COL Gene COL Gene

Bush has Given our Military the WRONG Mission!

▼

Bush has Given our Military the WRONG Mission!

from JoeUser Forums


Most of the negative incidents and difficulties in Iraq are not because we do not have a well trained and dedicated military. On the contrary, look at how they performed during the first three months of this war. Our military is trained to destroy opposing military force and in that mission have NO equal today on Earth.

I have read articles that claim the reason for much of the negative events and lack of progress is because the mission given our military by their Commander-in-Chief is a mission for which our military is not trained, equipped or organized. They were NEVER intended as Nation Builders or to be a Police Force. As I look at the numerous diplomas on my wall from Artillery Basic, Combat Intel, Nuclear Weapons, Command and General Staff College and the Army War College, I must admit that we were NOT trained to do the things our military is being tasked to do in Iraq.

The Army has some Civil Affairs Units (Restoration of civilian services) and Military police units. However these are a VERY small part of the force and for the most part our military was not intended to do what is being asked of them in Iraq.

I commend our military for doing their best but the real problem lies with Bush who has put them into a role for which they were not intended and for which they are not trained or equipped to perform. It is time to for us to get out of Iraq and place that responsibility on this new Iraq Government and the Iraqi People!
politics
19,202 views 67 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
If I present information for four distinguished leaders that have spent their lives dealing with the issue at hand like the CIA agents and generals I sighted on this Blog they act as if they are nothing because they show how Bush mislead this country into a war that was unnecessary.


Your problem is col you think somebody who writes a book against Bush is somehow superior than anybody else. I have shown quote after quote from people like Zinni who you seem to love, that shows they thought Saddam was a threat and had WMD's. Now they see they can sell a book by being against Bush and they totally contradict themselves.

You just don't get it.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

I have shown that your statement from Zinni was several years BEFORE he was in the pentagon and saw all the Intel. He has stated that Bush was saying things in late 2002 and early 2003 that DID NOT square with the totality of intelligence available. The two former CIA Chiefs said the VERY SAME THING. Bush did not declassify elements that discredited the Intel he did release. It is ironic that the Intel that Bush released has been shown to be almost 100% incorrect and the Intel that was kept classified has turned out to be correct. I wonder HOW THAT HAPPENED?
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
slandDog

I have shown that your statement from Zinni was several years BEFORE he was in the pentagon and saw all the Intel. He has stated that Bush was saying things in late 2002 and early 2003 that DID NOT square with the totality of intelligence available. The two former CIA Chiefs said the VERY SAME THING. Bush did not declassify elements that discredited the Intel he did release. It is ironic that the Intel that Bush released has been shown to be almost 100% incorrect and the Intel that was kept classified has turned out to be correct. I wonder HOW THAT HAPPENED?


You just don't seem to get it, do you? Your much loved Zinni is NOT the alpha and omega of information. He gathers info and then forms an "opinion" just like everyone else! Because he says something does NOT make it fact. And the second half of your statement about the intel GW released is also false as we have shown you time and time again.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
He has stated that Bush was saying things in late 2002 and early 2003 that DID NOT square with the totality of intelligence available. The two former CIA Chiefs said the VERY SAME THING.


And to add to what drmiller said. This is what we are talking about. Do you understand Zinni was selling a book? Do you even consider that he has some kind motive? We have shown you people who say the exact opposite and you completely ignore it. All you do is run and say the same thing....."well Zinni said".


Bush did not declassify elements that discredited the Intel he did release. It is ironic that the Intel that Bush released has been shown to be almost 100% incorrect and the Intel that was kept classified has turned out to be correct. I wonder HOW THAT HAPPENED?


I have asked you repeatedly to provide proof of this. You HAVE NEVER PROVED IT. Documented proof, not what some democratic hack says in a book. Almost every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMD's. The DEMOCRATS believed Saddam was a threat and had WMD's. But you give everybody a pass. What a joke you are.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here is some more of your beloved Zinni.

Former CENTCOM Commander, Gen. Anthony Zinni - who has called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign because of Rumsfeld's alleged incompetence in running the Iraq war - admitted six years ago that he made the disastrous decision to have the USS Cole use the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling, where the ship was blown up by al-Qaida terrorists.

