Why do these former generals hate freedom and America?

Traitors! Infidels!! Send 'em to Gitmo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

When did Bush say the whole Iraq thing was going to be easy, or anything really in contrast to what these generals are saying?

 

I think you missed the point twhy77

 

The original troup projections at the end of the Summer of 2003 was something like 30,000. Thus, "easy".

 

Military leaders are becoming very concerned.




From www.salon.com

Bush faces a revolt -- from the U.S. military
The president may see his mission to Iraq as a holy war, but frustrated Pentagon strategists say they're being ignored and ill-treated by the administration.


- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal



April 15, 2004 | Almost exactly 43 years ago, on April 21, 1961, President John F. Kennedy held a press conference to answer questions on the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by Cuban exiles that he had approved. "There's an old saying," he said, "that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan ... I am the responsible officer of the government and that is quite obvious." He expressed private disbelief at and disdain for his sudden rise in popularity: "The worse I do the more popular I get." He remarked to his aide Ted Sorensen: "How could I have been so far off base? All my life I've known better than to depend on the experts. How could I have been so stupid, to let them go ahead?"

On Wednesday, President Bush held only his third prime-time press conference and was asked three times whether he accepted responsibility for failing to act before Sept. 11 on warnings such as the President's Daily Brief of Aug. 6, 2001, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." "I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet," he said. "... I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here and maybe I'm not quick -- as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

Bush's press conference was the culmination of his recent efforts to stanch the political wounds of his bleeding polls since the 9/11 commission had begun public hearings and the Fallujah killings of four U.S. contractors had set off a spiral of violence in Iraq. Bush had tried to divert blame by declaring that the Aug. 6 memo he was forced to declassify at the commission's insistence contained no "actionable intelligence," even though it specifically mentioned the World Trade Center, federal buildings in New York (many lodged in the WTC), and Washington as targets. Like his national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, he claimed that because that dire memo, written by the CIA with the intention of catching his blurred attention, lacked "a time and place of an attack" it didn't prompt him to do anything.

Bush, in fact, does not read his PDBs, but has them orally summarized every morning by CIA director George Tenet. President Clinton, by contrast, read them closely and alone, preventing any aides from interpreting what he wanted to know firsthand. He extensively marked up his PDBs, demanding action on this or that, which is almost certainly the reason the Bush administration withheld his memoranda from the 9/11 commission.

"I know he doesn't read," one former Bush National Security Council staffer told me. Several other former NSC staffers corroborated his habit. It seems highly unlikely that he read the National Intelligence Estimate on WMD before the Iraq war that consigned contrary evidence and caveats that undermined the case to footnotes and fine print. There is no record that he raised any questions about the abuse of intelligence. Nor is there any evidence that he read the State Department's 17-volume report "The Future of Iraq," warning of nearly all the postwar pitfalls, that was shelved by the neocons in the Pentagon and Vice President Cheney's office. "He probably didn't even know of 'The Future of Iraq,'" said a former NSC staffer.

Nor was Bush aware of similar warnings urgently being sounded by the military's top strategic analysts. I have learned that a monograph, "Reconstructing Iraq," by the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, predicting in detail "possible severe security difficulties" and conflicts among Iraqis that U.S. forces "can barely comprehend," was suppressed by the Pentagon neocons, and only released to U.S. Central Command after Sen. Joseph Biden, ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, directly intervened. By then, the problems foreseen were already overwhelming Iraq.

A revolt within the military against Bush is brewing. Many in the military's strategic echelon share the same feelings of being ignored and ill-treated by the administration that senior intelligence officers voice in private. "The Pentagon began with fantasy assumptions on Iraq and worked back," one of them remarked to me. Reflecting the developing consensus at that level, the Army War College has just issued a new monograph in which a senior Army strategist accuses the Bush administration of seeking to win "quickly and on the cheap" while having "either misunderstood or, worse, wished away" the predicted problems.

As the iconic image of the "war president" has tattered, another picture has emerged. Bush appears as a passive manager who enjoys sitting atop a hierarchical structure, unwilling and unable to do the hard work that a real manager has to do in order to run the largest enterprise in the world. He does not seem to absorb data unless it is presented to him in simple, crystal-clear fashion by people whose judgment he trusts. He is receptive to information that agrees with his point of view rather than information that challenges it. This therefore leads to enormous power on the part of the trusted interlocutors, who know and bolster his predilections. Thus Rice fulfills Bush's idea of the national security advisor as the comforting briefer.

At his press conference, Bush was a confusion of absolute confidence and panic. He jumbled facts and conflated threats, redoubling the vehemence of his incoherence at every mildly skeptical question. Whenever he could, he drove himself back to the safety of 9/11 -- and then disclaimed responsibility. He attempted to create a false political dichotomy between "retreat" and his own vague and evolving position on Iraq, which now appears to follow Sen. John Kerry's of granting more authority to the U.N. and bringing in NATO.

