Power Line News

If the Bush administration gets attacked, the press will report it. But what if someone attacks the press? If the attack goes unreported, did it

» View the article

Ricardo Sanchez first delivers a blistering indictment of unethical media - but saves his most serious charge, DERELICTION OF DUTY, for everyone in government, but specifically never names the President.

He specifically faulted: “THE ADMINISTRATION, CONGRESS AND THE ENTIRE INTERAGENCY, ESPECIALLY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE...” - and said, “ALL NATIONAL AGENCIES” need to be held accountable.

Sanchez singles out Congress as bearing ’significant responsibility‘ for ‘abject’ failure and includes the ‘National Security Council’ in that assessment, which does include the President.

However, Sanchez blames primarily “PARTISAN POLITICS” as having most hindered the war effort.

I have not doubt that Sanchez had upper-most on his mind Democrats like Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi… and the list could go on for many pages, that have screamed ‘defeat’ from the roof-tops, and done everything in their power to hamper the war effort, smear the military and withdraw funding of it.

That is no way to win a war - and too many leading Democrats quite obviously lust for defeat.

Frankly, Sanchez can call for ‘unity’ and ‘bipartisan support’ for the goal of victory… but, he’ll never see it - we will never see it, because these traitors want defeat far, far more than they want victory.  And, apparently so does a broad cross section of idiot-citizens.

All I can say is General Sanchez, Please run for office, any office!

DougRob - 13 October 2007 07:00 AM

All I can say is General Sanchez, Please run for office, any office!

You didn’t finish your plea:

Or shut the **** up!

Where Do ...

They find all these whiny, no-balls Generals these days?  If the man had ANY integrity, he would have gracefully retired as soon as he claims to have discovered that the military situation in Iraq was “intractable” - that is, according to HIM, the very day he arrived in Iraq to take charge.

And this guy Sanchez is now a “consultant” on the taxpayer’s dime teaching other Generals WHAT?  How to comprimise your values and morals while remaining on the government payroll?

**** Him!

.

And this guy Sanchez is now a “consultant” on the taxpayer’s dime teaching other Generals WHAT? How to comprimise your values and morals while remaining on the government payroll?[/quote]

It is a time honored tradition not just among Generals but politicians and career bureaucrats.

Relevant question....why do so many retired Generals, when they are finally free to speak, say the same thing, basically that the Bush administration is completely incompetent andthe situation is worse than spin would have us believe?

The list keeps growing…

jvf - 13 October 2007 09:07 AM

Relevant question....why do so many retired Generals, when they are finally free to speak, say the same thing, basically that the Bush administration is completely incompetent andthe situation is worse than spin would have us believe?

The list keeps growing…

It is called shifting blame.

postBot - 13 October 2007 05:32 AM

If the Bush administration gets attacked, the press will report it. But what if someone attacks the press? If the attack goes unreported, did it

» View the article

When is someone going to name chapter and verse? This is a generalized denouncement. But it includes no precise examples of media dishonesty and treason. A very detailed analysis has been long overdue--especially on the part of the Commander-in-Chief. Bush ought to have focused on the dangers of media distortion and bias long ago and he should have clearly articulated the harm it has done to our military and to the safety of the nation. It’s inconceivable that Bush hasn’t appreciated the need to do this. The mainstream media has been undermining the war effort for years now. Why hasn’t Bush fought back forcefully--openly accusing the NY Times, for instance, of giving aid and comfort to the enemy when it published top secrets useful to their cause? Has the instinct to fight fire with fire been bred out of him? (This is still another reason I’m backing Giuliani. I’m fairly sick of gentlemanly GOP rule. If the opposition wants to play rough, then let’s put somebody in office who knows how to play even rougher.)

Fox posts a similar story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301527,00.html

Is Fox any different than the rest of the lamestream anymore, apart from their talking heads?  It seems like more and more of their stories are right off the AP feed.

I have a buddy of mine who was a company commander in the 101st when Petraeus was the division commander and Sanchez was the MNF-I commander. Petraeus was doing in Mosul with the 101st what he is doing now across Iraq. Sanchez didn’t like the Petraeus’ idea of putting soldiers into Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) in the cities and interacting directly with the muktars. Sanchez wanted them to consolidate into just a few FOBs and ordered Petraeus to do that by the time 101st left Iraq. Sanchez felt the logistics were easier with fewer FOBs. My friend went from direct relationships with the local Iraqis to being moved to an unfamilar part of the city where it took an hour just to get off the FOB! Sanchez set into motion the Blackwater-like drive-by security strategy that fed the insurgency. In my opinion, Sanchez is feeling the political winds and doing CYA just like General Karpinski did after the Abu Ghraib story became public.

Some sour grapes? Rumor has it that Sanchez did not like Petraeus.

Doc75, I was going to mention this very thing. I have heard and read that Sanchez structured operations in Iraq in such a manner as to allow the insurgency to grow in many areas, by limiting direct interaction between troops and citizens. I have also heard that Marine Command was less than happy with the centralized base strategy.

All that said, his critique of journalists is dead-on.

ultima ratio - 13 October 2007 09:27 AM

When is someone going to name chapter and verse? This is a generalized denouncement. But it includes no precise examples of media dishonesty and treason. A very detailed analysis has been long overdue--especially on the part of the Commander-in-Chief. Bush ought to have focused on the dangers of media distortion and bias long ago and he should have clearly articulated the harm it has done to our military and to the safety of the nation. It’s inconceivable that Bush hasn’t appreciated the need to do this. The mainstream media has been undermining the war effort for years now. Why hasn’t Bush fought back forcefully--openly accusing the NY Times, for instance, of giving aid and comfort to the enemy when it published top secrets useful to their cause? Has the instinct to fight fire with fire been bred out of him? (This is still another reason I’m backing Giuliani. I’m fairly sick of gentlemanly GOP rule. If the opposition wants to play rough, then let’s put somebody in office who knows how to play even rougher.)

All good points, but why would the media lying and misleading the public, misreporting the facts by omission and distortion, be justification for taking away from the president’s time performing his presidential duties? Don’t you think that it would be a full-time job combating the mainstream media today? I happen to think the left media are wearing their political noose well and will have their day of reckoning soon enough.

Anecdotally, whenever a discussion comes around to the economy or Iraq, I question people why they would think the economy is so bad when the Dow is breaking records and unemployment is down near 4% (that includes illegal aliens doing work Americans won’t do :)). How is that recession even possible? And I question why they might still think Iraq is going so bad (Reid said it was lost) when the evidence proves undeniably just the opposite. The media they rely upon are lying to them - confidence lost.

Sanchez is pretty ballsy considering that what has happened over the past couple of years is a direct consequence of HIS handling of the situation over in Iraq.  Sanchez did not really impress the rank and file military over in Iraq and frankly was considered an idiot.  I would have to agree that a portion of his commentary is most likely sour grapes.  Petreaus is intelligent, innovative and a born leader.  Must be difficult to have someone like Petreaus follow you to clean up your mess.

hi_desertgirl - 13 October 2007 11:08 AM

Sanchez is pretty ballsy considering that what has happened over the past couple of years is a direct consequence of HIS handling of the situation over in Iraq.  Sanchez did not really impress the rank and file military over in Iraq and frankly was considered an idiot.  I would have to agree that a portion of his commentary is most likely sour grapes.  Petreaus is intelligent, innovative and a born leader.  Must be difficult to have someone like Petreaus follow you to clean up your mess.

Until of course Petreaus retires and gives a speech blasting the Administration / State etc...and then he’ll be a goshdarn traitor and should just “shut the f@#$#@$ up”

Petraeus was doing in Mosul with the 101st what he is doing now across Iraq. Sanchez didn’t like the Petraeus’ idea of putting soldiers into Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) in the cities and interacting directly with the muktars. Sanchez wanted them to consolidate into just a few FOBs and ordered Petraeus to do that by the time 101st left Iraq. Sanchez felt the logistics were easier with fewer FOBs.

Actually both Generals are right depending on the goal. If your goal is to suffer as few casualties as possible and bide your time until you go home then Sanchez is correct. If on the other hand your goal is to win the war the Petraeus is correct.