Worse still, at least one report indicates that Gen. Zinni may have played a role in an August 1998 leak that tipped off Osama bin Laden to an impending U.S. cruise missile attack - allowing the top terrorist to escape.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 2000, a week after the Cole attack, the then-recently retired Zinni said: "I pass that buck on to nobody."

The Rumsfeld critic explained that he personally signed off on berthing the Cole in Yemen even though "their coast is a sieve for terrorists."


Credibile........credible bs.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler and IslandDog


How do you discount the statements of the former CIA Section Chief for Iraq (Paul Piller) and the former CIA Section Chief for Europe (Tyler Drumheller) who said the SAME THING AS ZINNI? I guess they are selling books and are not telling the truth. No matter how much evidence is presented, you and people like you on this Web Site refuse to accept the truth about Bush and this administration!





http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/39306.html


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
No matter how much evidence is presented, you and people like you on this Web Site refuse to accept the truth about Bush and this administration!


What a load of bs. How many times have you been presented real documented facts and have ignored it. Look how you abandon your other threads because you are being proved wrong.


How do you discount the statements of the former CIA Section Chief for Iraq (Paul Piller) and the former CIA Section Chief for Europe (Tyler Drumheller) who said the SAME THING AS ZINNI?


Because as usual there is no facts. You are just quoting their statements which mirror DNC talking points. Just because you agree with them does not make what they say true. I notice all these people who "claim" Bush lied can never provide any evidence of him doing so. You never consider people like them might be liberals that hate Bush, and have an obsession with him. Like you.

I have already discredited Zinni as a political hack. Just reading through your links I see they are using Joe Wilson in this story as if he worked for Cheney. The Wilson story is already proven to be a political move, so this is just more factless bs you present.

Get a life col. You need one.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

These two CIA agents were that people that were responsible for the very Intel that is the issue. Both these men had over 20 years EACH in the CIA. This has NOTHING to do with the DNC. You have lost your mind. What this does is corroborate what Zinni said. He too was a security analyst from 2000 to March 2003 and saw ALL the Intel. You as usual do not want to accept the facts. You want us to believe you as opposed to Zinni and these two career CIA Chiefs all of which had the INTEL about Iraq. I think NOT!
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col, there is a nice, big fat Senate Intelligence Comittee report that was issued after they made their decision on the Iraq investigation. They made that decisions after hearing all the stuff you are blathering on about. They came to a totally opposite conclusion than you did.

I have the original PDF they offered for download, but I can't find a link to it on their site any more. Here is a copy on globalsecurity.org. What you or I or Zinni's granny can dream up doesn't matter.

There was plenty of anti-Bush sentiment on that committee and you can see for yourself that they did not find Bush to have done the things you are accusing him of.

I'm honestly glad to find that. Shuffling through the Senate's crappy, no-bookmarks PDF was a pain in the ass...

(PDR? editied to PDF...)
(editied??)
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col, there is a nice, big fat Senate Intelligence Comittee report that was issued after they made their decision on the Iraq investigation. They made that decisions after hearing all the stuff you are blathering on about. They came to a totally opposite conclusion than you did.

I have the original PDF they offered for download, but I can't find a link to it on their site any more. Here is a copy on globalsecurity.org. What you or I or Zinni's granny can dream up doesn't matter.

There was plenty of anti-Bush sentiment on that committee and you can see for yourself that they did not find Bush to have done the things you are accusing him of.

I'm honestly glad to find that. Shuffling through the Senate's crappy, no-bookmarks PDR was a pain in the ass


Well lookee here, once again the col done in by his own ignorance!
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Everything the last two posts said also. You compeltely ignore that Zinni is a hack for the DNC and belong to left wing organizations. You still have not shown any proof. Just Zinni pushing a book.

Like Baker said, there have been many investigations and none back up anything you claim.

PROVED WRONG AGAIN.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry But the people I am quoting ARE THE PEOPLE responsible for the INTEL. They are not people looking in the window (Senate Committee) they are the people working with the TOTAL Intel. They are career CIA and Military. All three have said Bush manipulated the Intel; Cherry picked the Intel that supported what he wanted to do and ignored EVERYTHING else. As usual the most creditable sources you ignore. I do not know if the two CIA Chiefs testified before the Senate Committee but they are the most knowledgeable sources possible!
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Um, yeah. I'm sure that the senate investigation didn't have all the intelligence that you have...

