What Gen. Sanchez Actually Said

[Adam's Apple]

As usual, the MSM picked and chose what they wanted to report, omitting other major points made in Sanchez's speech as unimportant to their agenda.

What That Outspoken Lt Gen. Actually Said
By Jack Kelly for Jewish World Review
October 16, 2007

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1007/jkelly101607.php3

 

[CSM]

Hmmm...imagine that!

 

[Adam's Apple]

Yep, imagine how many people who rely on the MSM for their news will believe the distortion as what Sanchez said.

I'll bet many posters on this board who reported on Sanchez's speech don't even know the entirety of what he said.

 

[Diuretic]

"The administration, Congress, the entire interagency, especially the State Department must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable," he said.

Did he say that or not?

 

[CSM]

Did he say that or not?

Yep he did...which is a FAR cry from this headline in the NYT:

"Former Top General in Iraq Faults Bush Administration "

The text of his speech blasts the media even harder than his criticism of almost everyone else he names.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yep he did...which is a FAR cry from this headline in the NYT:

"Former Top General in Iraq Faults Bush Administration "

The text of his speech blasts the media even harder than his criticism of almost everyone else he names.

Don't tell Maineman. He is to busy claiming just the opposite.

 

[Diuretic]

Yep he did...which is a FAR cry from this headline in the NYT:

"Former Top General in Iraq Faults Bush Administration "

The text of his speech blasts the media even harder than his criticism of almost everyone else he names.

So he did say "The administration, Congress, the entire interagency, especially the State Department must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable,"

It stands by itself, it needs no reference to any other sector. "....the American people must hold them accountable, " one would assume the General is referring to the exercise of democracy rather than a media boycott.

 

[CSM]

So he did say "The administration, Congress, the entire interagency, especially the State Department must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable,"

It stands by itself, it needs no reference to any other sector. "....the American people must hold them accountable, " one would assume the General is referring to the exercise of democracy rather than a media boycott.

Not sure what you mean by "media boycott". It is apparent to me that the general is talking about ALL those he names in his speech (including the media) and they should be held accountable by the American people for their actions. That implies (IMO) not only the exercise of democracy but judicial process as well...

By the way, I do not agree that things taken out of context ("It stands by itself, it needs no reference to any other sector") is not necessarily true or ethical.

 

[Warner]

Not sure what you mean by "media boycott". It is apparent to me that the general is talking about ALL those he names in his speech (including the media) and they should be held accountable by the American people for their actions. That implies (IMO) not only the exercise of democracy but judicial process as well...

By the way, I do not agree that things taken out of context ("It stands by itself, it needs no reference to any other sector") is not necessarily true or ethical.

Sure but this is not being taken "out of context" is it? The context is clear as day.

And it is not "apparent" to me that he means to include the media in that statement. He does go on to rail against the media, but he clearly holds the Bush Administration as being directly responsible for this disaster and goes into significant detail as to why. He was quite specific.

 

[Gunny]

So he did say "The administration, Congress, the entire interagency, especially the State Department must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable,"

It stands by itself, it needs no reference to any other sector. "....the American people must hold them accountable, " one would assume the General is referring to the exercise of democracy rather than a media boycott.

You're making an intellectually dishonest argument, and you know it.

 

[Gunny]

Sure but this is not being taken "out of context" is it? The context is clear as day.

And it is not "apparent" to me that he means to include the media in that statement. He does go on to rail against the media, but he clearly holds the Bush Administration as being directly responsible for this disaster and goes into significant detail as to why. He was quite specific.

Sounds like he holds everyone in the government responsible except himself.

 

[doniston]

By the way, I do not agree that things taken out of context ("It stands by itself, it needs no reference to any other sector") is not necessarily true or ethical.

and

BY THE WAY: something quoted verbatum CAN NOT be taken out of context.

 

[Gunny]

and

BY THE WAY: something quoted verbatum CAN NOT be taken out of context.

Sure it can. All you have to do is apply alternate meanings to the words. Happens on message boards hourly.

 

[Warner]

Sounds like he holds everyone in the government responsible except himself.

A very good point. He surely shares the blame for not coming forward when it might have done some good. He put him self in front of the country - he was not willing to stand up and say what needed to be said at the cost of his job.

None-the-less while Pres. Bush claims he listens to the military it is utterly clear that he only accepts their recommendations if it suits him to do so. So very many mistakes have been made that we deserve to loose this war (AND NO - I'M NOT SAYING THAT I WANT US TO LOOSE). In war you cannot make such mistakes.

If we are going to continue the war in Iraq, and personally I see no alternative but to do so, we need to bring back the draft. We will also need to rush the first 50,000 new combat soldiers through the training process and get them into Iraq no later than July 2008. Then break the country into about a dozen states, stabilize it, and start to get the oil we simply must have to pay for this fiasco.

I can see only two other alternatives:

1) Get out of Iraq and let the chips fall where they may and try to recover from this fiscal disaster as best we can.

2) Support the Sunni's and allow them to dominate Iraq - effectively the USA would simply replace Saddam with the dictator of our choice and start the whole cycle over again.

