Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 02:17 AM
Original message
General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied
General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied
Three retired soldiers slam Rumsfeld's policies at a Democratic hearing in which the party tries to take the offensive on the war in Iraq.
By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer
September 26, 2006

WASHINGTON — Adding to criticism of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq, a retired senior general who commanded an infantry division in the conflict said Monday that requests by commanders for more soldiers were repeatedly turned down.

"Many of us routinely asked for more troops," retired Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste said, contradicting statements by President Bush and his senior aides that the administration had given the military all the resources it had asked for.

"There simply aren't enough troops there to accomplish the task," said Batiste, who has previously called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign. "It's a shell game we're playing in Iraq, and we've been doing it since day one. And we're still doing it today."

The general's remarks, echoed by two other retired soldiers Monday, came at a special hearing called by Democratic senators in what they said was a new initiative to increase oversight of the war effort.

Senior Republican lawmakers dismissed the hearing as a stunt orchestrated with November elections in mind.
(snip/...)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-iraqpol26sep26,1,617751.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Rich Lowry, in National Review:


Q: Mr. President, you said last night that the safety of Americans depends on the battle in the streets of Baghdad. If that’s the case — and I believe it is — why wouldn’t you send more, even more troops than we are now to Baghdad to ensure that you actually win that battle?

BUSH: We just moved a Stryker Brigade from Mosul, as you know, to Baghdad. I think we’ve now got 147,000 troops in the theater. The answer to that question is, if General Casey feels like he needs more troops, we’ll send them.

You know, it’s interesting, I guess if you’re 60 years old you tend to be a product of the Vietnam era — you are a product of Vietnam — not tend to be, you are a product of the Vietnam era. I remember the tactical decisions being made out of the White House during that period of time. I thought it was a mistake then and I think it’s a mistake now. And, therefore, a President must have confidence and faith in the people who are actually there determining whether or not our strategy — our tactics are going to achieve the objective, which is a free country that can sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself. General Casey — I’m constantly asking General Casey that question. I’ve got direct contact with him through secure video.

Q: What if he’s wrong?

BUSH: Then I picked the wrong general.

Q: You wouldn’t override his decision in any instance?

BUSH: Well, how — I mean — I query him thoroughly. I’m certainly not a military expert, nor am I in Baghdad. I talk to Zal all the time. In other words, we get — and I ask for data. So I know how to ask questions. I think I’m pretty good about filtering out which is real and which is not. I mean, in this job you tend to get the cook’s tour. And if he’s wrong, I’m wrong.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDdiZGNlMjgxMzUxYTI1OTdmMWFiMTE4ZmZiMzc2ZDM=


Do I detect a whiff of sulfur emanating from a prince of lies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. This was covered months ago. And years ago.
The commanders in the field and in charge of the field requested troops.

Up the chain of command, military officers denied the requests, and didn't pass the requests to Rumsfeld. This, from the military officers that said no and didn't submit the request. Rumsfeld knew that the guys on the ground wanted more troops, but the guys in the Pentagon said they didn't need them.

Passives are nasty. "Requests for more troops were denied" covers that rather nicely, but leaves out all the real subjects of accusative verbs. All the people who are in a position to know who the subjects were use active sentences; those that don't, use passives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. "you are a product of Vietnam"?
No, Mr. Bush, you are a product of being AWOL in Alabama. Don't spit on the memory of brave men & women who died in a misbegotten war halfway around the world to justify your own fuck-ups in your misbegotten war halfway around the world - if you were truly a product of Vietnam you would have never started this quagmire in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BamaGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I had the same reaction
My father is a product of Vietnam. You, *, are a product of priviledge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. Clearly this is that angry angry Clinton's fault
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
3. And what did you do, Mr. Batiste?
You asked for more troops, you didn't get them, and the administration said over and over again in public that you'd gotten everything you had asked for. The administration also said everything was rosy, nice and comfy cozy in Iraq, and you knew better. The administration said over and over again that anything negative reported out of Iraq would hurt troop morale and lend comfort to your adversaries, and you knew that accurate reporting was crucial to giving your mission a chance to succeed.

