John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

This is an e-mail sent to me by my buddy that is a staunch republican. I am unsure of it's authenticity, but I thought it was a very good read. I am sure there are plenty here that will not find it a good read. Hopefully open minds with prevail.

[quote]John Glenn said...
This should make you think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us.
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost , an average of 18,334 per year.

d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea
without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

But Wait

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation..

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard, than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

But wait!
There's more!


JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004)

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed
services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my
checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the
daily cash receipts to the bank.'

'I ask you to go with me, as I went the other day to a veteran's hospital and look those men,
with their mangled bodies, in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans
of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...

and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about you?'
For those who don't remember
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing t he Communist Party in the USA .


Now he's a Senator![/quote]

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

I love John Glenn a true American hero that knows how to put things in the proper perspective.
Nice post Jsanro.

For any of the young folks on this board that haven’t seen the story of John Glen and the Mercury astronauts in (The Right Stuff). Do yourself a favor and check out one of the best movies in the past 30yr’s.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[url=http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/glenn.asp]Urban Legends Reference Pages: John Glenn 'I Have Held a Job!' Quote[/url]

Be sure to scroll down to the "Update"

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=Riggo44;435154]I love John Glenn a true American hero that knows how to put things in the proper perspective.
Nice post Jsanro.

For any of the young folks on this board that haven’t seen the story of John Glen and the Mercury astronauts in (The Right Stuff). Do yourself a favor and check out one of the best movies in the past 30yr’s.[/QUOTE]

John Glenn's a badass. I got nervous the first time I rode The Incredible Hulk rollercoaster at Universal Orlando. This dude went to space! Freakin' modern day Magellan. John McCain before there was John McCain.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;435155][url=http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/glenn.asp]Urban Legends Reference Pages: John Glenn 'I Have Held a Job!' Quote[/url]

Be sure to scroll down to the "Update"[/QUOTE]

Looks like part of it was tacked on.
So Glenn likely did not say that part, but it wasn't refuted on that site which still makes it pretty relevant and none the less interesting.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;435158]John Glenn's a badass. I got nervous the first time I rode The Incredible Hulk rollercoaster at Universal Orlando. This dude went to space! Freakin' modern day Magellan. John McCain before there was John McCain.[/QUOTE]

I am a roller coaster enthusiast. I liked the Hulk, but the designers seemed too eager to put as many twists and turns as possible in it. I actually enjoyed the dualing dragons more.
I have been dying to go to cedar point in Ohio, but I have no one to go with. My wife has a fear of roller coasters, and I don't want by myself...that's no fun. Anywho...

John Glenn is a great model for anyone in this country or out.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;435158]John Glenn's a badass. I got nervous the first time I rode The Incredible Hulk rollercoaster at Universal Orlando. This dude went to space! Freakin' modern day Magellan. John McCain before there was John McCain.[/QUOTE]


lol, I know what you mean I got nervous the first time I rode X last summer at Six Flagg’s and I love rollercoaster’s.

I'm not really sure how I would react if someone was counting down to lift off and I was sitting on top of the biggest stick of dynamite in the world.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=Riggo44;435154]I love John Glenn a true American hero that knows how to put things in the proper perspective.
Nice post Jsarno.

For any of the young folks on this board that haven’t seen the story of John Glen and the Mercury astronauts in (The Right Stuff). Do yourself a favor and check out one of the best movies in the past 30yr’s.[/QUOTE]

Thank you sir.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

I like John Glenn as well: an American hero.

As for the content of what he (or whomever) said, I think it misses the point. The problem is how badly the Bush team have conducted the war and how badly bungled the pre-war intelligence was, even if you don't accept that it was deliberately fabricated or anything.

We went to Iraq on bad intelligence without an effective plan for the post-invasion situation. Anyone who mentioned this at the time were smashed down by the Cheney-Rumsfeld contingent in the White House. Even if the war was started for acceptable reasons (I was behind it) and even if you think the military is doing it's job well (at the level of junior officer and enlisted men, I think we've been great. Patreus may be good at the general level. Franks' attack plan worked well. But Snachez and Casey were disasters, only there becuase they would follow Rumsfeld's orders), there's still the issue of bad planning, bad decision making, and bad strategy by the Bush team.