The problem with option 1 above is that the Shiite's would dominate, and this is unacceptable.

 

[Gunny]

A very good point. He surely shares the blame for not coming forward when it might have done some good. He put him self in front of the country - he was not willing to stand up and say what needed to be said at the cost of his job.

None-the-less while Pres. Bush claims he listens to the military it is utterly clear that he only accepts their recommendations if it suits him to do so. So very many mistakes have been made that we deserve to loose this war (AND NO - I'M NOT SAYING THAT I WANT US TO LOOSE). In war you cannot make such mistakes.

That pretty-much goes for every President from Truman to date, not just President Bush.

If we are going to continue the war in Iraq, and personally I see no alternative but to do so, we need to bring back the draft. We will also need to rush the first 50,000 new combat soldiers through the training process and get them into Iraq no later than July 2008. Then break the country into about a dozen states, stabilize it, and start to get the oil we simply must have to pay for this fiasco.

I can see only two other alternatives:

1) Get out of Iraq and let the chips fall where they may and try to recover from this fiscal disaster as best we can.

2) Support the Sunni's and allow them to dominate Iraq - effectively the USA would simply replace Saddam with the dictator of our choice and start the whole cycle over again.

The problem with option 1 above is that the Shiite's would dominate, and this is unacceptable.

The draft is neither feasible, nor necessary.

A simple change in strategy and tactics would suffice. I know of NO politician on either side of the aisle who would take the steps to do what is necessary to secure Iraq and get out. It seems they too are more concerned with their careers or legacies than doing what is necessary.

 

[Diuretic]

You're making an intellectually dishonest argument, and you know it.

I could be wrong and/or I could be confused and if I am I'll stand corrected. But as far as being intellectually dishonest, no, I'm not. I don't mind being wrong (I am sometimes ), I'll admit to being confused at times
but I don't want to be intellectually dishonest, ever

So, I'll look forward to being corrected.

 

[Diuretic]

A very good point. He surely shares the blame for not coming forward when it might have done some good. He put him self in front of the country - he was not willing to stand up and say what needed to be said at the cost of his job.

None-the-less while Pres. Bush claims he listens to the military it is utterly clear that he only accepts their recommendations if it suits him to do so. So very many mistakes have been made that we deserve to loose this war (AND NO - I'M NOT SAYING THAT I WANT US TO LOOSE). In war you cannot make such mistakes.

If we are going to continue the war in Iraq, and personally I see no alternative but to do so, we need to bring back the draft. We will also need to rush the first 50,000 new combat soldiers through the training process and get them into Iraq no later than July 2008. Then break the country into about a dozen states, stabilize it, and start to get the oil we simply must have to pay for this fiasco.

I can see only two other alternatives:

1) Get out of Iraq and let the chips fall where they may and try to recover from this fiscal disaster as best we can.

2) Support the Sunni's and allow them to dominate Iraq - effectively the USA would simply replace Saddam with the dictator of our choice and start the whole cycle over again.

The problem with option 1 above is that the Shiite's would dominate, and this is unacceptable.

Interesting points. But how is getting the oil going to pay for anything? Are you suggesting it should be nationalised?

 

[Gunny]

I could be wrong and/or I could be confused and if I am I'll stand corrected. But as far as being intellectually dishonest, no, I'm not. I don't mind being wrong (I am sometimes ), I'll admit to being confused at times
but I don't want to be intellectually dishonest, ever

So, I'll look forward to being corrected.

Was quite a little exercise in cherrypicking what you are and are not willing to accept of Sanchez's speech earlier in this thread.

 

[Gunny]

Interesting points. But how is getting the oil going to pay for anything? Are you suggesting it should be nationalised?

You'd like that, huh? Would make your baseless accusation a truth.

 

[CSM]

A very good point. He surely shares the blame for not coming forward when it might have done some good. He put him self in front of the country - he was not willing to stand up and say what needed to be said at the cost of his job.

He lost his job anyway. He had that little Abu Grhaib thing stuck to his name.

None-the-less while Pres. Bush claims he listens to the military it is utterly clear that he only accepts their recommendations if it suits him to do so. That is what the responsibility of command is all about! So very many mistakes have been made that we deserve to loose this war (AND NO - I'M NOT SAYING THAT I WANT US TO LOOSE). In war you cannot make such mistakes.

If we are going to continue the war in Iraq, and personally I see no alternative but to do so, we need to bring back the draft. We will also need to rush the first 50,000 new combat soldiers through the training process and get them into Iraq no later than July 2008. Rushing new soldiers through traiining invites disaster! Then break the country into about a dozen states, stabilize it, and start to get the oil we simply must have to pay for this fiasco.

I can see only two other alternatives:

1) Get out of Iraq and let the chips fall where they may and try to recover from this fiscal disaster as best we can.

2) Support the Sunni's and allow them to dominate Iraq - effectively the USA would simply replace Saddam with the dictator of our choice and start the whole cycle over again.

The problem with option 1 above is that the Shiite's would dominate, and this is unacceptable.

I have said many times that I wonder just how vocal these generals were when they were on active duty....