But what did you do, Mr. Batiste? Did you go public with the truth? No. And there are people who will say that you couldn't do that, because it's against some rules to dispute the commander in chief. Yet your men were dying and the administration was lying. Did you resign in protest? You did not. Did you try to work within the system to get it to change? And what did you do when it didn't change? Or were you more preoccupied with getting enough time in grade to give your pension a bump? How many people, military and civilian, died between the time you knew you were working in the service of a disaster and your public remarks yesterday?

Which one of the men and women now serving in Iraq should be the next one to die for this lie? Who should be the last one? And what will you do, Mr. Batiste, to atone for your failing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hadrons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. "And what did you do, Mr. Batiste?" .. he voted for Bush twice ....
that's what he stated ... noticed he really hits Dumsfeld and not Bush. I'm glad he's speaking out, but he should be man enough to admit he voted for the fuck-ups he's now complaining about
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lebkuchen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Batiste has "counseled" the military family to research candidates
which means, don't vote for the GOP. Any skin-deep research will show what charlatans they are. Batiste knows that.

Yes, he's a republican, but a repentant one. Lighten up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. Sounds like he did admit that.
Otherwise how would you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BamaGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Is it better to resign in protest or try to do what you can?
As someone who's married to a soldier on his third activation since 2002, I'd prefer these senior officers stick around and try to do something, than resign in protest. My husband was at the same post when Sinseki resigned and the soldiers were very upset. We were all very upset. His hands were tied. We all got that. But he seemed to just give up. That certainly didn't help.

I was in the Army and the Guard, and so was/is my husband. We love the Army. We've lost too many friends. And we understand how difficult it is to take the kind of stand some of these senior officers are trying to take. It doesn't have anything to with getting more time in grade. It's a matter of trying to work with what you have. When everyone who protests is forced to resign, what do you do? Join them? Or try to end run the Neocons? My husband is going to be promoted soon. He has to reenlist in Dec and he's a senior NCO. These guys have quite a lot of influence over the officers they serve under. Should he get out in protest? He's a senior NCO with 15 years experience. That experience could save a life, maybe more than one. He knows that. I know that. His soldiers know that. We hate this war. We've always been Democrats. But there is no way he's not signing those papers in Dec. He wouldn't be able to live with himself and I wouldn't ask him to cut off a part of his soul like that.

Have I humanized it some for you? We've had officers who don't give a shit before. Officers who are there for a paycheck. They don't stay long. Cut Batiste some slack. He did what he could, when he could. And now he's doing what he can now.

As for those men and women serving or going to Iraq, my husband is one of them. He's not going because he wants to or because he believes in this war, but because he cares about what happens to his soldiers and understands the importance of having experienced NCO's and officers in the field. He is not anonymous, and our friends who didn't make it back are not either. A lot of the time on DU I feel like they have been melted down into simple little numbers. That breaks my heart.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lebkuchen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. personal decision, one isn't better than the other
Good luck to your husband. That he's chosen to stay doesn't diminish the decision of others to leave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lebkuchen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. Beg to differ
The Bush administration has said that the generals got everything they asked for.

That is a lie, and Batiste has proven it. He asked, and he didn't get. So who is lying?

Batiste could sit back and say nothing, like so many other GOP psychos who are in on the plot for self-enrichment, or demonstrate that he has a conscience.

So please, don't diss the generals speaking out against Bush. We don't have the time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. John R.S. Batiste = CHIMP ENABLER
He fed a few bananas to the CHIMP


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boo Boo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. C'est un Macaque!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lebkuchen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. Was. Isn't now.
Edited on Wed Sep-27-06 01:50 PM by lebkuchen
PS The troops of the 1ID liked Batiste. That should be of some merit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigluckyfeet Donating Member (559 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
21. Rumsfeld and Cheney
Runs the war,not bush or the generals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
7. an Army brass on MSNBC yesterday said that...
...the two consecutive chairs of the Joint Chiefs had not been honest in their service of the president and the troops. In other words, they did not pass on to the WH the requests/advice of commanders in the field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jseankil Donating Member (604 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. Rumsfeld told us the generals got what they asked for.
He wouldn't have lied would he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lebkuchen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. You remembered.
Rummy does nothing but lie. I think Batiste could be the one to escort him out of the Pentagon. I hope he keeps speaking up, along w/other generals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedEarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. .....KR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
20. Nothing to see here: Did you hear that an NFL player may have attempted..
nevermind....now where was the news...whoops...right down the memory hole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC