Posted on 04/09/2007 10:58:18 AM PDT by neverdem
Go back and read what I wrote. You are saying exactly what I was saying that Cheney was saying.
Give credit where credit is due. You can thank Matchett-PI for the bulk of the links.
......but left out that Zarqawi was treated at Baghdad's Olympic Hospital, a facility reserved for high-ranking Ba'athists and their families. It's like saying if Zarqawi went to the US and got treated at Bethesda Naval Hospital, it doesn't mean that the US government was involved.
Thank you for the links, Matchett!!
I am bookmarking this..it is all important stuff to have on hand.
Great work.
You’re welcome! :)
Sorry, I was feeling argumentative today and felt like arguing with someone even if they agreed with me.
;-)
LOL!!! Good answer!
LOL...if you go back and do some research you'll learn that he stated in a many newscast that, as the Iraqi officer cadre was comprised of mainly Saddam loyalist revolutionary guards that it had to be a coalition thrust...
The latest post-hoc conventional wisdom on Iraq is that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld won the war but lost the occupation. There are two problems with this analysis (which comes, most forcefully, from The Weekly Standard). First, it’s not Rumsfeld’s occupation; it’s Colin Powell’s and George Tenet’s. Second, although it’s painfully obvious that much is wrong with this occupation, it’s simple-minded to assume that more troops will fix it. More troops may be needed now, but more of the same will not do the job. Something different is needed and was, right from the start.
George Tenent? Colin Powell? ... how about Bremmer, Wolfowitz, Perle and Cheney "they'll welcome us as heroes!" A bigger troop level (surge) IS working in Iraq--you're just not hearing about it!
A Rumsfeld occupation would have been different, and still might be. Rumsfeld wanted to put an Iraqi face on everything at the outset not just on the occupation of Iraq, but on its liberation too. That would have made a world of difference.
Okay, it that argument is true, then who's responsible for not implementing the Rumsfeld plan? Bush? Cheney? (Powell was gone after 2004)
Rumsfeld’s plan was to train and equip and then transport to Iraq some 10,000 Shia and Sunni freedom fighters led by Shia exile leader Ahmed Chalabi and his cohorts in the INC, the multi-ethnic anti-Saddam coalition he created. There, they would have joined with thousands of experienced Kurdish freedom fighters, ably led, politically and militarily, by Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani. Working with our special forces, this trio would have sprung into action at the start of the war, striking from the north, helping to drive Baathist thugs from power, and joining Coalition forces in the liberation of Baghdad. That would have put a proud, victorious, multi-ethnic Iraqi face on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and it would have given enormous prestige to three stubbornly independent and unashamedly pro-American Iraqi freedom fighters: Chalabi, Talabani, and Barzani.
So I suppose blame for the president for the foul up is justified (as the American electorate did in the last election)?
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.