The truth about the wars in afghanistan and iraq
This poster is not being compensated for posting this nor has any financial interests in this book.
Posted on 11/28/2006 7:11:13 PM PST by ikez78
Mike DeLong Inside CentCom
If you want the inside story of what was being said and done at the top levels of U.S. government from the September 11th attacks until the fall of Saddam Hussein, you can ask one of two men -- Army General Tommy Franks, or Marine Corps General Mike DeLong, who was Franks' deputy.
Listen to Mike DeLong at link....
(Excerpt) Read more at eyeonbooks.com ...
Wow what brain surgeon figgered that out?
Your post one is a ping list, removed, you might want to repost your list in the 'to' box.
And the 'Rats are so very proud of that.
And so very ignorant.
The problem is why hasn't the administration made this case???
The administration has done very little to defend itself.
The Rats don't care. Power is all they are interested in.
Holy crap! Better alert CNN. They'll want to get right on this.
See, it's never these kinds of generals they interview. Always the Clinton butt-whores, chip on their shoulders at the President's third cousin's brother, or the "surrender now" types.
The one true mistake of the war: the attitude that the truth will get out.
Way past time for the US and Iraq to launch a PR war.
The truth about the WMDs will come out when they're used. Pray that they're not used on us.
Because it will get egg on their face for not trying to stop them instead of waiting around to build a coalition.
And we saw the results on November 7th.
could be but I think that there has to be another reason. I just can't figure it out.
They needed to do this early in the war if they were going to.
Good question. I suspect they were "taking the high road", "staying above the fray", etc., at first, but when they saw how non-answers produced a vaccuum that the MSM was more than happy to fill with virulent anti-Bush-anti-American rhetoric, why did they continue to be silent?
good point.
This poster is not being compensated for posting this nor has any financial interests in this book.
I've checked out the link and it's a sales pitch. There is no additional info here to read.
Too bad.
The problem is why hasn't the administration made this case???
The administration has done very little to defend itself.
Good question....we wouldn't be in this mess re elections etc if the WH would make their case re the WOT IMHO
>>>>>>"Holy crap! Better alert CNN. They'll want to get right on this"<<<<<<<
Add Dan Rather and Katy to that "must alert" list
TT
God forbid.
The audio link over on the right side of that page is very interesting though.
Dealing with the UN -- a monumental mistake.
I've been saying this for years. Now that Rick Santorum is looking for work, put him out there every day, on every show confronting the lies and making the case.
Putin ...
http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/247.asp
"Lieutenant General Michael DeLong was second-in-command of Central Command under General Tommy Franks during the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq. He and General Franks are probably the most authoritative sources on these wars.
"DeLong’s book is exactly what one would expect from a Marine – clear, concise, and to the point. There is no fluff, and no sugar-coating. DeLong calls it as he sees it, and his viewpoint is one well worth paying attention to. DeLong’s book is explosive in some aspects: He states with near certainty that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be found. He explains why, and he flat-out states that Syria was a hiding place for Iraq’s WMD. He also states, “Syria and Iran are problems that will have to be dealt with.”
"DeLong also lays out the reasons for a lot of the post-liberation chaos, and does so with honesty. Saddam’s release of as many as 50,000 violent criminals, along with the “melting away” of the Iraqi police and the Iraqi Army (and its later disbanding) combined to make a “perfect storm” for the post-war chaos. He also sets the record straight about the “missing” artifacts (which were hidden by the museum staff and later returned) – and which the American media never corrected the record.
"He also states that if anyone was to be blamed for the “Mission Accomplished” speech the President gave on the Abraham Lincoln, it was him and General Franks – because they wanted to get assistance from countries that had promised assistance once “major combat operations” were over.
"He is not complimentary of Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress and the darling of neoconservatives, and he backs it up. Chalabi and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz were classmates (and friends), and he admits that Wolfowitz made a mistake. He also points out Wolfowitz’s strengths, and that he liked Wolfowitz.
