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.
Wow what brain surgeon figgered that out?
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.
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.
This poster is not being compensated for posting this nor has any financial interests in this book.
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."
I see nooootthhinngggg...
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.
Geez, I wonder if the media will fall down and worship this general and quote his every word endlessly like they do every general who said Rumsfeld should be fired or that Iraq was a mistake.
WOW Mark!, Eye thanks for the ping.
I thought they had already proved that convoys going into Syria just before invasion had no other purpose, which partially explains Syria's current bravado. They're armed to the max!
Gen. George Sada, one of Saddam's top Air Force guys, has been saying the same things since the toppling. Jveritas has done amazing work uncovering/posting many things that the LameStream Media has been ignoring/lying about.
"Rifle" DeLong was at the core of Tommy Franks' inner circle. I assign him the precise credibility levels I assign to statements directly from Franks.
Common sense and historical fact gives Saddam a motive for shipping his WMD outside Iraq. We all saw what happened to the Iraqi Air Force during ODS, and I have posted a declassified Intelligence Advisory from 1991 detailing two WMD convoys to Iran on FR more than once before. (Available on request.)
The 1991 shipments to Iran used truck convoys, as supposedly claimed by DeLong, too.
Motive, method, and opportunity. You can win a legal case on this basis alone.
Why hasn't this been done?
We invaded Iraq to prevent the use or distribution of WMD, the same would apply to Iran or Syria.
I maintain that there have been military plans for Iran since 9/11, in the same drawer the Iraqi plans were in 2002, when they were "not on Bush's desk". This is the only logical explanation that still holds water for Bush esentially ignoring years of overt provocation from Iran. No need to respond to verbal jousting when regime change is in thw wings.
With 60 days to commit military force before seeking Legislative support being the standard of past presidencies, the fat lady has not begun to sing yet, in fact she is more than two years away from even leaving her house for the opera hall.
Wait and watch.
Before our entry into Iraq, I remember many FReepers talking about trucks lined up at the Syrian border, probably going into the Bekka Valley, full of WMDs. Since our ousting saydam, our screaming media presstitutes have been debunking the idea saydam had ANY such things. They say it's a myth put out by our President Bush's administration so we could invade Iraq. Of course the presstitutes know far more than any military general about WMDs and their whereabouts, so we DO NOT HEAR from the Generals in the REAL know of what's happening over there.
BTTT