"Top Military leaders are a disgrace to those they lead"

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2e4plv

I can not believe the timing of this.



Top Military Officials are a Disgrace to Those They Lead
By Col. David Hunt



Our generals are betraying our soldiers … again

Sorry, but I have to get your attention on this one. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States Army — not the much maligned “LIBERAL PRESS” or BILL CLINTON or the LIBERALS IN CONGRESS — NO, the UNITED STATES MILITARY is prosecuting its soldiers for doing their jobs. I have tried, I have yelled, I have used nasty words. I have even tried to use humor, but none of this is sticking. You either do not believe me … or much worse, you do not care.

We did one of these stories on O’Reilly last week. Two great Special Forces soldiers, along with their team, tracked down a terrorist who was on the 10 Most Wanted list in Afghanistan. The Special Forces soldiers were operating under the much-hated rules of engagement, which said to capture or kill the bad guy, who was a bomb maker and terrorist leader. The soldiers followed this killer to his house/compound, used guile and trickery and lured the waste of life out of his lair and put a bullet in his head.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm curious, what is your point?

[truthmatters]

So its ok for this guy to say something like this but not for an entity like Move-on to do?

[hjmick]

I'm curious, what is your point?

Judging by the tone and topic of the article, I get the impression that truthmatters agrees with the good Colonel Hunt and doesn't believe that these soldiers should be prosecuted for doing their jobs.

I tend to agree.

[truthmatters]

Wow, I just cant believe it. You guys are going to defend him huh?

[hjmick]

So its ok for this guy to say something like this but not for an entity like Move-on to do?

I can only assume that you are referring to the General Betrayus ad? Does it really need to be pointed out that that ad was in reference to the General possibly lying to congress and in turn the American people and not in reference to criminal prosecution of soldiers engaged in battle?

[truthmatters]

So it is OK if you like the message but not OK if you dont like the message?

[Abbey Marie]

Judging by the tone and topic of the article, I get the impression that truthmatters agrees with the good Colonel Hunt and doesn't believe that these soldiers should be prosecuted for doing their jobs.

I tend to agree.

It's the only possible explanation. Or, perhaps Matters didn't read the article?

For anyone reading this thread who doesn't want to bother reading the article, it expresses Col. Hunt's anger and frustration that top brass are not supporting troops enough in dealing with terrorists in any way they deem necessary to get the job done. Kind of the opposite of what Matters usually proposes.

**Despite what the snippet quoted above would lead you to believe, the "message" is actually very pro-military.

[truthmatters]

How was the Bretray us add less pro military?

This commnet condems many military leaders and the Move on one only berated one.

[Sir Evil]

**Despite what the snippet quoted above would lead you to believe, the "message" is actually very pro-military.

Big surprise on that one. :D

[truthmatters]

Again how is it one is pro and the other is not?

The moveon add only insulted one military person this one insults MANY Military people.

[hjmick]

So it is OK if you like the message but not OK if you dont like the message?

Absolutely, this is always the case. Content is everything. MoveOn was attacking a respected General for things he may or may not say, that may or may not be true. They were calling him a liar before hearing his testimony. They were passing judgement on a man who has done nothing but serve his country and who has a reputation among his peers, or so General Wesley Clark has said, for his unquestionable honesty. This is why MoveOn was attacked.

Colonel David Hunt, on the other hand, is attacking the military leaders for putting soldiers on trial for doing the job they are supposed to be doing, engaging the enemy on the battlefield.

From the article you linked:

...Two great Special Forces soldiers, along with their team, tracked down a terrorist who was on the 10 Most Wanted list in Afghanistan. The Special Forces soldiers were operating under the much-hated rules of engagement, which said to capture or kill the bad guy, who was a bomb maker and terrorist leader. The soldiers followed this killer to his house/compound, used guile and trickery and lured the waste of life out of his lair and put a bullet in his head.

It was a perfect operation — a “Nice going guys,” high fives, take the day off, “Get ready for the next one,” type of operation. So how do you think our Special Forces soldiers were rewarded — or if not rewarded, treated — after this? THEY ARE BROUGHT TO TRIAL, INVESTIGATED AND FORCED TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR LAWYERS.

