So, Rumsfeld Was Right?

Allah has the full run down on Sanchez's speech. But there's one angle the Press is certain to not pursue. It illustrates a key way in which the media undermined our effort in Iraq.

OUR POLITICAL AND MILITARY LEADERS OWE THE SOLDIER ON THE BATTLEFIELD THE STRATEGY, THE POLICIES AND THE RESOURCES TO WIN ONCE COMMITTED TO WAR… AMERICA MUST MOBILIZE THE INTERAGENCY AND THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ELEMENTS OF POWER, WHICH HAVE BEEN ABJECT FAILURES TO DATE, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE VICTORY.

See here - General Sanchez actually isn't saying anything new, in important ways, he's mirroring Rumsfeld, who consistently tried to point out the above. While the military was doing its job, the other agencies being called upon to support victory in Iraq weren't making the grade. But instead of focusing on any of that to faciliate a potentially productive discussion that yielded solutions, the media was content to demon-ize Rumsfeld and only blame him the entire time he served. It was the narrative that mattered, after all.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld speaks to participants of the Joint Civilian Orientation Conference during a breakfast meeting at the Pentagon, Oct. 16. JCOC is a seven-day conference in which civilian community leaders travel to overseas military bases to get a better understanding of U.S. armed forces and the overall mission of the Defense Department. Photo by Cherie A. Thurlby 

“There’s no way we can lose militarily, but we can’t win with the military alone,” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told 45 participants in the Defense Department’s 73rd JCOC yesterday. “It will take all elements of national power.”

The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, echoed Rumsfeld’s views as he talked about U.S. operations in the Middle East. “The United States military, by itself, is not going to fix Iraq or Afghanistan,” Giambastiani said. “It will not, by itself, either win or lose, and that’s important for all of you to understand.”

Victory will require integrated, coordinated interagency and international pressure, applied over time, Navy Vice Adm. David C. Nichols Jr., deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, told the group.

That’s because winning against terrorism requires not only simply confronting terrorists, but also helping to set conditions that discourage their operations, he said. This ranges from promoting democratic governments to bolstering legitimate judicial processes to providing critical infrastructure and maintaining security.

Comments

[Supergovernment Socialisto Teat Chappers]

"--- Spoken like a true hero. Congratulations and thank you for your service! ---"

My dear Mr. Chambers, can you not see that our honorable comrade in the great People's Struggle™ is trying to encourage our valiant troops?

Indeed, the great defender of the workers called Bob from the People's Commune of Stamford is most astute.

He acknowledges the hard work and service of our heroic defenders of the Motherland. For this, surely the Great Protrectress and Dominatrix of the Americas, Comrade Hillary, will acknowledge Comrade Bob's words of warmth and cheer for our comrade soldiers when the People elect her next year!

[Superviso Chambers]

Spoken like a true idiot, Boob. The surge IS working.

[BobInStamford]

"We won. That's all that matters."

Spoken like a true hero. Congratulations and thank you for your service!

[Tom W.]

If all the intelligence agencies of the U.S., the UN, Western Europe, Australia, Israel, Russia, China, and the Arab Gulf states agreed that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, how the hell did Bush alone know that said stockpiles didn't exist?

Is Bush a remote viewer, like those freaks on Coast to Coast?

Or did he go into Baghdad disguised as a high-ranking member of Saddam's Mukhbarat and check it out for himself?

Did he wear a fake beard and turban like Gary in "Team America World Police" and walk up to the guards and say "Dirka dirka dirka Mohammed jihad" in his Texas drawl and they let him in?

As for Sanchez's complaints: Despite sabotage and treason by the media, the Democrats, and retired military officers; despite the limp-wristed public wimping out when things got tough; despite the all-out efforts of Syria and Iran to defeat us; despite all the death, pain, suffering, mistakes, and setbacks...

We won. That's all that matters.

[Looking Glass]

Fred the Fourth, that's why the NY Times was named "The Newspaper of Record" in the first place. Give the people the raw data and let them argue it out amongst themselves.

[Fred the Fourth]

My 16-year-old son picked up almost immediately on the irony noted by "crazy" above. WTF is wrong with the MSM? The whole damn speech can be read in 5 minutes! Who needs them to interpret it for us? And just to double the irony, the NYT itself used to be FAMED for regularly publishing the ENTIRE texts of important speeches. (IIRC the resulting swathes of uninterrupted text were one of the reasons for the nickname "the Grey Lady" in the first place.)

[Terry Gain]

Sanchez's criticism of the media is accurate and beyond reasonable argument but his criticism of the current course is bizarre. According to AP there were 4 people killed by the insurgency in all of Iraq today.

