Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan
Posted on 04/28/2007 9:14:39 AM PDT by leadpenny
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush should sign legislation starting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Oct. 1, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom said Saturday.
"I hope the president seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill Congress has sent him," Odom said, delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address.
Odom, an outspoken critic of the war who served as the Army's top intelligence officer and headed the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, delivered the address at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. He said he has never been a Democrat or a Republican.
The general accused Bush of squandering U.S. lives and helping Iran and al-Qaida when he invaded Iraq.
"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place," he said. "The president has let (the Iraq war) proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued. He lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Hey Odom..do us a favor and STAY retired...why don’t you go water your petunias and let a man lead this nation.
How can Lt. Gen. William Odom allows himeself to be used this way?
Thank you General. We’ve listened to your eloquent free speech and now we have digested the fact of the matter. To suggest there has been no change in approach would have been true six months back. Utilizing such an argument now rings of the familiar rhetoric of the defeatist leading the Democrat demand for surrender.
Now how a general could be foolish enough to think we’d miss that is beyond me.
Now we have a general reciting the Democrat talking points. As if a ribbon would make it so.
Odious Odom! Wonder whose shoes he polished and whose butt he kissed to achieve his rank. Butt-kissing generals. Time to completely reconfigure how the brass is promoted.
Well, in his long national security career Odom accumulated a stock of knowledge not available to laymen without security clearances. I’d wish to get on equal footing with him in that regard somehow, for otherwise arguing from un- or little- informed position is no fun.
Odom, you are a very stupid man.
Bill Odom ought to lock himself in a room with a revolver and do the decent thing.
Hey Odom:
“Citizens demand return of all pensions of retired generals who turn their former service into the service of a political agenda. We accepted their loyalty to serve the country, not the appeasement agenda of a political party.”
Odom is looking for another job in government in a Dem administration. ADM Crowe did something similar for Clinton and got an ambassadorship to the UK.
Why would the President sign a bill that is loaded up with billions in congressional bribes?
Reactivate, demote, retire at reduced pension.
Too many Generals floating around this country.
He needs to team up with Murtaugh who firmly thinks he should have made it to General based on what these guys keep spinning out.
Congress authorized this war. The UN went along with it. The Congress authorized regime change, democracy for Iraq, and a tribunal to try Saddam Hussein in 1998. Did the Governor of Texas mislead the House, Senate and White House in 1998?
The accusation that President Bush allowed the war “to proceed on automatic pilot” is simply the flip side of having a President who "micromanages the war." It's darned if you do; darned if you don’t. That is a classic no-win, we will blame you whatever approach. It is clearly unfair and disingenuous.
Democrats did not campaign on a cut and run strategy. But that is what they are pursuing now with the support of General Odom. They campaigned saying that they wanted change. President Bush sought to find the best in their words. He has changed from the Casey-Abizaid strategy to the Petreus-Shinsheki-McCain strategy. It seems to be working, though it still has not been fully implemented. Responsible government requires that it be given a chance.
Muslim terrorists cannot defeat the west. But the west can surrender. That is the course chosen by the Democrats and General Odom. Notice. There is no constructive strategy advanced by ANY Democrat. It is all an irresponsible game of blame Bush. If the Democrats get their way, things will get much worse. And then they will blame Bush.
I know we want peace. But we can no more choose peace than could Prime Minister Chamberlain.
Maybe his middle initial is "S".
WELL SAID!!!
Thanks! Good information. Between that background, and his words, I can safely place him on my ignore list.
My complaint against Democrats (post 16) still applies.
I am sad that they have become the party that they are. JFK loved America, cut taxes, favored capitalism, and opposed America’s enemies. There is none of that in today’s Democratic party. Shame on them.
How do these weasels become Generals? There are several of them.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2522/
“Retired Lieutenant General William Odom was the director of the National Security Agency between 1985 and 1988. Currently a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University, Odom has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s foreign policy.”
Yale University... Today’s bastion of Conservative and American ideals and philosophies. We all know how Conservative Yale University Professors are. I am certain that this Lt. General has no political slant to his writings at all! Yale is even more Conservative than Bob Jones University.
LLS
She didn’t have time to meet with the current General in charge of the war she wants to run, but she had time to talk a retired old man into selling out the country.
I know who he is. What’s your point?
All the way back to George Bush I, this old retired fool has been WRONG about anything that anyone asked him to give his opinion or prediction about. It’s just amazing that anybody would still be asking him what he thought about anything unless it is so they can put money on the exact opposite being the certain outcome.
Meanwhile, we invaded Iraq - against the advice of Odom and many other generals - and we're bogged down in the very muck and insurgency that Bush adn Rumsfeld were warned about. That's four years (or is it five?) since "Mission Accomplished" was proclaimed.
Sorry, but it's not Odom whose record and credibility are in question.
Excuse me, it was Ronald Reagan who won the Cold War, not Reagan and Odom.
If Odom is upset his advice wasn’t taken initially that’s too bad. That’s no reason to go out today and lie about the new strategy, claim it’s unchanged and that it’s doomed to failure.
I would like to see Odom debate Petraeus on that issue of no change in strategy but more importantly, the latter is actually doing something significant while the former pines away his time repeating Democrat talking points that have no basis in fact.
Odom credibility as a result: demolished.
whether or not it was the right thing to do at the time, it was done. we simply can’t walk away now and that’s what odom is calling for.
“Odom and Reagan won the Cold War —”
I just love how you listed Odom’s name first.
And I’m getting sick of hearing about the “Mission Accomplished” sign. That sign was put up by the people on the ship. And they were right — Their mission was accomplished!
One of the main reasons everyone thinks we’re “bogged down” is because we have a bunch of defeatists who LIE that Bush lied, and want to give in to terrorists. Read my tag line.
As for my own opinion of the Iraq war - we won when we ousted Saddam. Now let the Iraqis govern themselves. But my opinion doesn't matter. The majority of Americans want our troops out - they'll vote the GOP out (and Hillary in) if Bush doesn't respond.
National Security before politics, nation before politicians my friend.
Al Qaeda will not be doing any of us a favor if they prevail in Iraq.
"Other Retired Gen.: Bush Should NOT Sign Iraq Bill"
There are always two sides to every story.
My guess is that thethe majority of reired generals are asking Mr. Bush not to sign the bill.
Besides, Being retired and out of theater leaves you without a lot of facts which would prevent you from making a viable decision on this matter.
Politics IS national security. If you think my fear of a Hillary presidency and the death of the GOP is "politics", you're way wrong. A Hillary presidency and the (resulting) death of the GOP (through a massive amnesty bill that lets tens of millions of now-illegal immigrants vote - that result would be a DISASTER for National Security and our national survival. And it's going to happen, unfortunately, if the voters' desire to have us out of Iraq isn't responded to before the next election.
AS i've pointed out on other threads, the precedent is 1952. Voters were tired of the Korean war - and the Democrats lost because of it. The GOP - under Ike - ran on a platform promising to end the Korean war. That was Ike's main platform promise: "I will go to Korea" to end the war. 2008 promises to be a similar kind of election - with the party roles reversed. But if the Dems win, we may never see another GOP victory at the national level, because of how they'll rig the system with new immigrant voters, felon voters and the like.
If General Odom has never been a Democrat or a Republican, what has he been and why? I have close English friends who have always said we should never have invaded Iraq. I wonder what Reagan or Maggie would have done.
I don't think Reagan would have invaded Iraq. He fought the Cold War - and won - without invading a single country (except Granada, which was a rescue mission for some US students, and the operation lasted about a week). He was more about strategic show of force, deterrence, and containment to kill the Soviets by boxing them in and outspending them. Ironically, we had Saddam well contained - with spy flights over his country and tough sanctions. The success of our containment showed, in how quick we took down his pathetic army. I don't believe Reagan would have invaded. In fact, not only was Reagan's NSA chief - Odom - opposed to the invasion, but so was Jeane Kirkpatrick, Reagan's hawkish UN Ambassador.
I disagree on your point of politics. It’s not national security and the Rat position demonstrates exactly that.
I understand your fears and am not saying that they are unfounded. National Security is too important to surrender on any level. Your points are valid in that concern but it’s not a selective option.
This President will not surrender National Security to domestic political concerns.
Democrats always seem to find time and energy to oppose their real enemies: Republicans, corporate America (aka capitalism), and Judeo-Christian morality.
“The majority of Americans want our troops out - they’ll vote the GOP out (and Hillary in) if Bush doesn’t respond.”
I disagree. The majority of Americans want the troops out, sure. I want the troops out, HOWEVER, I want them out AFTER their mission is accomplished which means winning this thing. Poll after poll does NOT qualify the “troops out” question, then take the responses as proof of their (medias) predetermined outcome. Most Americans want the troops to be able to take the gloves off, stop fighting a politically correct war and go after the goons. IF IF IF they’re allowed to do that, the troops would be home inside of a year.
Note to self: Never take advice from someone who's name rhymes with "Saddam".
Or "Sodom".
If you mean he won't respond to voters' desire that we get out of Iraq, then he's electing Hillary. And she'll pull us out anyway. And she'll also make sure (along with the heavily Democrat Congress that will be elected) that we never have another Republican president or congressional majority. Friend, THAT's a national-security issue.
Besides, our national security won't be threatened by letting Iraqis take care of their own affairs. We can't make it into an American colony, so staying much longer only ups the chances of a Democrat tsunami on the home front, in 2008.
Yeah, the director of the NSA under the Reagan administration is a real dummy. Agree or not, calling him stupid shows your own stupidity. STFU.
The only hope that terrorists have is the Democratic party.
You disagree that voters will elect Democrats if we're still fighting in Iraq in Nov., 2008? Hope you're right, but the results of the 2006 elections - the GOP lost both houses of Congress as well as a bunch of governorships, remember? -- (as well as all the current polls) suggest you're engaged in wishful thinking.
Yeah when it comes to out spending the enemy I first think of Generals. Wrong! USSR collaped because we had a President committed to seeing them destroyed, and because they could not keep up superior technology, had a failed and a collapsed economy and weak leadership, not thanks to gutless generals who saw 3000 brave men who sacrified their lives and said "GIVE UP! RUN AWAY!" How many lives were lost in winning the cold war BTW?
But I degress. Please rank this "The Great General Odem" with the likes of a Washington, Jackson, Grant, Sherman, Persing, Patton or Macarthur, I believe who also said "GIVE UP! RUN AWAY!" when they hit the 3000 dead mark.
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.