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.
While Affirmative Action ...
May be trendy in Washington, on the battlefield it gets men killed.
The operative word concerning Gen. Sanchez’s comments is “abuse.” We are quite familiar with the notion of political abuse of power, corporate abuse of power, etc. We have to begin talking more explicitly about media abuse of power. During a period in which information is paramount, the last abuse has become particularly significant, for while (in its traditional role) the media expose political, corporate, and other abuses of power, they have themselves become so powerful a force for the suppression, glossing, obfuscation, and downright misrepresentation of the truth that they are an overwhelming force to be contended with. The “freedom of the press” has become, in some quarters, the freedom to ignore or alter the truth. It has taken us some time to realize that “All the news that’s fit to print” can be construed as “All the news WE SEE FIT to print (broadcast, blog, etc.).”
"Actually, I don’t believe Sanchez ever mentioned Bush by name, although, as I say, he was critical of just about everybody.”
Sanchez:
“IT SEEMS THAT CONGRESS RECOGNIZES THAT THE MILITARY CANNOT ACHIEVE VICTORY ALONE IN THIS WAR. YET THEY CONTINUE TO DEMAND VICTORY FROM OUR MILITARY. WHO WILL DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE FAILURE OF OUR NATIONAL POLITICAL LEADERS INVOLVED IN THE MANAGEMENT THIS WAR? THEY HAVE UNQUESTIONABLY BEEN DERELICT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTY. IN MY PROFESSION, THESE TYPE OF LEADERS WOULD IMMEDIATELY BE RELIEVED OR COURTMARTIALED.”
Yup, he never mentioned Bush by name. Very, very, truthy.
We really need to find out who these “National Political Leaders” are so we can get this courtmartial thing rolling…
But at least I now understand why you only posted the first half of his speech.
The press is better at circling the wagons than Ward Bond ever was.
Convolutor: “Yup, he never mentioned Bush by name. Very, very, truthy. We really need to find out who these “National Political Leaders†are so we can get this courtmartial thing rolling…
But at least I now understand why you only posted the first half of his speech.”
I know what ya mean. But FIRST all of the incompetent field commanders and strategerists who advised Mr. Bush ought to be keel-hauled.
There Is ...
NO excuse for waging a limited war anywhere IF one expects to win. At the collective rate of “collateral damage”, the entire country could have been levelled and rebuilt by now IF the military had been allowed to do what the military does BEST!
I guess I don’t know what all the hubub is about. Just add Sanchez’ name to the growing list of “former” generals with axes to grind. Zinni and Clark come to mind. Since the years 2004 - 2006 are acknowledged by all to have been a policy disaster it serves nobody, Sanchez included, to point fingers at others when their own actions have failed the test as well.
However, his foray into criticisms of the press are spot on.
It is nt the business of n active general to be critical of the press...or his civilian boss(es) but once retired he can and did denounce a current policy he felt was failing. He is not sitting about to comment n TV, the press, magazines etc...thus, there is no point whatsoever to this limp attack on a heroic general.
To understand Sanchez and his motives you only need to look to history and George B. McClelland during and after the Civil War. McClelland was sacked by Lincoln for in inability to pull the trigger on his army even though he had Lee at a huge disadvantage. McClellands response was to attack Lincoln and the entire war effort as a way to justify his short comings.
This is no different than what many, many Generals from almost every war have done. It takes infinitely more courage to call for an attack knowing lives will be lost than to sit in a defensive position. It is a common shortcoming among Generals.
I know what ya mean. But FIRST all of the incompetent field commanders and strategerists who advised Mr. Bush ought to be keel-hauled.
Mr. Bush systematically eliminated everyone who did not agree with him. He was hell-bent on invading Iraq. That has been well established.
“...Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.â€
And that’s just one sample. There is so much more. This is Bush’s baby, and it’s quite ill.
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?
It IS his duty to address the deliberate effort by the media to undermine the military. The press is pushing for defeat--even to the point of publishing secret documents which give aid and comfort to the enemy. That is not something that is ignorable. The mainstream media long ago should have been countered from the bully pulpit with a recitation of chapter and verse. Yet nothing happens. Instead we’ve had a full-blown investigation of Scooter Libby for a non-crime while the editors and publisher of the NYTimes proceed unscathed despite their clear violation of the Expionage Act. No formal inquiry of that newspaper has even been pursued by Justice--which was so eager to look into the affairs of the WH. Why not? Maybe somebody on this blog can clue me in. The President has many strengths as a leader--but fighting his domestic opponents forcefully is not one of them.
Sanchez is admonishing everybody,
1) the MSM for being anti-war propagandists
2) the President for not takng greater leadership in corralling national support from all branches
3) Congress for not setting aside partisanship for the sake of national security, uniting behind our fighting men and women to achieve victory in Iraq.
3) the NSC and State departments (I would the add the CIA here) who do not seem to have victory in Iraq as their primary objective
4)down to every last American who couldn’t set aside their partisanship to root for victory in Iraq
He’s right. It’s a sad state of affairs in this country that we cannot come together as a Nation to achieve victory in Iraq. The time for protest and debate about whether this war was the right choice or not and whether it was the best thing for our national security was BEFORE WAR WAS WAGED. Once Congress authorized the war and the President set it in motion was the time for the entire nation to come together to ensure that we achieve a quick, decisive victory, down to every last employee of the State departmet, CIA. Those who couldn’t bear to root for success in Iraq once it began should have shut up and stepped aside to let the rest of the nation do it for them. Undermining our war effort at every turn (as it seems the media, Congress and various leakers and who-knows-who-else in State and CIA, lefty groups, etc. did) perhaps should be a court-martialing offense (although in reality that would never happen).
Bush’s failure was not clarifying the commitment expected from every last American. If we as a nation could not be committed to the cause then it should never have began. My fear is that even if an enemy rolled en masse in force into our country to take over, the left would not be able to muster support for victory against it, and would actively work against any such effort. They’d rather face death than fight.
Prosecuted, that fustercluck could have been over with in 30 days.
“To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.” - Conan the Barbarian
.
Ah, that gets back to your comment about “leveling the country”. The Conan graphic speaks volumes as to your juvenile concept of war, which you undoubtedly have never experienced.
How do you “level a country” without killing millions of innocent people? You know, the kind of innocent people that we had to topple Saddam so that HE wouldn’t kill them?
Perhaps, in your mind, the death of millions isn’t quite as important as a Republican President “winning” a war that never had to happen.