[old trooper]

Sanchez is of the same caliber as Weasel "Oh shit, we bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade" Clark.
Both were retired early because bad things happened on their watch. Both were promoted to star rank during the Clinton Regime days. Politicians masquerading as Soldiers.

General Officers have First Amendment Rights as do we all. Some retire early because they stepped
on their cranks. Giving them credibility is not wise. They called the plays and were not perceptive enough to meet standards regarding responsibility or professionalism as Army Officers. Sanchez and Wes Clark were both irresponsible in their duties. I served under both of those clowns.

Offering critical statements now is both irresponsible and absurd. They both blew it. I do not trust either of them to tell the truth. You should not either!

[JorgXMcKie]

The NYT basically castigated Bush for having *TOO MANY* reasons for invading Iraq and accused him of using overkill. As for the Lefties who can't tell the difference between truth and falsehood, it's useless to respond to the dumb bastards. They don't care a bit about actual truth unless it advances their cause. Truth, lies, whatever moves them towards their goal is okay with them, since they count on others to have the ethics they totally lack.

[Bart]

You're not crazy, you're right. But, if a tree falls in a forest, or a general says something that isn't reported, does anybody hear?

[crazy]

So basically he said the press has failed miserably to accurately report what's going on and then basically they prove it as they cherry pick his remarks to write the story they want to write. I guess he didn't have any more luck convincing them to change their ways than he claims to have had with his military and political superiors.

I guess they proved his point.

[Fred Beloit]

Great job, LG, but I'm afraid it is a wasted effort. The Lefty goons who comment here need the Big Lie that Bush lied about WMD. It is essential to justify their BDS and their hatred of America and the war. To prove what I say is true, watch their reaction to your excellent work, that is if they will react at all. More likely they will try to change the subject with insults or a list of the same old false charges.

[Lala]

There's a good update on instapundit, scroll down a little

http://www.instapundit.com/

[Looking Glass]

http://www.victorhanson.com/Books&Things.html

'Can't you get beyond "Bush lied"? Or at least say "77 Senators lied," "Tony Blair lied," "John Kerry lied" and all the others who made speeches warning that Iraq's WMD was a real threat and demanded responses, perhaps the most famous being Sen. Jay Rockefeller who somehow now is a critic of the WMD threat. I was critical at the time that the administration privileged WMD over the other 22 writs of action passed by the Senate, which, as the Democratic majority noted, provided a proper casus belli. But they no doubt feared that the opposition would accuse them of adducing too many reasons to remove Saddam.'

[Looking Glass]

For a rebuttal witness, here's Al Gore taking President Bush to task for his handling of Iraq. Devastating. Every critic of the war will want to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

[Looking Glass]

"Progressive Detox 1.01"
May 12, 2007
by Bob Parks

http://blackandright.mensnewsdaily.com/2007/05/12/progressive-detox-101/#more-339

On February 1, 1998, Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, “We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”

On February 11, 1998, Senator Tom Daschle said, “The (Clinton)
administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our
diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own
agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”

On February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton said, “We have to
defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”

On February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton said, The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”

On February 18, 1998, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger said, “(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983?

On February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton said, “If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

The quotes from during the Clinton administration just go on and on. From before Bush was elected or took office. From long before Sept. 11, 2001.

Video of Democrats on the threat of Iraq:
http://patdollard.com/2007/03/07/democrat-hypocrisy-on-iraq/

Including, but not limited to:

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
President Bill Clinton
Howard Dean
Sandy Berger
Nancy Pelosi
Jay Rockefeller
Joe Biden
Harry Reid
Hillary Clinton

[Looking Glass]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-07-911-judge-awards_x.htm
"Lawsuit ruling finds Iraq partly responsible for 9/11" By Richard Willing, USA TODAY, Posted 5/7/2003 1:46 PM

NEW YORK "A federal judge in New York City on Wednesday found Iraq among those liable for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and awarded nearly $104 million to the families of two men who died in the World Trade Center."

"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Harold Baer marked the first time that a court had pinned some blame for the attacks on Iraq."

[scarshapedstar]

"It illustrates a key way in which the media undermined our effort in Iraq."

For starters, they gleefully fed the public a bunch of lies about WMD and Al-Qaeda. Everything went downhill from there.

Wait, is that not what you meant?

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

Not quite the "wehatebushandblamehimforeverytingbadsince1948" speech that the media would have us believe. Reads like a pretty four square indictment of EVERYONE involved. Would have only been better had he also offered some advice on what to do now.