Do you know how deranged that sounds? That you or I, sitting in our little houses, somehow have the inside scoop as it trickles down through Dem propaganda, and even more than the Senate Intelligence Committee who knew all about this when it was still classified?

You'll pardon me if it seems that there is a streak of conceit running through this. You claim the Senate Intelligence Committee is just "looking in the window" and you have the real poop? Surely you can even see how ludacrous that argument sounds.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Bakerstreet

The Phase II of the Senate committee which was to look the subject of the Intel and HOW we got into the war has NEVER been held. Thus the issue that Zinni and the two CIA Chiefs commented has yet to be considered by the Senate. So much for that excuse! The delay in the promised Phase II was the issue the Democrats closed the Senate down about 5 months ago. Then The chairman of the Senate Intel committee promised to hold the hearings which has not taken place.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry But the people I am quoting ARE THE PEOPLE responsible for the INTEL.


Three people are not responsible for the intel col. Bush lied, manipulated intelligence, and three people say so. Wow col. You are on a roll.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

Zinni was at a place in the Pentagon where he saw ALL of the Intel and said what Bush and Cheney were telling Congress was not the true picture. Only those elements that supported the WMD were considered and all other Intel was ignored.

The One CIA Chief was the person in charge of the Iraq Intel and the other in Europe. They also saw all the Intel and have both said that Bush cherry picked ONLY that which supported the WMD/Invasion policy. They said the same thing as Zinni. There were not three people that were in a better place to know the TOTAL PICTURE. Events over the past 3 years have proven Zinni, Piller and Drumheller CORRECT and Bush and Cheney WRONG!
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Zinni was at a place in the Pentagon where he saw ALL of the Intel and said what Bush and Cheney were telling Congress was not the true picture. Only those elements that supported the WMD were considered and all other Intel was ignored.


And it hasn't been proven. You are taking the word of Zinni who I have shown not to be credible. I notice you ignore the post I made about Zinni taking fault for the USS Cole bombing. Zinni doesn't have a good track record of intelligence.


Events over the past 3 years have proven Zinni, Piller and Drumheller CORRECT and Bush and Cheney WRONG!


Nothing has proven Bush or Cheney wrong, and them right. You are basing your facts on your own speculation without documented proof. A usual occurance for you.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like how Gene harp's on how "all other intel was ignored" - like there was some sort of equivalence to the intel. Like it was 50+/50- and Bush just buried the 50-. Intel is not a zero-sum game, but when you draw conclusions from intel you weigh all the factors supporting one conclusion and all the factors supporting a different conclusion. If there are, say, 99 reports supporting conclusion A and, say, 4 reports supporting conclusion B, you tend to discount conclusion B, even if it contradicts conclusion A. In a perfect world, where all Saddam's transactions were transparent, we might not have arrived at conclusion A. But to say we were intentionally hoodwinked when Bush knew conclusion B was the correct one is just paranoid raving, making political hay for hay's sake. It doesn't matter that CIA "had" the intel. I'd like for Gene to explain just how Bush suppressed this conclusion B intel.

Gene has the luxury of not having to actually make real decisions & live with their consequences, not to mention the perpetual benefit of hindsight. Not that any of that matters - Gene has issued himself a Fatwah & is devoting the energy of a Jihadist to it.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col: Phase 2 hasn't been completed, but everything you are talking about was in phase 1.