The ultimate revelation was Bush's vision of a divinely inspired apocalyptic struggle in which he is the leader of a crusade bringing the Lord's "gift." "I also have this belief, strong belief that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the earth we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom." But religious war is not part of official U.S. military doctrine.


- - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Yeah, when did they say it was gonna be easy. I mean, Iraqi's greeting us with open arms and flowers is just a metaphor for uprising and taking hostages.

 

General assails U.S. policy on Iraq


Warnings ignored, says retired Marine
By Rick Rogers
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
April 16, 2004

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned.

"I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"

At a Pentagon news briefing yesterday, Rumsfeld said he could not have estimated how many troops would be killed in the past week.

Zinni made his comments during an interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune before giving a speech last night at the University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice as part of its distinguished lecturer series.

For years Zinni said he cautioned U.S. officials that an Iraq without Saddam Hussein would likely be more dangerous to U.S. interests than one with him because of the ethnic and religious clashes that would be unleashed.

"I think that some heads should roll over Iraq," Zinni said. "I think the president got some bad advice."

Known as the "Warrior Diplomat," Zinni is not a peace activist by nature or training, having led troops in Vietnam, commanded rescue operations in Somalia and directed strikes against Iraq and al Qaeda.

He once commanded the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton.

Out of uniform, Zinni was a troubleshooter for the U.S. government in Africa, Asia and Europe and served as special envoy to the Middle East under the Bush administration for a time before his reservations over the Iraq war and its aftermath caused him to resign and oppose it.

Not even Zinni's resumé could shield him from the accusations that followed.

"I've been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things," said Zinni, 60. The problems in Iraq are being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide security.

Zinni said the United States must now rely on the U.N. to pull its "chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq."

"We're betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war," Zinni said. "Now we're back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost."

Several things have to happen to get Iraq back on course, whether the U.N. decides to step in or not, Zinni said.

Improving security for American forces and the Iraqi people is at the top of the list followed closely by helping the working class with economic projects.

But it's not the lack of a comprehensive American plan for Iraq nor the surging violence that has cost allied troops their lives – including about 30 Camp Pendleton Marines – that most concerns Zinni.

"In the end, the Iraqis themselves have to want to rebuild their country more than we do," Zinni said. "But I don't see that right now. I see us doing everything.

"I spent two years in Vietnam, and I've seen this movie before," he said. "They have to be willing to do more or else it is never going to work."

Last night at the Kroc institute during his speech "From the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table: Preventing Deadly Conflict," Zinni detailed the approach he believes the United States should take in the Middle East.

He told an overflow crowd that the United States tries to grapple with individual issues in Middle East instead of seeing them as elements of a broader question.

"We need to step back and get a grand strategy," he said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Rogers: (760) 476-8212; rick.rogers@uniontrib.com




Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040416-9999-7m16zinni.html

 

damn liberal generals how dare they liberal try to have their liberal own thoughts!!! loser forbes kerry liberal damn liberal iraqis. how can we liberate iraq and not turn them into liberals???

 

Why is USMC General Zinni giving aid and comfort to the enemy by comparing Iraq to Vietnam? Is he not grateful to the USMC and its brave men and women? Does he want America to fail?

 

Why are you talking about this? Shouldn't we talking about Kerrey's wife's tax returns?

 

I'm sure enlistment is up. Given that most Republicans were salivating for this war, millions surely enlisted to help the fight.

 

Actually, GreenVegan76

Fewer soldiers re-enlist Army sees dip as war increases need
By Dave Moniz
USA TODAY


WASHINGTON -- The number of soldiers staying in the Army is falling just as the demand is increasing in Iraq.

Through March 17, nearly halfway through the fiscal year, the Army fell about 1,000 short of meeting its goal of keeping 25,786 soldiers whose enlistments were ending or who were eligible to retire. That works out to a 96% retention rate.

Last year, the retention figure was 106% because more soldiers stayed than the Army had planned. The retention goal assumes that not all eligible to stay will remain.

Military personnel experts have warned that full-time soldiers and members of the Guard and Reserve could begin leaving this year because of the strains of service, including longer and more frequent overseas missions. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged Thursday that the Defense Department will extend duty in Iraq beyond one year for 20,000 soldiers. Their time in Iraq will grow as much as 90 days.

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040416/6120940s.htm

 

GV... you're usually pretty reasonable, but what makes you think that "most Republicans" were salivating for this war?

 

Please *retired* Generals

You'll have have something when active Generals say something about problems in Iraq (which they won't). I mean what do you expect *retired* generals to say?