I am a fully committed backer of our troops. I just think they've been let down by a bunch of naive, pig-headed politicians who refused to accept anything but their own view. It's "taking a long time" in Iraq becuase we didn't have a plan for post-war Iraq beyond passing the country of to our hand-picked guy Chalabi. When that failed, we were stuck. Disbanding the military and de-bathifying the government didn't help matters. And Abu Graib was a serious mistake that's hurt us in lots of other areas.

If we had good people at the top with a good plan, we wouldn't be in this mess. The troops ARE doing their job, above and beyond often, even with the pathetic lack of armor and so forth at the initial stages of the insurgency.

Rumsfeld and Cheney were cowboys who thought they knew better than everyone else how this would go. They NEVER got along with the military. Rumsfeld wanted to cut the pentagon and make a new sort of Army. Etc, etc. They've done a great disservice to our military, in my opinion, and they've only given aid and comfort to those who think we should never use force at all.

(For more on this, see "Bush's War," a 2 part series on PBS's Frontline. I'd love to find out that the show was inaccurate, but given the range of folks they talk to, I doubt it. It was among the most depressing things I've seen in a while.)

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=JWsleep;435171](For more on this, see "Bush's War," a 2 part series on PBS's Frontline. I'd love to find out that the show was inaccurate, but given the range of folks they talk to, I doubt it. It was among the most depressing things I've seen in a while.)[/QUOTE]

I have watched this and can't get over how badly Donald Rumsfeld screwed this country over. It was on Bush's watch and it ultimately lays with him but Rumsfeld was the architect of this disaster.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;435177]I have watched this and can't get over how badly Donald Rumsfeld screwed this country over. It was on Bush's watch and it ultimately lays with him but Rumsfeld was the architect of this disaster.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, though I think Cheney was always there to back up Rummy in crucial debates and disagreements. As for Bush, my impression is that he just didn't have the force of will to disagree with these guys and his desire for strong action (not always, or even often) a bad thing, meant that he was most receptive to their views, especially in contrast with Powell's "you break it you buy it coalition approach).

But Rummy screwed up, no doubt. It's amazing how time and time again he's behind the missteps.

I;m told by my buddy at the NY Times that Rummy is one of the most charming and interesting (and funny) guys you can meet. Doesn't make you a good defense secretary, unfortunately.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

i really appreciate this kind of post. I think it says alot about the people that have actually accomplished something in this country vs those who sit back and criticize every move that is made...

there is no 'effective post invasion' plan. Look back throughout history and show me one "invader" that was welcomed with open arms. Each invader thought/felt like they were in the right, either by divine inspiration or simple evolution. Like it or not we are outsiders occupying another country. It's an ugly situation. right or wrong is completely dependent upon perspective. To discredit the progress that has been made in that country without considering the status of basic human rights in that same territory 4 or 5 years ago is naive beyond description. yeah, we all want to sound intelligent. yeah, we all have an opinion. yeah, we all truly have never been in any situation that requires real life world changing decision making so we have no real clue what goes into the progress, despite what we read on the interweb. Everyone's a critic. No one is part of a solution. More hot air is all there is. What a sad state of affairs.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

so unless people are making foreign policies or agreeing with the decisions being made they should keep their mouths shut, huh? cool beans. I'm PM'ing you an invite to a local book burning I'd like you to attend ;)

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

I don't know how you turn the mismanagement of this war into a democrat/republican issue (as if that in any way has a bearing on the inefficacy of its execution) and then substantiate your point by quoting one of the most famous democratic senators of all time. You can't turn it into a partisan issue and then quote the other side.

By the way, if you guys want to watch a stunning Iraq documentary check out No End in Sight. It skips the debate about the legality of the war and starts with the premise that the war could have been very successful, if not for a series of stunning errors by the Bush Team, particularily Rumsfeld and Bremer. It is by far the best film on this topic that I have seen.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=BleedBurgundy;435200]i really appreciate this kind of post. I think it says alot about the people that have actually accomplished something in this country vs those who sit back and criticize every move that is made...