II. NIGER
III. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSIS OF IRAQ'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM
IV. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSIS OF IRAQ'S BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAM
V. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSIS OF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS (CW) PROGRAM
VI. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSIS OF IRAQ'S DELIVERY SYSTEMS
VII. IRAQ WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION INTELLIGENCE IN SECRETARY POWELL'S UNITED NATIONS SPEECH
VIII. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY COLLECTION ACTIVITIES AGAINST IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
IX. PRESSURE ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSTS REGARDING IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) CAPABILITIES
X. WHITE PAPER ON IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS
XII. IRAQ'S LINKS TO TERRORISM
XIII. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY COLLECTION ACTIVITIES AGAINST IRAQ'S LINKS TO TERRORISM
XIV. PRESSURE ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSTS REGARDING IRAQ'S LINKS TO TERRORISM
XV. POWELL SPEECH - TERRORISM PORTION
XVII. SADDAM HUSSEIN'S HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD
XVIII. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S SHARING OF INTELLIGENCE ON IRAQI SUSPECT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SITES WITH UNITED NATIONS INSPECTORS



People toss a fit about the second phase of the investigation, but then they always make grand claims that have already been dismissed by the first one.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col has never read it. If it doesn't show Bush is a liar then it's not good enough.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe it would be against JU t.o.s. to really say what I believe the military mission needs to be, and just who really should be targetted here to give us all a great victory
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Zarqawi was in Iraq two years before the invasion and was identified as a target not long after the invasion.

Mr Zarqawi was identified by America as its main enemy in Iraq shortly after it invaded the country three years ago. Mr Zarqawi succeeded in bringing the al-Qaeda brand to Iraq, making the insurgents a source of inspiration elsewhere.

One reason Mr Zarqawi was successful in Iraq was because he started early. He moved there two years before America invaded, to join a local Islamist group, al-Ansar al-Islam, in order to plot the overthrow of Jordan’s government next door.

Zarqawi was in Afghanistan with Bin Laden after the Soviets retreated (al Qaeda link). Zarqawi then went to Jordan to assassinate its king and was imprisoned for seven years. Upon his release he fled to Iraq.

Please COL, tell me again how Saddam didn't harbor terrorists in general, and al-Qaeda in specific?
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Singrdave

I do not doubt that terrorists travel in ALL the Moslem countries but there was NO Al Qaeda activity in Iraq during Saddam’s reign that has been discovered.

Everyone only looks at the Intel that Bush claimed showed Saddam had WMD. Not only was that distorted but the issue of Saddam's military capability, how he would use ANY WMD he had, was ignored. Saddam DID NOT HAVE any ability to attack anyone in March 2003! In addition, as I have pointed out, NO ROUGH DICTATOR EVER attacked a major power; much less the worlds ONLY super power because to do so would be like committing suicide. The evidence is clear, Saddam was NO DANGER to the United States in March 2003 and there was NO JUSTIFICATION for our preemptive invasion! Those mushroom clouds that Bush and Cheney told us about were just like the $5.7 Trillion Surplus Bush used to justify his tax cuts! ALL HOT AIR!!!!!!!
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do not doubt that terrorists travel in ALL the Moslem countries but there was NO Al Qaeda activity in Iraq during Saddam’s reign that has been discovered.


I can't believe you totally ignore everything posted then make a stupid statement like that. There is documented proof that al-qaeda operated in Iraq before the invasion and that Saddam had ties with islamic terrorists. I have posted this countless times.


Everyone only looks at the Intel that Bush claimed showed Saddam had WMD. Not only was that distorted but the issue of Saddam's military capability, how he would use ANY WMD he had, was ignored. Saddam DID NOT HAVE any ability to attack anyone in March 2003! In addition, as I have pointed out, NO ROUGH DICTATOR EVER attacked a major power; much less the worlds ONLY super power because to do so would be like committing suicide. The evidence is clear, Saddam was NO DANGER to the United States in March 2003 and there was NO JUSTIFICATION for our preemptive invasion! Those mushroom clouds that Bush and Cheney told us about were just like the $5.7 Trillion Surplus Bush used to justify his tax cuts! ALL HOT AIR!!!!!!!


More bs that you have already been proved wrong about. Do you understand everyone here laughs at your posts because they are so far out there?
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

I call you on your BS:

Show us when a Rogue Dictator attacked a major Power?

Show that the information the two CIA Chiefs and Zinni is incorrect?

Show how Bush did not claim there was a $5.7 Trillion Surplus to justify his tax cuts in 2001?

Show the military assessment that showed Saddam had the ability to attack the United States in 2003?

Show where Saddam had the nuclear weapons that he could have used to create the Mushroom Clouds of our cities?