Thursday, August 31, 2006

Lamont Attacks Bush Over Iraq Speech

Ned Lamont reacted to a speech given by President Bush in Utah today with harsh words, calling the president's position on Iraq "stubborn and unrealistic."
"Once again, President Bush demonstrates a stubborn and unrealistic view of how to defeat terrorism and keep Americans safe," said Lamont. "All Americans want victory in Iraq - our security depends on it, and we owe our troops nothing less. Unfortunately, 'staying the course' won't bring us that victory."

"President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have been wrong since the start of the Iraq war about conditions on the ground and its role in the war on terror," Lamont added. "It's time to take the right steps necessary to allow the Iraqi's to take responsibility for their own future so that the United States can refocus its efforts on the global threat of the war on terror, and threats posed by Iran, North Korea and other dangerous regimes." ("Ned Lamont")

The release from the Lamont campaign pointed out the positions of Rep. Chris Shays (R-4th District), who has long been a staunch supporter of the war but now supports a timetable for withdrawal, and others like Rep. John Murtha and Jim Webb as evidence of growing discontent with the way the war is being handled.

As this release shows, the decision by Chris Shays to support a timetable, which is a subtle but very significant softening of his position on the war, leaves Joe Lieberman looking more and more alone on the issue, and helps Lamont tie him to the president's increasingly unpopular Iraq policies. The country, by and large, is unhappy with the way the war is going, and that discontent is going to cost some politicans their jobs. Shays doesn't want to be one of them.

Lieberman, apparently, is willing to risk it. For now.

"Ned Lamont Responds to Bush's Stay the Course Speech on Iraq." Press Release. Ned Lamont for Senate. 31 August, 2006. (no link yet)


cgg said...

FYI: Bush fell into the trap of Godwin's Law in that speech.

Lamont is right to go on the attack here.

Genghis Conn said...

If the United States were an online discussion board, the moderator would lock the Iraq thread.

The True Gentleman said...

This is the same old story. President Bush says one thing on Iraq...then Ned Lamont criticizes everything the President says. Question: What exactly is it that Ned Lamont would propose we do about Iran and North Korea?

bluecoat said...

Lamont is getting better; whn he first came on the scene he quoted Gen. Casey out of context from a leaked memo where casey discussed alternatives that needed to be on the table - but the leak only mentioned one alternative. Lamont had no military advisers and i am not sure he has any today. Casey said this yesterday:The U.S. commander in Iraq, General George Casey, said on Wednesday he expected Iraq forces to be ready within 12 to 18 months to operate with little U.S. assistance and praised their progress in recent weeks, despite a range of violent threats to Maliki's three-month-old, Shi'ite-led national unity government. from this link at Reuters that I am linking again today:Iraq says ready to rule as Bush rallies Americans Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:56am ET The military are determined to succeed and Bush isn't helping things by preaching his religious beleifs from the pulpit instead of leveling with the American people.
As I said before the Pentagon was scared shitless when Nixon ordered them to mine Haiphong Harbor but they did it and turned out it worked diplomatically. History will show the military was long ago tired of the politics and rhetoric of Bush and Rumsfeld, space cadet Gen. Meyers and a few others but they will succeed - mostly with the help of some Republicans in the Senate!!!!!

Elevating the Iraq Debate by Richard Lugar and he ain't the only one that's been working to save our country's ass without making a political fuss.

bluecoat said...

Aug 31, 1:54 PM EDT
Bolton: U.N. Must Now Focus on Sanctions By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer

bluecoat said...

Question: What exactly is it that GEORGE BUSH would propose we do about Iran and North Korea? Invade and start another battle on the central front on the war on terror so we don't have to fight them on our streets. Bush is a scarey dude.

The True Gentleman said...

Bluecoat, why do you take everything I write and make it into an argument? I am am asking an honest question -- I don't know what Mr. Lamont's position is on Iran other than he believes that dialogue is an important step (which I agree). There's no need to be confrontational all of the time. You need to relax a little.

The True Gentleman said...