there is no 'effective post invasion' plan. Look back throughout history and show me one "invader" that was welcomed with open arms. Each invader thought/felt like they were in the right, either by divine inspiration or simple evolution. Like it or not we are outsiders occupying another country. It's an ugly situation. right or wrong is completely dependent upon perspective. To discredit the progress that has been made in that country without considering the status of basic human rights in that same territory 4 or 5 years ago is naive beyond description. yeah, we all want to sound intelligent. yeah, we all have an opinion. yeah, we all truly have never been in any situation that requires real life world changing decision making so we have no real clue what goes into the progress, despite what we read on the interweb. Everyone's a critic. No one is part of a solution. More hot air is all there is. What a sad state of affairs.[/QUOTE]
Here's the deal though. We didn't just not have a good plan....we had NO PLAN. Rumsfeld was more worried about consolidating his power, screwing the CIA, and affecting regime change as a means to complete cultural change. What he and his fellow neocons forgot was that winning the war was easy it was getting their idea of flourishing democracy to take hold in the peace that was hard and they had no idea wahat the hell to do to do it.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=djnemo65;435211]By the way, if you guys want to watch a stunning Iraq documentary check out No End in Sight. It skips the debate about the legality of the war and starts with the premise that the war could have been very successful, if not for a series of stunning errors by the Bush Team, particularily Rumsfeld and Bremer. It is by far the best film on this topic that I have seen.[/QUOTE]

I am actually a very firm believer in the fundamental idea behind this war (the real idea about establishing democracies and creating allies...not that crap about WMDs, etc..) and I think it WILL eventually work if we start doing it correctly and have some patience. But Rummy and his ilk f*cked this up. They just did, and it has nothing to do with a failure of their ideas rather than piss poor execution. Even the staunchest of Iraq war supporters have to see how badly this has been executed.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

Are we counting the wounded and those that commit suicide after they come back? It's so sad that only the dead get counted and those who are not dead are forgotten. Also, are we counting the dead Iraq civilians too or is that collateral damage and irrelevant?

Your picture is incomplete at best.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

For real? The lack of substantive thought behind this thread is disappointing.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;435280]For real? The lack of substantive thought behind this thread is disappointing.[/QUOTE]

In what way? I am not sure I understand.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;435273]Here's the deal though. We didn't just not have a good plan....we had NO PLAN. Rumsfeld was more worried about consolidating his power, screwing the CIA, and affecting regime change as a means to complete cultural change. What he and his fellow neocons forgot was that winning the war was easy it was getting their idea of flourishing democracy to take hold in the peace that was hard and they had no idea wahat the hell to do to do it.[/QUOTE]

First of all, I was in the military during the time and onboard a US Navy Sub in the Red Sea as we shot off part of the salvo that was known as "Shock and Awe" so I'm not "talking out of my ass" on this one. We DID have a plan. Saying otherwise is hyperbole generated by those who are diametrically opposed to everything that this administration has done. I'm not saying it was necessarily a good or particularly effective plan, but there was a plan. We did not go to war at the cost of at least 4,000 american lives for the sake of Rumsfeld consolidating power.

My point is that if anyone, ANYONE, expects an occupying force (that's what we are, no reason to sugar coat it) to be welcomed in with open arms, they are delusional. What I think is very convenient is that before the war was begun, public opinion was in favor of action in Iraq. Then, later, when there were no WMD found, everyone acts like you can go back in time and change everything. We are there, regardless of why, how or when we got there, we are. SO that is the current situation. All of this constant bitching about the past is completely inconsequential.

Was the public misled? Definitely. Do they have a right to be pissed off? Yes. Does that have ANYTHING to do with the current situation? Not at all.

I'm not going to write too much more because this is fast approaching incoherent territory but... For better or for worse, we are there. The only plausible course of action is to finish what we came to do. Doing otherwise will send a very harmful signal to the enemy that if they plant enough IED's and blow up enough marketplaces, the US will not have the stomach to endure a drawn out conflict. It will invite more and more of this type of tactic being utilized anywhere we are in that region. It's human nature, find a weakness and exploit it.

People spend a hell of a lot time complaining and examining when what we as a country and unified government need to do is use all necessary force to finish this war in Iraq. AFTER that is accomplished, then we can investigate and make changes in policy so that we don't find ourselves in future situations like this one. But this nationwide backseat driving is completely counter-productive.

