Former top General in Iraq blast Bush admin 4 creating Iraq Nightmare

[RetiredGySgt]

Your opening line...

I can hardly wait for the koolaid soaked Bush butt lickers to start assailing the patriotism of THIS fine general.

So every officer that has served and still serves that has not said what you want to hear is a koolaid soaked Bush butt licker? All the retired officers that have NOT spoken out in this manner? All the currently serving are lying for the President?

 

[dilloduck]

just his ethics and integrity. I guess that is perfectly acceptable when a distinquished flag officer dares to point out that the emporer is wearing no clothes.

You predicted that people would challenge his PATRIOTISM.

 

[dilloduck]

I notice how you put "misinformed" in quotation marks. Typical of YOU to make claims you cannot back up. I DEMAND that you show one post where I have EVER called a general incompetent OR "misinformed".... or have the grace to retract the statement.

I'll wait.

And, flag officers, as a rule, soldier on in the face of inept civilian leadership. They have a great degree of loyalty to their service and to their men and if every flag officer resigned every time an incompetent secdef oir CinC asked them to do something they disagreed with, we would have no uniformed leadership in our armed forces. I would think that you would KNOW that RGS.

I figure you for being a serious hair splitter so I guess when you were here blasting everyone with Admiral Fallons' comments regarding Gen. Petraeus, you don't think that you were in anyway insinuating that he was incompetant to report to Congress ?

 

[maineman]

I figure you for being a serious hair splitter so I guess when you were here blasting everyone with Admiral Fallons' comments regarding Gen. Petraeus, you don't think that you were in anyway insinuating that he was incompetant to report to Congress ?

of course not. I was pointing out that he didn't get along with his boss... and that there was not unanimity about his relative effectiveness. Like I said.... RSR has stated that I have called American flag officers incompetient and "misinformed". So...he should either produce evidence of that or retract his statement.


but we all know that pigs will fly first.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

of course not. I was pointing out that he didn't get along with his boss... and that there was not unanimity about his relative effectiveness. Like I said.... RSR has stated that I have called American flag officers incompetient and "misinformed". So...he should either produce evidence of that or retract his statement.


but we all know that pigs will fly first.

Your idiocy knows no bounds. YOU made the statement, now want to pretend you did not. Shall I quote you again?

You have in fact insinuated that serving Generals LIE for Bush and Company. Why else would all the previous and current Generals since Sanchez not be saying what he has? More specifically the current General said nothing like Sanchez. Yet YOU claimed everyone that did not believe what he said were "koolaid soaked butt lickers for Bush"

And then we have you for months now demanding we leave Iraq, pull out and quit. Suddenly when it is pointed out your new best buddy Sanchez DID not call for that at all, claiming you want us to win.

What won't happen till "pigs learn to fly" is people like you owning up to your bullshit. Once again General Sanchez has not been in Iraq in 3 years , he has not even been in the Army. Further his complaints are not a demand to abandon Iraq like you have demanded all along.

Your a piece of garbage. A serial liar. A political hack that thinks any means are justified by the ends they accomplish. I for one am FEED UP with your personal attacks and your disparaging of veterans because they won't cow tow to your demented demands.

You are NOT the one owed an apology.

 

[Doug]

I can imagine that the officers and NCOs at Antietam or Omaha Beach or Iwo Jima or Tarawa or Chosin Reservoir -- the ones left alive -- may later have had some private or even not so private criticisms of their more senior commanders whose planning or lack of it got them into the situation they were in.

We're a democracy and we don't blindly adulate the American equivalent of Kim Sung Il or Fidel Castro.

The only question worth arguing about at the moment with respect to Iraq is: can we win? And by "win" I mean be seen to have put in place a government and system that will allow Iraq, over time, to evolve into a more or less normal society.

It may be that we cannot, in which case we have to get out as best we can. Retreats are sometimes necessary in warfare.

But the news from Iraq in the last few months would indicate that things may at last be moving our way.

If this is so -- if there is even a reasonable chance that this is so -- then it would be deeply irresponsible to retreat now. Isn't this obvious?