Out of professional courtesy and just to try and answer your question, although I do not speak for the Bush Administration and can only infer as to what their tactics are, here we go. I do not think that President Bush has any intentions of invading Iran or launching any aerial attacks on Iran unless Iran directly attacks the United States, our troops overseas, or our interests/allies. We do not have the troop levels or resources to conduct such an attack at this time. President Bush was strongly push for sanctions (which more than likely will not work because they never do), and that is assuming that Russia and China truly get on board (which until it officially happens I will remain suspect about).

Anonymous said...

for a guy who doesn;t have a section of terrorism or national security on his website, Lamont sure has a lot of opinions.

No knowledge, but lots of opinions...mostly on ways to HINDER fighting terrorism

Anonymous said...

Staying the course until the job is done seems a logical strategy. Winning.

Meanwhile, Ned and company favor
pulling out. Losing.

Easy choice.

Anonymous said...

Defeatocrats Unite!!!

Anonymous said...

bluecoat - I find your question (which can only be read as a response to TG's question)regarding Bush's plan for Iran and North Korea to be very telling.

We (the voters in CT) should know what Lamont's plan is regarding these critical issues. I am very active in politics and do not know if he has a specific plan (and I can't find one on his website).

Instead of asking where Lieberman and/or Schlesinger are on this issue, you ask about President Bush. You have fallen for the ridiculous trap that this race is Lamont vs. Bush, which it clearly is not. Or, perhaps you haven't fallen into the trap, but, rather, you are a Lamont partisan.

Which is it?

Jim said...

Ned Lamont isn't running for president, he is running to be one of one hundred votes in one of the two bodies that is constitutionally mandated to give advice and consent (the Senate) and funding (the House) to the Executive's conduct of foreign policy and national defense. As a Senator, he will not be a rubberstamp to an addle-pated religious delusional in the White House.

In the realm of extra-Constitutional reality, Ned Lamont will not be going on TV to be a cheerleader for misguided foreign policy and its incompent and morally reprensible creators (Cheney and Rumsfeld) who make this country less safe with every day they continue to execise power.

That in and of itself is a huge improvement over the desperate, deluded hack that is nasty little Joe Lieberman.

The True Gentleman said...

Jim, you are right when you say that "Ned Lamont isn't running for president, he is running to be one of one hundred votes in one of the two bodies that is constitutionally mandated to give advice and consent (the Senate) and funding (the House) to the Executive's conduct of foreign policy and national defense."

That's why I ask what he proposes to do about Iran, North Korea, etc. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESIDENT BUSH, NED LAMONT, REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, ETC. If he is elected as our Senator, I want to know where he stands on these issues. I'm not taking sides here because I really don't know what he would advocate. Unlike some people here, I can say "good job" or "that sounds like a good plan" to someone who is not a member of the political party that I am associated with.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Jim--Thanks to President Bush the US has not suffered any domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror, your vile hatred and anger for President Bush has transformed you and your party into little more than caricatures.

Anonymous said...

This is Ned on PBS. I challenge even the intellectual superman Colin McEnroe to find a synonym for "victory" anywhere in the statement

"I think the answers to those questions are kind of clear, that the war in Iraq was a bad decision for this country. Now we have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war, and it's time to have a methodical and phased withdrawal of our troops and let the Iraqis take control of their own destiny"

Fact is Carville polled and Lieberman has the better Iraq position for a general now Neddie pulls a John Kerry...he's for victory after he was against it.

Spineless yuppie

bluecoat said...

I haven't fallen into any trap and I am a U voter not a Lamont supporter. The trap is that when Bush and the Bushies don't want to deal with an issue or how f--ked up Bush is they ask a question.

The General who led the infantry in Iraq until a few months ago has spoken about how Rumsfeld has ignored the basic principles of war. The COS to the JCS at the time of the invasion has had a few choice words as well about the crappy leadership.

The military and the diplomats will bring Iraq to a successful conclusion but it isn' about Bush having his moral victory of evil or his ability to lead. As someone who saw terrorism first hand at age 18 with her father's factory being blown up in Ireland said to me on the day Bush almost crash landed on the Abe Lincoln: he's an idiot - when it comes to military affairs since I will admit he's got it right on immigration but most Republicans would disagree.

bluecoat said...

and TG: I am relaxed but I am tired of the bullshit and I have no problem confronting an issue never have and never will...your girl Jodi has run from confrontation and all she's done is adopt a democratic party agenda in the process - except for Toni Boucher and a couple of other go aalong get alongs she couldn't get GOP votes on CFR but she says it's the first and best in the nation - I saw a quote form Judi Freedman that said it was a sham the day after the vote.