Anyone that presumes to know the innerworkings of the cabinet that decided action on this war either is delusional, believes everything they see on CNN and read in the NY Times or both.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=BleedBurgundy;435306]We DID have a plan. Saying otherwise is hyperbole generated by those who are diametrically opposed to everything that this administration has done.[/QUOTE]

Well evidence shows we didn't have much of a plan whether you think we did or not. We had no inkling of what it would take to manage the peace and WE KNOW THAT NOW since we have the benefit of history as proof. If you want to quibble about semantics and the meaning or "we didn't have aplan" then go for it. What I meant and I think any reasonable person knows this is that whatever our plan was it was poorly constructed and appears to have been nothing but an afterthought. All in all it appears our "plan" wasn't much of a plan at all more than a vague naive notion of cheering crowds happy to see us liberate them. And as other s can atest to I am anything but "diametrically" opposed to this administration. I call it being honest and not being idealogical or partisan.

[quote]We did not go to war at the cost of at least 4,000 american lives for the sake of Rumsfeld consolidating power. [/quote]

Think what you want but Rumsfeld's drive for power WAS a big motivating factor behind the entire Iraq theatre.

[quote]Anyone that presumes to know the innerworkings of the cabinet that decided action on this war either is delusional, believes everything they see on CNN and read in the NY Times or both.[/quote]

Or maybe someone who doesn't has their head in the sand.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[quote=FRPLG;435304]In what way? I am not sure I understand.[/quote]
The "source" email is fact-grazing, and the sole purpose of this thread is flame bait. That's disappointing.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;435316]The "source" email is fact-grazing, and the sole purpose of this thread is flame bait. That's disappointing.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't disagree much more. The e-mail may be junk but the discussion has been reasonable.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;435311]Well evidence shows we didn't have much of a plan whether you think we did or not. We had no inkling of what it would take to manage the peace and WE KNOW THAT NOW since we have the benefit of history as proof. If you want to quibble about semantics and the meaning or "we didn't have aplan" then go for it. What I meant and I think any reasonable person knows this is that whatever our plan was it was poorly constructed and appears to have been nothing but an afterthought. All in all it appears our "plan" wasn't much of a plan at all more than a vague naive notion of cheering crowds happy to see us liberate them. And as other s can atest to I am anything but "diametrically" opposed to this administration. I call it being honest and not being idealogical or partisan.



Think what you want but Rumsfeld's drive for power WAS a big motivating factor behind the entire Iraq theatre.



[B]Or maybe someone who doesn't has their head in the sand[/B].[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's having my head in the sand to say "right or wrong, we're already over there so we need to finish this before we lose focus among all of the investigation and woulda, coulda, shoulda." It's realistic, simply a matter of focusing on the task at hand. There will be all eternity for the hindsight crowd.

There are a ton of lessons to be learned from mistakes that were made in this conflict. I don't think that's anything new...

I think it's very presumptious to say that the administration's idea was that we would be welcomed by adoring crowds. I think that was clearly the [I]public's[/I] perception, but I know that we in the military were never given that impression. Our commanders were telling us that this was going to be a real difficult situation from the start. I think if the average american had realistic, non-idealized expectations of war then you wouldn't see so much hand-wringing now.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

I never said the discussion hasn't been civil.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=BleedBurgundy;435322]I don't think it's having my head in the sand to say "right or wrong, we're already over there so we need to finish this before we lose focus among all of the investigation and woulda, coulda, shoulda." It's realistic, simply a matter of focusing on the task at hand. There will be all eternity for the hindsight crowd.
[/quote]
I posted that about one quote from response not your entire argument with which I am inclined to agree on many points.

[quote]
I think it's very presumptious to say that the administration's idea was that we would be welcomed by adoring crowds. I think that was clearly the [I]public's[/I] perception, but I know that we in the military were never given that impression. Our commanders were telling us that this was going to be a real difficult situation from the start. I think if the average american had realistic, non-idealized expectations of war then you wouldn't see so much hand-wringing now.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Don't you think it was a failure of Administration to properly frame this entire deal? My biggest problem with the whole thing even from the beginning before it ever turned bad was that this wasn't about WMDs or Saddam. It was about establishing a democracy in the Middle East from which we hoped more democracy could bloom. The Administration though, sold it in simpler terms, relying on fear to convince Americans this was the right way to go rather than explaining that this was a long term proposition with somewhat less concrete goals than simply eradicating a tyrant and removing danegrous WMDs.

You seem to view the Administration and the military as one cohesive unit thinking in the same ways and tracking on the same course. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While the military commanders may have understood what they were up against in Iraq I don't think there is one shred of evidence to show that the Administration did. And the Administration, through Rumsfeld and his cohorts, were responsible for the "plan". My quibble isn't with the military in any way.