We can also argue about whether Mr Bush and his team would be a good group to plan our future wars, but I doubt that there would be much debate over that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/10/gen-sanchez-ass.html

I can hardly wait for the koolaid soaked Bush butt lickers to start assailing the patriotism of THIS fine general.

Honest to God....how many retired flag officers need to step up and slap you assholes across the face to get you to admit that this stupid stupid war is a idiotic endeavor?

"America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.”

but internet chickenhawks on here will claim that they know more about what is going on in Iraq than the former commander of our forces there.

You all make me so fucking sick I could puke.

In case needed let's save Maineman's words shall we? Further anyone that has read Maineman's tripe previously will have seen him make the claim that serving Officers routinely lie for the President. Which is what would have to happen if we are to believe the current Commander's assessment is incorrect. Maineman has insisted that he in fact toed the party line ( even though a serving officer is a-political) and that Bush or his staff wrote his remarks to Congress and he dutifully repeated those as his own words ( remind me again what lying means?) though he did not believe them.

He has brought forth the first Commander , a man that has not been in Country in 3 years, Has not been IN the Army either during that time. He has insisted anyone that does not believe what this man is saying is the conditions now in Iraq ( again something he has no direct knowledge of or detailed reports of) is a butt licker for the President. That must by definition INCLUDE any serving Officer that has, as Maineman claims, lied for Bush or any officer that has in fact disagreed with this man's opinion.

Further General Sanchez has NOT called for us to leave Iraq, nor has he said it is war we can not win. He has stated his professional opinion on matters that exsisted when he was in command and that he thinks may still be true ( though clearly things HAVE gotten better) and further stated what we should do, in his opinion, to win. Maineman on the other hand HAS insisted we leave, we cut and run, he has said no Iraqi is worth any american lives and that what ever happens when we abandon them is unimportant, further stating that the chaos and power vacuum left by our abandoning Iraq will have no real effect on the region or the world. That it is not in our National Interest at all.

I spent 16 years ( ok a couple months short of 16) in the Marine Corps, granted I was not an officer but for the vast majority of that time I was a NCO or SNCO. I never lied for my command, I was never ask to lie for my command. I attended command meetings. No one, Officer or SNCO was ever ordered or even asked to lie about anything. In fact it would have been a disservice to the Command to do so. My Commanders never to my knowledge lied to their bosses either.

If you disagreed with something the most that happened was you were not put in a position to voice that disagreement. Yet we are to believe serving General officers willingly lie for the President. That they are ASKED to do so, even ORDERED to do so. That they are sent to Congress to give their opinion and ordered to in fact NOT give their opinion but rather the opinion of the President.

I agree an officer can and is asked to provide the opinion of the command they serve, and that they must do so in a forceful manner and appear to support it no matter if they do or not. BUT that is not what has happened. These generals have gone before Congress and were asked their OPINION. Ask for THEIR assessment. I do not recall any of them using the party line or hedging what they said. Which would be LYING. Maineman on the other hand HAS said they have done just that. Most recently with our Current in theater commander.

There are MANY ways to appear to support something you may have doubts about without making the comments be attributable to YOUR opinion. Most all of them are easily seen to be what they are.

Go ahead Maineman provide us with examples of our Current Commander in Iraq doing that.

 

[doniston]

When you explain why this ONE general is suddenly the be all for Iraq when he has not even been in Iraq in 3 years, why you do not believe the Generals since him INCLUDING the current one, then I will rspond to your bullshit red herring.

You have taken a general that has not been in command for 3 years, has not been in theater, has not even been IN the Army and blasted every other general with your koolaid comment. Or perhaps you didn't really mean that?

Now you have compounded it with claiming that serving General Officers lie for the President or the Sec Def. SO does that mean that Sanchez was lying in 2003/2004 when he said NONE of these things? If so why should we believe a known liar now?

Another example of YOU disparaging Military personnel because they do not do what you want or say what you want to hear. Your remark damns every general since Sanchez and those during his tour that have not "spoken up".

you are getting to be more of a jackass every time you post. There have been many Generals and line officers who have disagreed with the handling of the Iraq misfortune. Most were in the theater during the war, and all of them are now out of the service. Fired, or resigned, but otherwise pushed out by Bush policies.

If they disagree with Bush, they are gone, or on their way out.

 

[maineman]

Go ahead Maineman provide us with examples of our Current Commander in Iraq doing that.

I have NEVER suggested that any flag officer has ever lied to congress about Iraq.

I have said that ALL officers - all good ones, that is - who disagree with their bosses, do so behind closed doors and sometimes, they actually can convince their boss to change his mind. On a few occasions during my career, I had been successful at doing just that. If they cannot change the plan, when they walk out from behind the closed doors, they OWN the plan. It becomes THEIR plan and THEY put all of their efforts and talents to the task of achieving THEIR plan. If they were incapable of doing that, they did not succeed as an officer. Petraeus OWNS the Bush/Cheney/Gates plan for Iraq. It has become HIS. That is what active duty officers do. WHen he was on active duty, Sanchez did exactly the same thing.

Now, you have stated that you were never an officer... I was. That is how I was taught from day one at the Boat School. Day ONE! Obviously, they don't teach that at Parris Island....and just because you were never indoctrinated into that code of ethics, does not mean that successful commissioned officers weren't.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I have NEVER suggested that any flag officer has ever lied to congress about Iraq.

I have said that ALL officers - all good ones, that is - who disagree with their bosses, do so behind closed doors and sometimes, they actually can convince their boss to change his mind. On a few occasions during my career, I had been successful at doing just that. If they cannot change the plan, when they walk out from behind the closed doors, they OWN the plan. It becomes THEIR plan and THEY put all of their efforts and talents to the task of achieving THEIR plan. If they were incapable of doing that, they did not succeed as an officer. Petraeus OWNS the Bush/Cheney/Gates plan for Iraq. It has become HIS. That is what active duty officers do. WHen he was on active duty, Sanchez did exactly the same thing.

Now, you have stated that you were never an officer... I was. That is how I was taught from day one at the Boat School. Day ONE! Obviously, they don't teach that at Parris Island....and just because you were never indoctrinated into that code of ethics, does not mean that successful commissioned officers weren't.

100% correct Maineman. It's amazing the retired gunny sarge is oblivious to the basic tenets of the chain of command in the military.

 

[Gunny]

100% correct Maineman. It's amazing the retired gunny sarge is oblivious to the basic tenets of the chain of command in the military.

It's amazing how oblivious you are to the basic difference between command, and chain of command.

It's also amazing how assumptive MM's post is that you are playing cheerleader to. One does not sew on GySgt chevorns without first passing field grade officer educational training in both leadership and command.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is a simple fact, a unit can run without the Officers, it will not run with out its NCO, SNCO's. They can and do routinely replace Officers.

 

[maineman]

It's amazing how oblivious you are to the basic difference between command, and chain of command.

It's also amazing how assumptive MM's post is that you are playing cheerleader to. One does not sew on GySgt chevorns without first passing field grade officer educational training in both leadership and command.

if that is the case, then why, pray tell, does RGS have such a difficult time understanding that ownership of mission is an integral part of being a good officer?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

if that is the case, then why, pray tell, does RGS have such a difficult time understanding that ownership of mission is an integral part of being a good officer?

You have claimed that the Current General , when ask HIS opinion, HIS assessment willingly allowed the President to draft HIS reply. Further you have STATED IN THIS thread that anyone that did not believe YOUR version of events were butt lickers for Bush. That includes any Officer that supports the war, supports the mission, supports the president.

One is not required to lie to support the mission. There are numerous ways to say what the Command wants you to say WITHOUT claiming it is your opinion or your assessment. Any person that has reached the rank of general is going to know this full well. Further one can not be ordered to lie for anyone else, it is against the UCMJ.

If you do not know this, I am wondering how you ever made Lt Commander. Much less Commander. But I already know you are aware of this and are trying to play games with people that do not know better.

Do keep spinning though. I am still waiting for the reason a retired general that has not been in country or in the loop for 3 years could possibly know more than the current Commander.

 

[Doug]

One of the things I enjoyed and learned from in my Army experience was seeing the subtle mixture of official deference and obvious dismissal (if not contempt ) with which the senior NCOs treated the Second Lieutenants. A 22-year old kid fresh out of ROTC theoretically outranked a Sergeant Major with thirty years in and a couple of shooting wars behind him, but if ever there was a situation where theory and reality diverged, that was it.

 

[maineman]

You have claimed that the Current General , when ask HIS opinion, HIS assessment willingly allowed the President to draft HIS reply. Further you have STATED IN THIS thread that anyone that did not believe YOUR version of events were butt lickers for Bush. That includes any Officer that supports the war, supports the mission, supports the president.

One is not required to lie to support the mission. There are numerous ways to say what the Command wants you to say WITHOUT claiming it is your opinion or your assessment. Any person that has reached the rank of general is going to know this full well. Further one can not be ordered to lie for anyone else, it is against the UCMJ.

If you do not know this, I am wondering how you ever made Lt Commander. Much less Commander. But I already know you are aware of this and are trying to play games with people that do not know better.

Do keep spinning though. I am still waiting for the reason a retired general that has not been in country or in the loop for 3 years could possibly know more than the current Commander.

Like I said... officers take personal ownership of the mission. I have never suggested that any officer has lied to congress or anyone else. If you want to continue to claim I did, argue with yourself. I can only say that you are mistaken so many ways. I have said them all.

And I didn't say that Sanchez knew MORE than Petraeus, I do say that he has forgotten more about the situation in Iraq than you will ever know in five lifetimes.... and I do say that, now that he is no longer working for the CinC, he is free to form his own opinions and not worry about owning the mission - for the good of the mission and the troops under him - like Petraeus is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Like I said... officers take personal ownership of the mission. I have never suggested that any officer has lied to congress or anyone else. If you want to continue to claim I did, argue with yourself. I can only say that you are mistaken so many ways. I have said them all.

And I didn't say that Sanchez knew MORE than Petraeus, I do say that he has forgotten more about the situation in Iraq than you will ever know in five lifetimes.... and I do say that, now that he is no longer working for the CinC, he is free to form his own opinions and not worry about owning the mission - for the good of the mission and the troops under him - like Petraeus is.

I am waiting for you to clarify exactly who are the BUTT LICKERS for Bush.

What I know is not now nor ever was important to this conversation. That is nothing more than you trying to divert from your own bullshit.

Retract your claim that everyone that disagrees with Sanchez is a BUTT LICKER for Bush. But as we have already established that won't happen even IF pigs could fly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One of the things I enjoyed and learned from in my Army experience was seeing the subtle mixture of official deference and obvious dismissal (if not contempt ) with which the senior NCOs treated the Second Lieutenants. A 22-year old kid fresh out of ROTC theoretically outranked a Sergeant Major with thirty years in and a couple of shooting wars behind him, but if ever there was a situation where theory and reality diverged, that was it.

No good SNCO would ever openly dismiss a LT. Nor show contempt in any setting that troops or officers could see.

I did screw that up ONCE. A new LT screwed up by ordering my detail to do something they had no business doing and got me reamed by a MGySgt. I lost it and blew up at the Sgt and told him he did not work for that LT.... Guess who was standing behind me when I told him that? The LT huffed and stormed off like a little kid. But the Company Commander was not pleased with my lapse in judgement. He heard it too. Now nothing ever happened because of it, well except the Company Commander had a less then stellar opinion of my command and control.

 

[Doug]

You can learn far more about practical psychology by studying the realities of military life than in a dozen academic courses.

 

[maineman]

I am waiting for you to clarify exactly who are the BUTT LICKERS for Bush.

What I know is not now nor ever was important to this conversation. That is nothing more than you trying to divert from your own bullshit.

Retract your claim that everyone that disagrees with Sanchez is a BUTT LICKER for Bush. But as we have already established that won't happen even IF pigs could fly.

My opening post clearly spoke of internet chickenhawks as being the subject of my ire. I would NEVER suggest that active duty flag officers who disagree with Sanchez were Bush bootlickers. I would suggest that they were doing their job and owning the mission as delineated by their CinC.

If anyone misread my opening post to infer that that was calling active duty career military officers Bush bootlickers, I want to disabuse them of that interpretation. I never meant that and certainly retract any suggestion to the contrary.

I do, however, think that YOU are a butt licker for Bush...and that you don't truly understand the code of ethics in play for career military officers - regardless of any classroom training you may have had.