"DeLong’s defense of the decision to liberate Iraq also warrants mentioning. He cites the many factors in the decision, and he particularly points out that there never was a chance of seeing UN approval because of the vested interests some nations, particularly France, China, and Germany, had. His frustration with the media for not reporting this is palpable in his comments. But perhaps his best defense of liberating Iraq is his description of the encounter he had with “Chemical Ali.” His last sentence says it all.
"What is equally important is that like General Franks, DeLong has NOT complained about Rumsfeld’s performance as Secretary of Defense. If anything, DeLong confirms what is apparent in Franks’ memoirs and Scarborough’s biography: Donald Rumsfeld might be a demanding SecDef, but he also will back his people up. As in other situations, DeLong backs this up, citing the way Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz defended the successful November 2002 attack on a car full of terrorists in Yemen.
"DeLong and Franks dealt with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on a daily basis from September 11, 2001 on. That neither have compared Rumsfeld to McNamara – in fact, both have said positive things about him – speaks volumes, and should be taken into account when Rumsfeld is criticized. The only area where DeLong and Franks did not comment was on their thoughts about Rumsfeld’s initial reaction on 9/11. DeLong merely mentions seeing Rumsfeld assisting victims of the attack, and Franks merely says DeLong told him what Rumsfeld was doing. The reviewer is somewhat puzzled by this reticence.
"Ultimately, DeLong’s book in conjunction with General Franks’ memoirs, and Rowan Scarborough’s biography provide a superb first draft of history for the initial part of the war on terrorism, far more accurate than much of the media coverage."
No, the 'rats were making Bush jump through Congressional and UN hoops, dragging out the time before the invasion, to allow Saddam the time he needed to hide the WMD's......it's amazing how short some peoples' memories are
"The problem is why hasn't the administration made this case???"
Maybe Dubya has been listening to too much advice from Bush 41, James Baker, and Colin Powell.
They already have, it goes like this: See, if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq the WMDs would still be in Iraq, safe and sound.
Here's another excellent read!!!
How many muslims are pan-islamist?
"L.T. Gen."??? You can't judge a book by its cover but you can judge the proofreaders.
Months back when Rick Santorum pushed to have that one WMD report released, he was on Sean Hannity's radio show to talk about it
Hannity kept asking him that question you asked .. Rick at first was side stepping the question .. they he said that he couldn't get into it
But he also commented that the President felt is was better to let himself take the hits from the media then to put our troops in harms way
What's with the punctuation on the book cover?
Well, the last time I look they were in harm's way. We are going to have resolve the Iranian/Syrian question soon.
I think there is a lot of truth to that. His father allowed the Clintonistas to savage him during the '92 campaign with hardly a peep in response.
Gen. DeLong has been TV since his retirement. Alltheweb his name and you'll find some transcripts from CNN and it looks like he's also been on O'reilly.
I think they are aware of that
I hope so.
I see nooootthhinngggg...
And so many people have decided against the war JUST BECAUSE OF THE GENERALS THE MEDIA HAVE ROUNDED UP to gainsay Rumsfield and thePresident. Had a friend say just today (a Republican) that she wished Bush had dumped Rumsfield earlier--he must have been bad because so many military, esp. general officers have said so. I informed her that a handful of handpicked generals, now retired, had said so, but that there are hundreds of active duty generals as well as hundreds of retired. They could find many, many more generals who respected Rumsfield and the President. However, that would not fit the Dem/lib/media/celib agenda. People tend to believe there are only a very few generals.
Also, people don't know or forget that many in the military had their pet projects thwarted by Rummie as he updated the military complex.
vaudine
If the msm was pro-American and patriotic this war would have already been won.
This tape of Gen. Mike DeLong is worth listening to if you haven't heard it.
Hopefully he can help reverse the propaganda and brainwashing.
Exactly.
But we didn't want to do it. We probably hoped that more of the world would of jumped on board at the chance to reshape the future towards a more free world.
Instead the world became cowards. It was that miscalculation that led to the events that have come to past.
Isn't that Arthur's butler extraordinaire (just to name one movie)? He was a wonderful and talented actor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.