Finally, I would say that ignoring what went wrong just to focus our efforts on winning seems pretty simple to me. I'd like to think that we are smart enough as a society to do both at the same time. I feel like that point is made to simply put off thinking about how much we screwed this up because it will be hard and embarrassing.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

Blame everything on Rummy, apparently Dick and W are not culpable any more. We are talking about guys who recently said "being in Iraq is romantic and I am envious" and another guy who said "so, public opinion doesn't matter, plus they volunteered" and "[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html"]Iraq is going great.[/URL]" If these guys don't turn your stomach, you really, really, need to check your humanity.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=saden1;435331]Blame everything on Rummy, apparently Dick and W are not culpable any more. We are talking about guys who recently said "being in Iraq is romantic and I am envious" and another guy who said "so, public opinion doesn't matter, plus they volunteered" and "[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html"]Iraq is going great.[/URL]" If these guys don't turn your stomach, you really, really, need to check your humanity.[/QUOTE]

I don't think either one is corrupt or "evil." I think they are both terribly misguided and lack sound judgment. You don't have to gate them just because you don't like their politics and think they've made some awful decision.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=saden1;435278]Are we counting the wounded and those that commit suicide after they come back? It's so sad that only the dead get counted and those who are not dead are forgotten. Also, are we counting the dead Iraq civilians too or is that collateral damage and irrelevant?

Your picture is incomplete at best.[/QUOTE]

Great points.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;435327]

I agree. Don't you think it was a failure of Administration to properly frame this entire deal? My biggest problem with the whole thing even from the beginning before it ever turned bad was that this wasn't about WMDs or Saddam. [B]It was about establishing a democracy in the Middle East from which we hoped more democracy could bloom. The Administration though, sold it in simpler terms, relying on fear to convince Americans this was the right way to go rather than explaining that this was a long term proposition with somewhat less concrete goals than simply eradicating a tyrant and removing danegrous WMDs.[/B]
You seem to view the Administration and the military as one cohesive unit thinking in the same ways and tracking on the same course. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While the military commanders may have understood what they were up against in Iraq I don't think there is one shred of evidence to show that the Administration did. And the Administration, through Rumsfeld and his cohorts, were responsible for the "plan". My quibble isn't with the military in any way.

Finally, I would say that ignoring what went wrong just to focus our efforts on winning seems pretty simple to me. I'd like to think that we are smart enough as a society to do both at the same time. I feel like that point is made to simply put off thinking about how much we screwed this up because it will be hard and embarrassing.[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely correct on the bolded point, I couldn't agree more.

Regarding your comment on Govt. and Military being a cohesive unit, definitely not. My perspective is from down to top, vs top down. I do honestly believe that GW and the rest of these guys had good intentions. It may be naive but I have no proof to the contrary. Was it ham handed? Without a doubt. I think that there were a lot failures along the way and it cannot all be laid solely at the feet of the administration. There's a lot of responsibility to go around.

As to your last point, I respectfully disagree. I do not believe that with the tremendous impact that the Fourth Estate has on popular opinion and therefore legislative decision making, that we can do both (finishing the war in Iraq and Performing an objective critical analysis of the process) at the same time. I simply do not have that kind of faith in humans. I'd much prefer us to have "tunnel vision," finish the task at hand and then evaluate it. The time for comprehensive analysis is before and after, not during a project.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=saden1;435331]Blame everything on Rummy, apparently Dick and W are not culpable any more. We are talking about guys who recently said "[B][I]being in Iraq is romantic and I am envious[/I][/B]" and another guy who said "so, public opinion doesn't matter, plus they volunteered" and "[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html"]Iraq is going great.[/URL]" If these guys don't turn your stomach, you really, really, need to check your humanity.[/QUOTE]

Classic viewpoint of someone who has never served. I do believe that some people get their ideas of what military life is like from the movie's they watch... Ask any veteran how romantic Iraq is.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