When the terrorist was first killed, the Army showed its trust in these bravest of the brave by investigating them twice. Both investigations, however unnecessary, found them innocent of any wrongdoing. So we now are so gun shy, so afraid and so massively politically correct, that we are treating combat like a police shooting. In most cities in this great country, if a police officer even shoots his weapon, he or she must face a board of inquiry. It makes the police officers crazy and causes all to look over their shoulders and to not trust their leaders - but that is in a peaceful city, not a damn war zone.

Our generals in both the Army and Marine Corps have cared more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them. The Marines have actually prosecuted a Marine for shooting a terrorist too many times and the Army — well, the Army has the Pat Tillman tragedy, the Abu Graib disaster and many more to answer for, and now these courts martial.

In Iraq, the story is the same. The Army rediscovered a trick we used in ‘Nam' called “baiting,” where you leave ammunition and pieces of explosive devices out and shoot whoever takes them. We used to leave exploding ammo to put in your AK — when you try to fire it, the gun blows up. It worked then and it works now … but guess what the Army is now putting on trial: Ranger Snipers for doing their jobs. The rules of engagement were once again being followed and once again our generals put their careers over their men’s lives. The chilling effect that these actions have over our soldiers is dramatic; this distrust weakens the very foundations of our military. It causes soldiers to second-guess themselves and their chain of command. We cannot fight like this and hope to win...

It is obvious, when the entire article is read, Colonel Hunt's attack on the command officers is quite different than MoveOn's attack on General Patreaus, and far more justified.

[darin]

EVERY TIME truthmattes posts in a thread I hear a 'circus' song playing in the background.

I keep this song in my playlist, and play it while reading her posts...maybe it'll help some of you.

http://files-upload.com/files/532377/Circusmusic.mp3

[truthmatters]

So when Petraeus is insulted for telling what the political guy wants him to say instead of telling the truth he is beyond reproach but these military officials are not because they are trying to follow the rule of military enguagement laws?

[darin]

So when Petraeus is insulted for telling what the political guy wants him to say instead of telling the truth he is beyond reproach but these military officials are not because they are trying to follow the rule of military enguagement laws?


Petraeus was insulted by left-wing moonbats, calling into question his integrity. See how dishonest you are? Your statements are false. Very false. Your little 'saying what the political guy wants him to say' line betrays YOU as a partisan, ignorant HACK.

How's the circus?

[Sir Evil]

EVERY TIME truthmattes posts in a thread I hear a 'circus' song playing in the background.

I keep this song in my playlist, and play it while reading her posts...maybe it'll help some of you.

http://files-upload.com/files/532377/Circusmusic.mp3

:lol:

Awesome!

[typomaniac]

EVERY TIME truthmattes posts in a thread I hear a 'circus' song playing in the background.

I keep this song in my playlist, and play it while reading her posts...maybe it'll help some of you.

Good to see you're doing so well at being a clown. :laugh2:

[hjmick]

So when Petraeus is insulted for telling what the political guy wants him to say instead of telling the truth he is beyond reproach but these military officials are not because they are trying to follow the rule of military enguagement laws?

No, MoveOn attacked Patreaus before his testimony, with no evidence that he lied or was going to lie.

Colonel Hunt is attacking the commanders, based on his 29 years of service, for not following the rules of engagement but rather for prosecuting and investigagting soldiers who, in the process of doing their jobs, were following the rules of engagement.

The difference is clear. At least to me. Now, for the record, I do not believe that I personally attacked MoveOn for their ad, though I may have attacked the newspaper for the huge discount they, at the time, gave them. I believe that MoveOn has paid the difference, I do know that they have committed to do so.

[Abbey Marie]

Petraeus was insulted by left-wing moonbats, calling into question his integrity. See how dishonest you are? Your statements are false. Very false. Your little 'saying what the political guy wants him to say' line betrays YOU as a partisan, ignorant HACK.

How's the circus?

Even worse, the thread title and incomplete quote from the article give a completely false impression of what Col. Hunt was saying. Resorting to outright trickery in an attempt to score some anti-military, anti-Republican points. Blech. Don't we have any truth-in-advertising rules around here?

[truthmatters]

Its his own title for the piece!





http://tinyurl.com/2e4plv

I can not believe the timing of this.



Top Military Officials are a Disgrace to Those They Lead
By Col. David Hunt



Our generals are betraying our soldiers … again

Sorry, but I have to get your attention on this one. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States Army — not the much maligned “LIBERAL PRESS” or BILL CLINTON or the LIBERALS IN CONGRESS — NO, the UNITED STATES MILITARY is prosecuting its soldiers for doing their jobs. I have tried, I have yelled, I have used nasty words. I have even tried to use humor, but none of this is sticking. You either do not believe me … or much worse, you do not care.

We did one of these stories on O’Reilly last week. Two great Special Forces soldiers, along with their team, tracked down a terrorist who was on the 10 Most Wanted list in Afghanistan. The Special Forces soldiers were operating under the much-hated rules of engagement, which said to capture or kill the bad guy, who was a bomb maker and terrorist leader. The soldiers followed this killer to his house/compound, used guile and trickery and lured the waste of life out of his lair and put a bullet in his head.

[manu1959]

So its ok for this guy to say something like this but not for an entity like Move-on to do?

who said it was ok for a col to say this?

[truthmatters]

who said it was ok for a col to say this?

The people who answered the thread

[manu1959]

The people who answered the thread

i answered the thread i didn't say it was ok.....this guy and move on are both scum...same as you actually:fu:

[gabosaurus]

The point is -- it is OK to bash and castigate an ad that opposes a military leader who is a puppet of the Bushies. But it is not OK to do the opposite.
MoveOn spoke the truth. The Bushies and their Pentagon stoolies want nothing more than continued death and destruction. That is their objective.

[manu1959]

The point is -- it is OK to bash and castigate an ad that opposes a military leader who is a puppet of the Bushies. But it is not OK to do the opposite.
MoveOn spoke the truth. The Bushies and their Pentagon stoolies want nothing more than continued death and destruction. That is their objective.

move on lied....you lie.....you are both scum :fu:

[hjmick]

The point is -- it is OK to bash and castigate an ad that opposes a military leader who is a puppet of the Bushies. But it is not OK to do the opposite.
MoveOn spoke the truth. The Bushies and their Pentagon stoolies want nothing more than continued death and destruction. That is their objective.

How is it possible that MoveOn could tell the truth about an event that had yet to happen? Did they visit a psychic prior to placing the ad?

[Gaffer]

I think Col. Hunt was totally correct in his article. The ROE's are hampering our ability to fight the war. They cause unnecessary casualties. And that blame needs to be placed on the theater commanders. You can't fight a war with lawyers running the show.

[avatar4321]

So when Petraeus is insulted for telling what the political guy wants him to say instead of telling the truth he is beyond reproach but these military officials are not because they are trying to follow the rule of military enguagement laws?

you know, maybe you should actually start caring about the truth sometime. Maybe you wouldnt keep looking so poorly in conversations. You just look like a hypocrite going on about the truth and never giving it or seeking it.

[avatar4321]

I think Col. Hunt was totally correct in his article. The ROE's are hampering our ability to fight the war. They cause unnecessary casualties. And that blame needs to be placed on the theater commanders. You can't fight a war with lawyers running the show.

i think the blame needs to be placed on the politicians who developed them after WW2. Especially considering we live in a different time.

[JohnDoe]

How is it possible that MoveOn could tell the truth about an event that had yet to happen? Did they visit a psychic prior to placing the ad?You really don't know this? Because ALL that petraeus was going to say before congress had been leaked to the press by the whitehouse the prior week.... EVERYONE KNEW what he was going to say.... Everyone!

And Petraeus DID SAY all that was already leaked, no changes to it, no going out of the leak.... he said EXACTLY what we all knew he would say, based on the whitehouse leaks on the matter.

you can do a quick google and find all of this...that the whitehouse leaked what petraeus would say ahead of the congressional "dog and pony" show.

jd

[truthmatters]

they forget the facts minutes after they happen it seems

[jimnyc]

they forget the facts minutes after they happen it seems

They? You've attacked me!!!

I don't have to pay attention to it if I don't feel like it...and I don't feel like it right now. You do not own me, no one here has to respond to anything, that's not in the rules.

I am not responding to you on your other thread or your PM, because I need to stay away from you right now....too mad at ya to even respond. So, please leave me alone.

WAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! :laugh2::laugh2:

[truthmatters]

They? You've attacked me!!!

I don't have to pay attention to it if I don't feel like it...and I don't feel like it right now. You do not own me, no one here has to respond to anything, that's not in the rules.

I am not responding to you on your other thread or your PM, because I need to stay away from you right now....too mad at ya to even respond. So, please leave me alone.

WAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! :laugh2::laugh2:


WTF??????

I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about?