And I don't need politicians telling me what's important 4:25; the answer to TG's question was right on the money - he linked Iran and Korea to Iraq becuase as we know it's the axis of evil - it's time to invade and fight terror - or is it time to invade and bring Democracy and freedom to the people of Iran and Korea.

The True Gentleman said...

Bluecoat, the question is on point and is not an example of a "Bushie" not wanting to deal with an issue. In his comments, Ned Lamont said:

"It's time to take the right steps necessary to allow the Iraqi's to take responsibility for their own future so that the United States can refocus its efforts on the global threat of the war on terror, and threats posed by Iran, North Korea and other dangerous regimes." So what will Ned Lamont do about "Iran, North Korea and other dangerous regimes?" I answered (or at least attempted to answer) your question about what I believe the Bush Administration would do.

Bobby McGee said...

I think Lamont is completely right when he says North Korea is the most dangerous threat out there. They're desperate for money, by all accounts crazy, and would have little to lose by selling one of the nuclear bombs they already have to a terrorist group. We need to open a direct dialogue with North Korea and make it clear that it is not in their best interests to sell one of these warheads to a terrorist organization. Isolating them like the Administration has been doing is not effective.

The situation of course isn't that simple. China does not want any harsh action taken against them, and we're afraid to upset China, a "valuable" trading partner.

We cannot logistically use force against North Korea, which is a huge problem in a negotiation process. We don't have the military or financial resources at this point because of Iraq.

There really is no good answer.

Anonymous said...

why should we believe Lamont favors vcitory over terorims when he is supported by a group that opposed the removal of the Taliban regime of Afghanistan

"Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, MoveOn launched an online campaign calling for "justice, not escalating violence." It collected 30,000 signers for a statement that declared: "To combat terrorism, we must act in accordance with a high standard that does not disregard the lives of people in other countries. If we retaliate by bombing Kabul and kill people oppressed by the Taliban dictatorship who have no part in deciding whether terrorists are harbored, we become like the terrorists we oppose. We perpetuate the cycle of retribution and recruit more terrorists by creating martyrs.""

Lamont actively sought Moveon's support and has not renounced their antiwar all the time policies

Yeah, I'll belive Neddie wants to confront North Korea when I see him and the Mrs. shopping at Wal- Mart

The True Gentleman said...

Great post, Bobby McGee. It was nice to get some real discussion rather than the general rhetoric which seems to have overtaken the attitudes of some posters here who used to make useful comments.

I agree that dialogue is a very important part of the process (and a part that many administration's have failed with, not just the Bush Administration), and I really wish China would become more engaged in talks with North Korea. The problem is that I don't think North Korea or Iran share the same thought process as the West re: what's in their respective best interests.

bluecoat said...

This is the same old story. President Bush says one thing on Iraq...then Ned Lamont criticizes everything the President says. Question: What exactly is it that Ned Lamont would propose we do about Iran and North Korea? just a reminder of what you said TG. Fortunatley, for our country there are about 25 Republican US Senators who debate the issues with some knowledge rather than blow sunshine up evrybody's ass about what a great president Bush is with the lates soundbites out of Rove Central.

Anonymous said...

I have to ask,

If a Republican burns their hand accidently does he pull it out of the flame and ice it or stay the course.

Anyone here or in the entire country who can't see that Iraq is WORSE than Vietnam is a fool.

The ONLY solution is to pull to the periphery and let the Iraqis work it out and do everything we can and hope the hell the Sunni get control back.

Hows Saddamn look now America?

The True Gentleman said...

Bluecoat, I suppose this is the time where I need to remind you that "All points of view are welcome at Connecticut Local Politics." Some people here (see Bobby McGree) are willing to engage in real discussion rather than name-calling and continual use of expletives. In the past I really enjoyed your posts because you actually debated issues, but somewhere along the line you decided to resort to petty comments, foul language, and lack of respect for other posters (and in general).

Bobby McGee said...

Anonymous said..."Fact is Carville polled and Lieberman has the better Iraq position for a general now Neddie pulls a John Kerry...he's for victory after he was against it."

I think we as a country really need to step back and re-evaluate what "victory" means in Iraq. I know there's still a thread of hope within the administration that their definition of victory is possible: a stable Iraq with a pro-american (or at least not anti-american) government, and a country that is willing to trade with the United States. But this might not be possible at this point. Instead however, we now have a democratically elected government that is anti-israel, supports Hezbollah, and is propped up by Iran. I think the core of our debate should be what can be considered a victory in Iraq, and how can we stabilize that country to the point where they aren't killing each-other by the thousands. I think there is a strong argument to be made that the current strategy of the military (and its civilian commanders) is not doing this. A phased withdrawal might be the answer. But staying our current course does not seem to be improving the situation. Ned Lamont, John Kerry, Chris Shays for that matter may not have the answer, but Sen. Lieberman certainly doesn't either.

Anonymous said...

my definition of "victory" is anything opposes

TrueBlueCT said...

Please don't talk down to Bluecoat in such a condescending manner. Thanks.

(and if your ears aren't burnt by a little cussing, when it comes to this goddamn war, well... all I can say is grow up.)

In the interest of furthering discussion, do you agree with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Lieberman when it comes to staying the course in Iraq? Or do you side with the Shays/Lamont camp?

I mean your strategy is to throw things over to Lamont. But where do you stand? And how do you suggest we put Humpty-Dumpty back together?

Anonymous said...

TBC, which Lamont camp, the one that wants "victory" or the one that wants to get out as fast as we can load the planes?

Anonymous said...

Ned Lamont...A Liberal with no cause Courtesy of The Dump founder who is a well known liar and truth twister.

Get your facts straight Keith there are several posts of yours that are complete lies and half truths but then again that is what you do best.

Genghis Conn said...

The Lieberman campaign responsed to this -- here's what they said:

Lieberman for Senate Communications Director Dan Gerstein issued the following statement in response to Ned Lamont’s latest effort to distort Joe Lieberman’s views on Iraq.

"Once again, the reality-challenged Lamont campaign has shown that it simply can’t tell the truth about Joe Lieberman’s position and views on Iraq.

"Despite clear evidence that shows Senator Lieberman has called for a new approach to the war, Lamont repeated his false claim today that Senator Lieberman supports the President’s 'stay the course' strategy.

"The fact is, three weeks ago on CBS’s Face the Nation, Senator Lieberman said unequivocally that the Bush Administration needs a change in leadership and a change in direction at the Pentagon, and repeated his call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation.

"Only the tin-foil-hat-wearing Lamont campaign could twist that to mean Lieberman supports the exact opposite.

"The real question here is, if voters can’t trust Ned Lamont to tell the truth about Iraq, how can they trust him to tell the truth on any issue?

There's a lot more detail about Lieberman's positions, but that's the meat of it.

The True Gentleman said...

TrueBlueCT, your right. Bluecoat, please accept my apologies, I did not intend to be condenscending but in re-reading what I wrote I definitely was. I find it ironic, however, that you lecture and belittle Republicans who support the President (including me), yet I answered Bluecoat's question and said what I believe the Bush Administration strategy on Iran is, but neither Bluecoat nor TrueBlueCT can tell me what Ned Lamont's strategy on Iran would be.

And TrueBlueCT, you forget, I am not running for the United States Senate so what I believe has little meaning here. But, to appease you once again, here is what I think. I support our mission in Iraq (which I've said numerous times before). I think that we need to see democratic reform through in that country for reasons beyond the popular theory that we created the mess we find ourselves in. I believe that a firm withdrawal date is not a viable option. I believe that the Iraqis are failing in their efforts to take over control for themselves and that the Bush Administration needs to put more pressure on the Iraqi government than it is currently doing. I believe that our military is stretched too thin and that the Bush Administration erred in the number of troops sent to Iraq in the first place. I think the Bush Administration needs to reveal in greater detail to the public what the strategy is so that people understand what is happening in Iraq (beyond the news reports). Is that a good start for you as to what I think?

As for how I would put "Humpty-Dumpty back together again...I am glad that I am not an elected official or running for office and have to figure that out.

TrueBlueCT said...

Reagen and Lebanon in the early 80's. Did we make a mistake by blinking and pulling out?

Clinton and Somalia. Was there a way to win?

And Vietnam a failure of nerve, and/or will?

I support our troops. And I support our nation-building efforts in Iraq. (yeah, I did, even though I thought the Neo-cons were insane.) But when empirical evidence suggests things are getting progressively worse, and not better, -- at some point you have to take several giant steps back and wonder if what you are attempting is in fact accomplishable.

If Bush/Cheney/Lieberman/Rumsfield could lay out a plan and plausible scenario by which things could turn around in Iraq, I might be less judgemental. But they haven't much of a plan besides crossing fingers and hoping that reality is other than it is.

Even worse, they seek to marginalize us realists by calling our patriotism into question.

So my question for Senator Lieberman isn't whether Iraq might end badly, but what gives him any confidence that we will prevail.

It's not like I'm a quitter. But even George Bush Sr. knew that invading Iraq was potentially an unwinnable proposition.

TrueBlueCT said...


Is Dan Gerstein talking about the same Joe Lieberman who in November of '05 penned this Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Our Troops Must Stay".

Everyone, please read that op-ed. Then come back and tell me who is wearing the tin-foil hats in delusional departure from reality.

The True Gentleman said...

"If Bush/Cheney/Lieberman/Rumsfield could lay out a plan and plausible scenario by which things could turn around in Iraq, I might be less judgemental. But they haven't much of a plan besides crossing fingers and hoping that reality is other than it is." -- TrueBlueCT

I think you are right and wrong on this. The wrong part is simple, I don't think that the plan is really to cross their fingers and hope that reality is other than it is. BUT, I agree with you 100% that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have done a VERY POOR job of educating the public as to what the plan/strategy actually is. Personally, I have always liked Donald Rumseld, BUT I have no objection to seeing him replaced as the Secretary of Defense (and, quite honestly, believe that it needs to happen now). When President Bush ran for the presidency the first time, one of the big compliments he always received was his ability to surround himself with strong advisors. I believe that Secretary Rumseld has let him down re: Iraq because Secretary Rumsfeld has failed in his job of promoting what the DOD's strategy/plan is. It is time for a change in the leadership at the Pentagon.

"Even worse, they seek to marginalize us realists by calling our patriotism into question." -- TrueBlueCT

Just a reminder, and BRubenstein can vouch for me, I NEVER act this way -- I have a serious problem with members of my party and our elected officials that call into question a person's patriotism because they oppose the war or ask hard questions. There is nothing more patriotic than that -- it is an example of what we can do as citizens in this country that many people cannot in other countries. Our leaders' judgment (no matter what party they are from) should always be called into question because there are always more than one option.

Good post, TrueBlueCT. And thank you for pulling me out of a rut and back into the world of worthwhile commentary and debate.

Anonymous said...

"Reagen and Lebanon in the early 80's. Did we make a mistake by blinking and pulling out?

Clinton and Somalia. Was there a way to win? "

Yes, if for Bin Laden. Our departure was an inspiration for him to think we were the "weak horse" in the region.

Showing weakness to fascists invites more attacks and more aggression.

Right now Barbaro's got stronger legs on national security than the Lamontacrats

Anonymous said...

TBCT - Your 2:05am post is a well thought out, rational statement, without any of the usual name calling. Now maybe we can have a dialogue and begin to understand and respect each other's positions better.

BTW, what were you doing up so late??????

Anonymous said...

The little Lamont Defeatocrats are having a tough time now, people are waking up to what Ned and his crew represent--Defeat.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 6:31 said: "Hows Saddamn look now America?"

A brutal dictator who killed and tortured 2 million of his people is now on trial and will soon be behind bars for life. He looks really good where he is now. I am glad that he is not in power, as the world is a better place.

Your comment, Anon. 6:31, questions my faith in the intelligence and decency of the American people.

bluecoat said...

Even Chris Shays commented at a community meeting earlier this year bout how wrong the Rpeublicans were to trash John Kerry's servie in the Navy and this excerpt from a recent conservative George Will pieceThe Triumph of Unrealism:Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

The official is correct that it is wrong "to think that somehow we are responsible -- that the actions of the jihadists are justified by U.S. policies." But few outside the fog of paranoia that is the blogosphere think like that. It is more dismaying that someone at the center of government considers it clever to talk like that. It is the language of foreign policy -- and domestic politics -- unrealism.

Foreign policy "realists" considered Middle East stability the goal. The realists' critics, who regard realism as reprehensibly unambitious, considered stability the problem. That problem has been solved.

bluecoat said...

TBCT: I missed your question:Clinton and Somalia. Was there a way to win? there may not have been a way to win but the field commander asked for A-10's, which provide close ground cover and not homeland security as some CT partisans think, but they were denied. I won't point any fingers at the chain of command becasue it's never been quite clear to me where the denial came from, but had there been A-10 warthogs beating the shit out of the enemy from the air there is an extermely good chance that BlackHawk Down never would have been any more than a fictional tale.

bluecoat said...

and TG: your apology was totally unnecessary but I don't know how this earlier statement by me belittles Republicans:Fortunatley, for our country there are about 25 Republican US Senators who debate the issues with some knowledge rather than blow sunshine up evrybody's ass about what a great president Bush is with the lates soundbites out of Rove Central.

The True Gentleman said...

Bluecoat, please attribute my over-sensitivity yesterday to a busy work week. Question: How do you know so much about military ops? Were you formerly in the military or do you read a lot? (If it's from books, do you have any good suggestions?) Thanks!

bluecoat said...

TG: I don't take blogging personal because it is impersonal by definition - and blogging is a hobby for me. I have to be very careful on this blog about what I say beacause much of what I know is from others, but I beleive I have already said I wasn't in the military - the draft ended two months before I graduated from college as an undergraduate engineer - and you may know that engineering was the original discipline at West Point, the first engineering school in the country. I was advised by a number of VietNam enlisted vets who actually killed people in head on combat during multiple tours to go to Canada if I ever got drafted or they would take me there themselves - I never would have done that and as it turned out they didn't have to overrule my intent to serve eventhough I thought the conflict was screwed up because it was run from the Oval Office instead of the battlefield. As for what I know or why, I have worked for past/reserve military officers, NCO's and enlisted men from most branches, alongside the same and even managed them in an operational environment - I have also managed attorneys in an staff environment just as an aside. I learn from lots of folks whenever I can and beleive that both skill sets and managerial concepts are frequently transferrable from industry to industry or to government. And I have many freinds who saw combat and a few other things in my background that I choose not to discuss here, but bottom line it's a hobby that I enjoy - and I am upset at what Bush 43 has done to the military after Bush 41 did so much for it. You might know that 41 promised he would never criticize a successor on foreign policy - Clinton or 43 -and he is now fairly close freinds with Clinton these days after being beat up by him 13 or so years ago..

As for references, I have read all kinds of stuff from Rogue Warrior by a former SEAL Team 6 Commander who got his ass in a sling because he challenged the top brass on counterterrorism when they thought it was not an issue, The Commanders by Robert Woodward where the inner workings of Bush I is discussed, the Art of War - standard at West Point, COBRA II - referenced before for you and numerous others including a memoir by Al Haig who was around from Korea through Reagan. I find this stuff by browsing or hitting used book sales and reading what others tend not to read. I also listen to and read numerous debates on this stuff in recent years and I evaluate what is going on because I needed a hobby - so now my hobby is to blog. Thanks for asking.

bluecoat said...

actaully Haig was around for WWII I believe, too but who's checking? Also read a book about Colin Powell's management style but it wasn't written by him or published with his collaboaration but he never said it didn't get it right.

The True Gentleman said...

Thanks, Bluecoat. I do remember you mentioned the Art of War to me in the past.

bluecoat said...

actually TG, I think it was Dianna Urban that brought The Art of War into the equation on this blog first; it was COBRA II about the runup to the Invasion of Iraq by Lt.Gen. Bernard Trainer(USMC Ret,) and M. Gordon of the NYT that I referred you too earlier but no biggie since we never split hairs on CLP.

bluecoat said...

TG: I am adding here that what is going on today is urban warfare and the references I gave you barely touch on it - you can probably search the DoD website to find some info/ It's a horrible fight and that's why Shensecki said we'd need several hundred thousand ground troops for the occupation - and even Tommy Franks new that but his job was to salute and execute when it was all said and done ----