The lack of planning was not in the attack stage. We easily conquered to country and deposed Saddam. The problem was what to do next. The so-called "Powell Doctrine" called for many boots on the ground and a coalition to help bear the costs. Rummy was a proponent of a new, mobile army that can strike quick, effect change, and get out. When the chairman of the joint chiefs suggested to congress in the buildup to war that as many as 200,000 troops might be needed, he was shit-canned by Rummy. Powell and the state department formed a study group on the post war process. They called in experts, Iraqi expats, etc., to figure out what the risks were and what to do. A crucial risk identified was the need for post-conflict security to handle the vacuum of power left by Saddam's fall. Rummy got wind of the group, and disbanded it. Their plan was not even considered by the DOD. That's what I mean about lack of planning, not that the military in the initial invasion didn't have a plan. General Franks did have a plan, and a good one, for smashing the Iraqi army and taking control of the country. But note that he retired WITHIN WEEKS OF THE FALL OF BAGDAD! Why? Because he quickly realized he did not have control of the situation: he'd been supplanted by control from the civilians from DOD, first Garner and then, woefully, Bremmer.

Rummy, with the support of Cheney, were behind these moves. That's the issue here, I think, and you don't have to read the NYTimes to believe it. Check out many of the books by people formerly in the administration--they are by no means liberals. And, if you can, get a hold of that Frontline. If you see things wrong with it, I'd like to know. it would make me feel a bit better if these guys weren't so incompetent. But I think they were, given what I've seen.

To reiterate: I think the military has done a fine job in trying circumstances. The main reason we've got control now is that a proper plan of action, developed on the ground by people like Col. McMaster ("Tal Afar") and Patreus. Rummy always opposed this approach, which echoes of the Powell doctrine.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

Political affiliations aside, everyone seems to skip over the fact that no country in human history has ever invaded another country, won the hearts and minds of the people, installed a democratic form of government and then had everything turn out well.

You can't shove your governmental architecture on people who don't want it. Most invasions in history were of the "invade, kill everyone and enslave a few" kind. I don't know where we get this idea that we're going to invade someone's country and they'll end up loving us and adopting our form of government.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=mheisig;435379]Political affiliations aside, everyone seems to skip over the fact that no country in human history has ever invaded another country, won the hearts and minds of the people, installed a democratic form of government and then had everything turn out well.

You can't shove your governmental architecture on people who don't want it. Most invasions in history were of the "invade, kill everyone and enslave a few" kind. I don't know where we get this idea that we're going to invade someone's country and they'll end up loving us and adopting our form of government.[/QUOTE]

This is what I keep saying and people look at me like I'm nuts. It's not that I [I]like[/I] that that's how it is, it just is...

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=JWsleep;435370]The lack of planning was not in the attack stage. We easily conquered to country and deposed Saddam. The problem was what to do next. The so-called "Powell Doctrine" called for many boots on the ground and a coalition to help bear the costs. Rummy was a proponent of a new, mobile army that can strike quick, effect change, and get out. When the chairman of the joint chiefs suggested to congress in the buildup to war that as many as 200,000 troops might be needed, he was shit-canned by Rummy. Powell and the state department formed a study group on the post war process. They called in experts, Iraqi expats, etc., to figure out what the risks were and what to do. A crucial risk identified was the need for post-conflict security to handle the vacuum of power left by Saddam's fall. Rummy got wind of the group, and disbanded it. Their plan was not even considered by the DOD. That's what I mean about lack of planning, not that the military in the initial invasion didn't have a plan. General Franks did have a plan, and a good one, for smashing the Iraqi army and taking control of the country. But note that he retired WITHIN WEEKS OF THE FALL OF BAGDAD! Why? Because he quickly realized he did not have control of the situation: he'd been supplanted by control from the civilians from DOD, first Garner and then, woefully, Bremmer.

Rummy, with the support of Cheney, were behind these moves. That's the issue here, I think, and you don't have to read the NYTimes to believe it. Check out many of the books by people formerly in the administration--they are by no means liberals. And, if you can, get a hold of that Frontline. If you see things wrong with it, I'd like to know. it would make me feel a bit better if these guys weren't so incompetent. But I think they were, given what I've seen.

To reiterate: I think the military has done a fine job in trying circumstances. The main reason we've got control now is that a proper plan of action, developed on the ground by people like Col. McMaster ("Tal Afar") and Patreus. Rummy always opposed this approach, which echoes of the Powell doctrine.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't have said it better.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[quote=mheisig;435379]Political affiliations aside, everyone seems to skip over the fact that no country in human history has ever invaded another country, won the hearts and minds of the people, installed a democratic form of government and then had everything turn out well.

You can't shove your governmental architecture on people who don't want it. Most invasions in history were of the "invade, kill everyone and enslave a few" kind. I don't know where we get this idea that we're going to invade someone's country and they'll end up loving us and adopting our form of government.[/quote]
this is a great post. but this administration saw Iraq as the defining point of George Bush's legacy. this was a gross miscalculation. i think they had a plan, but really never looked outside the box. can anyone really say, right now, that Iraq WANTED to be liberated? and they thought it would be smooth sailing once they took down Hussein(sp?). now, i think there needs to be a time table for when the Iraqi people need to step up, and be accountable for their own country. otherwise, the United States will be there for a long time

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=mheisig;435379]Political affiliations aside, everyone seems to skip over the fact that no country in human history has ever invaded another country, won the hearts and minds of the people, installed a democratic form of government and then had everything turn out well.

You can't shove your governmental architecture on people who don't want it. Most invasions in history were of the "invade, kill everyone and enslave a few" kind. I don't know where we get this idea that we're going to invade someone's country and they'll end up loving us and adopting our form of government.[/QUOTE]

This seems absolutely correct to me. The issue is that the neo-con view of the invasion didn't take this problem seriously. The main "greeting us with flowers" guy was Paul Wolfowitz, neo-con par excellence. This led the administration to down-play post-invasion planning. It wasn't folks on the left that made this mistake, it was the neo-cons and their blending of Wilsonian "nation building" with strong uses of American force. Kissinger, a realist, wouldn't have done this. Nor would have the elder Bush and James Baker.

Of course, GHW Bush and James Baker left Saddam in power at the end of Gulf War I for that reason, and I'm not into that move either, don't get me wrong. I was pro-invasion for the sorts of reasons spouted by Thomas Friedman: we can positively influence change in the middle east, and it's in our interests to do so. But a mis-planned and mis-executed war serves no one's interests, and gives comfort to those who don't accept ANY use of force in our foreign policy (and who tend to be highly suspicious of anything done by our military).

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=JWsleep;435417]The main "greeting us with flowers" guy was [B]Paul Wolfowitz[/B], neo-con par excellence. QUOTE]

Aside from the seriousness of the issues we're discussing, I have had the misfortune of meeting Wolfowitz on several occasions, and my impression is that he is one off the wall guy. Maybe it was because I was just a "nobody" but he couldn't even look you in the eye during a conversation and just came off as kind of strange. If you didn't know who he was, he was definitely not someone you would think would be in a position of considerable authority.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;435411]this is a great post. [B]but this administration saw Iraq as the defining point of George Bush's legacy[/B]. this was a gross miscalculation. i think they had a plan, but really never looked outside the box. can anyone really say, right now, that Iraq WANTED to be liberated? and they thought it would be smooth sailing once they took down Hussein(sp?). now, i think there needs to be a time table for when the Iraqi people need to step up, and be accountable for their own country. otherwise, the United States will be there for a long time[/QUOTE]

I've got a real problem with starting an argument like this. How do you know that the administration saw the war as the defining point of the "Bush legacy"?

Were you in the strategy meetings? Have you interviewed top administration officials and determined this? Or is it just pure conjecture?

Regardless of their motivations, which only they know, the whole thing was ill-advised and flies in the face of centuries of military history.

I fail to understand why people can't learn from history...it's like this generation thinks history doesn't apply to us.

Re: John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)
 

[QUOTE=JWsleep;435417]This seems absolutely correct to me. The issue is that the neo-con view of the invasion didn't take this problem seriously. The main "greeting us with flowers" guy was Paul Wolfowitz, neo-con par excellence. This led the administration to down-play post-invasion planning. It wasn't folks on the left that made this mistake, it was the neo-cons and their blending of Wilsonian "nation building" with strong uses of American force. Kissinger, a realist, wouldn't have done this. Nor would have the elder Bush and James Baker.

Of course, GHW Bush and James Baker left Saddam in power at the end of Gulf War I for that reason, and I'm not into that move either, don't get me wrong. I was pro-invasion for the sorts of reasons spouted by Thomas Friedman: we can positively influence change in the middle east, and it's in our interests to do so. But a mis-planned and mis-executed war serves no one's interests, and gives comfort to those who don't accept ANY use of force in our foreign policy (and who tend to be highly suspicious of anything done by our military).[/QUOTE]

Few things make for a strong argument like calling people "neo-cons." :doh: