What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Reagan's NSA Director: "Withdraw from Iraq, Impeach Bush"

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
127
Points
48
General William Odom was the Director of the National Security Agency. This guy's credentials are stellar and unimpeachable. Here is an excerpt of his recent essay:

Supporting the troops' means withdrawing them

by General William Odom

If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.

The public is ahead of the both branches of government in grasping this reality, but political leaders and opinion makers in the media must give them greater voice....

The president is strongly motivated to string out the war until he leaves office, in order to avoid taking responsibility for the defeat he has caused and persisted in making greater each year for more than three years.

To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what "supporting the troops" really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.

The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the "high crime" of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.


http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00192
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
61,136
Reaction score
18,841
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
wow... some pretty harsh words.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
61,136
Reaction score
18,841
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
The first solution would be to expand the size of the Army to two or three times its present level, allowing shorter combat tours and much longer breaks between deployments.

That cannot be done rapidly enough today, even if military conscription were restored and new recruits made abundant.
It would take more than a year to organize and train a dozen new brigade combat teams.

The Clinton administration cut the Army end strength by about 40 percent – from about 770,000 to 470,000 during the 1990s. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld looked for ways to make the cuts even deeper. Thus this administration and its predecessor aggressively gave up ground forces and tactical air forces while maintaining large maritime forces that cannot be used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sadly, the lack of wisdom in that change in force structure is being paid for not by President Bush or President Clinton but by the ordinary soldier and his family. They have no lobby group to seek relief for them.

I knew that the Bush 1 Administration had made the recommendations on cutting Army personel that Clinton had made, but I did not know that they had recommended to even cut it further?
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,462
Reaction score
17,710
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
I knew that the Bush 1 Administration had made the recommendations on cutting Army personel that Clinton had made, but I did not know that they had recommended to even cut it further?

Rummy wanted a "leaner, meaner military"... he also felt exceptionally threatened by the military command and intentionally cut them off from the president.

You should read State of Denial.
 

Alpha1

NAVY
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
1,719
Reaction score
193
Points
48
I knew that the Bush 1 Administration had made the recommendations on cutting Army personel that Clinton had made, but I did not know that they had recommended to even cut it further?

Bullshit....
1990 Army-732,403 Navy-579,417 Marines-196,652 A.F.-535,233
2000 482,170 373,193 173,321 355,654
1/2005 494,112 370,445 177,207 369,523

Not only did the Army expand, but the total forces grew since 2000
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
61,136
Reaction score
18,841
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
Bullshit....
1990 Army-732,403 Navy-579,417 Marines-196,652 A.F.-535,233
2000 482,170 373,193 173,321 355,654
1/2005 494,112 370,445 177,207 369,523

Not only did the Army expand, but the total forces grew since 2000

Alpha,

the article just said that Rummy RECOMMENDED that they cut forces further, it did not say whether he accomplished the recommendation or not.

Your stats show that he didn't cut, but do you really think that increases in all of our divisions of the military of ONLY 27 thousand soldiers since 2000, with an attack and a couple of wars later is REALLY an increase? to me, that is nearly a cut, with all the duties that are required of them, throughout the world and in afghanistan and iraq?
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,497
Reaction score
12,427
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
Democrats will NEVER vote for an increase in end strength of any meaningful number. It would require paying for them and the dems are to busy spending our tax dollars on lazy shits that think the Government owes them a living. Clinton emasculated the military and then wasted the supposed savings on more social programs.

Now explain again how we need more troops in Iraq BUT you are against the surge?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: CSM

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
61,136
Reaction score
18,841
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
Democrats will NEVER vote for an increase in end strength of any meaningful number. It would require paying for them and the dems are to busy spending our tax dollars on lazy shits that think the Government owes them a living. Clinton emasculated the military and then wasted the supposed savings on more social programs.

Now explain again how we need more troops in Iraq BUT you are against the surge?
Don't you know?

You send your army to die in a war of choice with what you've got, you can't wait until you've built up the Army to a safer level.... That's what Rumsfeld has said.

And Retired sgt, IT WAS the Bush 1 administration that Recommended to cut the Army and Air Force DRASTICALLY after the Cold War had ended. Their recommended cuts were even deeper than what Clinton took.

It was a wise decision, considering the times.

Since the Bush 2 administration KNEW they were going to attack Iraq right after 911, they had a year and a half to build up the Army and the rest of the Military. It has been 6 years now since 911 and our Military has virtually had no increase in soldiers, 27k increase among all of the branches of the Military.

Now, tell me again HOW GREAT republicans are with taking care of the Military or building up the Military for the tasks at hand, so I can have a good laugh this morning.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$120.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top