Time for Straight Talk [Hackworth Barf!]

STFF.Org (Hackworth's Column) ^ | 09-15-2003 | David H. Hackworth

[jjm2111]

"Osama bin Laden, a Saudi fundamentalist Muslim who would probably sooner form some sort of alliance with the state of Israel than join forces with Saddam, whom he’s always considered as corrupt an infidel as the rest of us."

Hackworth is really gone off his rocker. This is the biggest crock of Bull. Hackworth constantly whines while offering no solutions. He bitches and moans about training and readiness in the military after they wiped up the floor with Saddam's forces. Not to mention all his correct (not!) predictions.

And to think I used to respect the man. I still do to some extent, but only for his service. The only important thing he does point out is our lack of pressure on the Saudis. IMO, Saudi Arabia is a major terror backer and we should see them for what they are.

[jjm2111]

Ping!

[r9etb]

STFF.org? I think for Hackworthless, they ought to change the name to STFU.org.

[woofie]

all the arrows pointed toward our being whacked

talk about whacked

[Steve_Seattle]

"On the two-year anniversary of 9/11, both the hardliners within the administration and the chicken hawks on the airwaves are stubbornly continuing to blame the strikes on Saddam . . . "

This is a flat-out lie. Has Hackworth gone crazy?

[r9etb]

Hackworth is really gone off his rocker.

Yup. I especially like that part about laying bricks "a careful distance from Ground Zero," as if he just knew those towers were coming down....

And to think I used to respect the man. I still do to some extent, but only for his service. The only important thing he does point out is our lack of pressure on the Saudis. IMO, Saudi Arabia is a major terror backer and we should see them for what they are.

You think an invasion of Iraq, and a huge American army on the ground next door, doesn't represent pressure on Saudi?

The Saudis have a tendency to play to whoever represents the biggest danger to their rule. Of late, they've been pretty active against A-Q, who probably do represent the biggest threat, primarily because we're over there. As long as the US has an army stirring up A-Q opposition, the Saudis will keep cracking down on them.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Saudi Arabia is a major terror backer and we should see them for what they are."

I think we do. The perception is that the Saudis are cowards who can eventually be brought in line using other forms of pressure besides military action. Saddam, on the other hand, would never give up without a fight. Saddam was a militarist, which the Saudis are not, and he had to be brought down using the military.

[rintense]

Dime to donuts Hack endorses Clark.

[RLK]

Hackworth is really gone off his rocker.

---------

Don't be so certain.

[tx_eggman]

Once again, most Americans – including a lot of red-faced lawmakers – have fallen for the old Hitler trick

Now Hack is using the Bush is Hitler image. What color is the atmosphere on the planet where he lives?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Hackworth is a revisionist historian.

[Lance Romance]

This whole debate of Iraq and 9/11 is a non-starter. Am I the only one in America that knew from the start Saddam was not involved. No one, certainly from the White House, told me that Saddam did it.

I saw the Dems blaming the President for the American pulbic's stupidity. If your too dumb to read a paper or watch the news occasionally then don't vote.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

No one, certainly from the White House, told me that Saddam did it.

Interesting. Has anyone from the WH told you the exact cause of the Blackout? Will you only believe the reason, if you hear it "from the horses mouth"?

[jwfiv]

Hack has a Clooney complex.

He's just a MIchael Moore with several plastic surgeries and a black turtleneck.

He's a demented crybaby trying to rewrite past and current events to prove his unprovable point.

Fie upon the rascal, I say...I ain't gonna lend him my ears no mo'.

[Paradox]

I am now convinced that some people DO subscribe to some newsletter where they get their talking points from. First, it was the claim that Bush claimed the WMD threat was imminent. How many stories have you read about that? I CLEARLY recall, and I thought it was one of his best lines, that we did not need to wait until the threat was imminent to do something about it. Now, its the "Bush claimed that Iraq was somehow behind 9-11". I have asked several people if they thought that Bush or the admin had said that, and even the liberals I have asked have said "no". However, it is probably only a matter of time before those same liberals will start believing it.. you know the old saw about repeating a lie often enough...

[SoCal Pubbie]

As far as I can tell, official Saudi "cooperation" with AQ consists of a "don't ask don't tell" policy in which they strive to keep fundimentalists out of their kingdom by turning a blind eye to Osama'a activities. Any finanacial help may be a payoff of blackmail to the same end. It is much more believeable to me that the Saudis prefer to subvert by supporting worldwide Islamic schools and centers. Too much damage to infrastructure puts a crimp on their investments.

Other than that, Hack is just that. And for those who always get on we non veterans about his service, may I remind everyone that up until he decided to turn over West Point to the redcoaks that Benedict Arnold was an absolute war hero.

[CMClay]

Bush's congressional resolution to Congress:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Sincerely,



GEORGE W. BUSH

[TheDon]

9-11 has definitely highlighted the flawed foreign policy of many pundits and politicians, Hackworth being one of them.

He is not the only one who believes a fanatical religious leader could not make a marriage of convenience for its own benefit. I heard a pundit on the news make the same point just yesterday, and have heard similar statements by others. It is a rather naive belief.

[Lance Romance]

Does that prove something?

[FReepaholic]

>>... big bucks for a war against terrorism that has struck the wrong target...<<

People need to look at the STRATEGIC goals of our being in Iraq.

Take a look at a map of the region. Looks like we're doing a "divide and conquer" strategy against the major terrorist nations in the region.

Prior to this, the only presence we had was in Kuwait. Now we've got a MAJOR foothold in the region and it's only a matter of time until we turn left into Syria or right into Iran.

Bush is planning on cleaning house, once and for all. IMHO.