-wide Islamic extremism. The only leg on the stool of any consequence is the military–it is solid titanium and high performing, the best in the world. After almost six years since September 11, our country is not mobilized behind this important work and the diplomatic, political, and economic legs are not focused and lack leadership. Most Americans now appreciate that the military alone cannot solve the problem in Iraq. In this situation, the stool will surely collapse. Our military and our treasury are not unlimited resources. The war in Iraq is breaking our fine Army and Marine Corps, and we are perilously close to doing damage that will take more than a decade to fix. Our brigades and divisions in Iraq today are at near full strength because the rest of the force has been gutted. We cannot place America in a position of weakness as it just begins its long war against world-wide Islamic extremism. The Republican administration is bleeding our national treasure in blood and dollars with little to show for it. The high price we are paying might be worth it if Iraq’s many factions were making meaningful progress to achieve political reconciliation. But, after more than four years, Iraqis are no closer to settling their differences and the sitting Shia government is ineffective. With insufficient coalition and Iraqi security forces on the ground, the myth of Sisyphus is playing out over and over again. The Iraqi Parliament goes on vacation instead of working, and every few months, it seems, another Iraqi political faction walks out of the process. To me, continuing to expend money and American lives on a nation that shows little drive to solve its own problems is the foreign policy equivalent of a welfare queen. The only way to stabilize Iraq and allow our military to rearm and refit for the long fight ahead is to begin a responsible and deliberate redeployment from Iraq and replace the troops with far less expensive and much more effective resources–those of diplomacy and the critical work of political reconciliation and economic recovery. In other words, when it comes to Iraq, it’s time for conservatives to once again be conservative. – Major General John Batiste, US Army (retired) http://thinkprogress.org/
I looked into some stuff where they were critical of the Bush administration, and these titles don't really say whether they support or don't support the war. So I'm not sure what you're trying to show by just showing the cover of the books. Maybe having a summary would be more useful.
i don't think that he is saying he is a war supporter either. Maybe he's just nothing, and calls things as he sees it.
Maybe you don't know what the hell you're talking about as usual. You claimed- This has been conclusively proved wrong in O'Hanlon's own words. You might begin your long crawl back towards creditibility by simply admitting this. Of course, labeling them war critics was central to your claim that it was an important developmen when even liberal critics of the war claim the Surge is working. That position has now been pretty much blown out of the water. If you go and read the interview, you will see that O'Hanlon not only supported the invasion of Iraq, but he explicitly supported the Surge strategy. Of course, I'm pretty sure this has been pointed out to you early in this thread, so I have little hope that you will acknowledge it now.
Do you really think that the department of defense would recommend a book critical of their policies?
Let's look at some of his words ok? NBC liked to use him quite a bit: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-...-upbeat-iraq-judgment-abc-cbs-find-newsworthy Sounds like someone who's pretty critical to me. And based on his comments I at least see him as being impartial, and definitely it's legitimate to see him as someone who has been critical of the war and not a blind supporter as you guys paint him to be. Now Mr, how about you taking some of that back and admiting that indeed there is a case to be made that these guys are war critics - maybe gain back some of your credibility?
well, apparent the book recommends limiting defense spending and that 3% of GDP is enough for defense vs. the traditional 4%..... and I don't see how the book is pro-Iraq or pro-war. It's also critical of some of the decisions that have been made. I think you are literally judging a book by it's cover.
Bush has been "critical of some of the decisions that have been made". Can we count him as a skeptical war critic as well?
you could. no matter what people would like to make it look like i am sure that he isnt happy with how things have turned out and has tried to find better means...nah, who am i kidding. He loves and enjoys it
well his comments on NBC were clearly those of a war critic where he basically said the war was a failure - something Bush never did. But I see you will choose to ignore that.
The only way the USA will fail in Iraq is if we quit. We are not quitters. Maintaining the same tactics over and over that have failed is insanity. To lable a new tactic a failure before it has been proven so is taking the position of a coward and a quitter. Just like a suicide bomber is a coward an a quitter. There is no way that the great United States of America can be defeated by anyone but our own people and as much as this war has cost failure will cost more.
Brilliant! O'Hanlon is a "war critic" again. It's been less than three hours since the he was directly quoted stating he wouldn't use that term to describe himself. We see many examples of extreme selective memory in the Iraq war debate, but rarely it quite this blatant. Anyway, regarding the quotes you posted- First- If O'Hanlon was saying the "war was a failure" a few months ago and now he thinks we're "winning", I would say that right there is pretty suspect. Of course, he never said anything like that so this is just an example of your previously noted lack of reading comprehension or intellectual dishonesty. Either one works. Second- If everyone who states a less than rosy assessment of conditions in Iraq gets labeled a critic of the war, then name one person who can't be labeled this way. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol, Gifford!!!! We're all war critics now!
And it's up against the wall, Redneck Mother! Mother who has raised a son so well. He's 34 and drinking in a honky-tonk. Kickin' hippies asses and raising hell!
Apparently anyone who sees progress is a war supporter who blindly loves Bush. I think it's legitimate to say he's not a blind war supporter, and calls it as he sees it. Returning to my original point, his op/ed piece is legit.
On MSNBC’s Hardball tonight, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who is leading a White House front group to defend Bush’s escalation, was unable to name the wounded Iraq veteran featured in his organization’s pro-war ad. “I don’t have his name in front of me,” said Fleischer when asked by host Mike Barnicle if he knew the soldier’s name. http://thinkprogress.org/
We also know it's working because the phone number in these ads doesn't ring Congress, but operators paid for by the group who will only forward your call if you believe the terrorists will follow us here should we redeploy. They won't even give out the main line for the House and Senate if you're not willing to take their pledge. http://www.dailykos.com/