[Mr. P]

I think Col. Hunt was totally correct in his article. The ROE's are hampering our ability to fight the war. They cause unnecessary casualties. And that blame needs to be placed on the theater commanders. You can't fight a war with lawyers running the show.

I agree, Gaffer. I also think the article shows the effect the PC liberal tentacles have on the ROE. Reminds me of 'no fire' zones in Viet Nam.

A few days ago, I was watching the Ken Burns series on WWII.
It was a segment on the pacific. I can't remember all of what this vet said just a bit, but it was something like this...we were moving and came across some dead U.S. solders, the Japanese had cut off their genitals and stuffed them in their mouths. The Vet said "after that, I don't remember my company EVER taking a prisoner again".

Last night I saw a segment were they were sweeping the caves and holes of the Japanese. One Jap came out, arms raised slightly, and they shot him on the spot.

No problem IMO..The problem is...If the PC crowd and the left had as much influence then as now, we'd have never won WWII.

War is about breaking things and killing people...simple as that, there is no civil warfare as some might suggest. One thing for sure though, in war if you play nice, you get yer throat cut!

[jimnyc]

WTF??????

I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about?

Are you saying you didn't understand my cop out? You didn't understand my incoherent ramblings, rather than addressing what you actually said?

Whew! I thought for a minute there I was the only one!

I simply used one of JD's replies in place of my own! LOL

[avatar4321]

WTF??????

I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about?

now you know how we feel.

[truthmatters]

Are you saying you didn't understand my cop out? You didn't understand my incoherent ramblings, rather than addressing what you actually said?

Whew! I thought for a minute there I was the only one!

I simply used one of JD's replies in place of my own! LOL

I hope you feel better now sometimes people just need to vent.

[jimnyc]

I hope you feel better now sometimes people just need to vent.

Much better, thank you! Venting always works and there's no one home for me to yell at right now. Even my doggies are outside, so I'm relegated to annoying people on here for now! :)

[hjmick]

You really don't know this? Because ALL that petraeus was going to say before congress had been leaked to the press by the whitehouse the prior week.... EVERYONE KNEW what he was going to say.... Everyone!

And Petraeus DID SAY all that was already leaked, no changes to it, no going out of the leak.... he said EXACTLY what we all knew he would say, based on the whitehouse leaks on the matter.

you can do a quick google and find all of this...that the whitehouse leaked what petraeus would say ahead of the congressional "dog and pony" show.

jd

I am aware of this, are you aware that former Democratic Presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark vouched for Petraeus' honesty?


...I know Dave Petraeus, and he's not gonna say something he thinks is incorrect, he's not gonna lie, but the truth is relative, it's relative to where you sit and to what your responsibilities are. He sees the war in a certain way, he sees the circumstances in a certain way. Other people might look at the same situation and not being in his shoes might see it differently.

Wes Clark Interview, Part One: The Petraeus Ad (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1467)




Wolf Blitzer: But you know General Petraeus.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I do know him.

Wolf Blitzer: Do you believe he, he's, he tailored his comments to please the Commander in Chief, the President, the Secretary of Defense, or do you believe he's an honest man who ac-actually believed what he told the Senate and the House?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don't think General Petraeus is going to say anything he didn't believe, but I think that any time you're in a position of command and your responsibility is to produce a success, what you see is colored by what your mission is. And so, it's up to others to bring out all those facts and to have the reasoned debate. That's why this dialogue in Congress is so important. If we'd had this kind of dialogue before we went into Iraq, maybe we'd have made better decisions.

Wolf Blitzer: So, you could disagree with General Petraeus without hurling, calling him names.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Wolf Blitzer: -or questioning his integrity.

General Wesley Clark on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer (http://securingamerica.com/node/2679)




Tucker Carlson: What do you make of David Petraeus? Did he tell the truth when he came before Congress?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, he told, certainly told the truth as he sees it. I mean, he's the commander. He's in there. He's in the fight. It's his mission to win the war, and it's also his mission to explain it and, and, and gain support.

General Wesley Clark on Tucker (http://securingamerica.com/node/2698)



So, was Wesley Clark lying?

And if someone testifies to what he or she believes is the truth, the truth as they see it, is that a lie?

[Gaffer]

I agree, Gaffer. I also think the article shows the effect the PC liberal tentacles have on the ROE. Reminds me of 'no fire' zones in Viet Nam.

A few days ago, I was watching the Ken Burns series on WWII.
It was a segment on the pacific. I can't remember all of what this vet said just a bit, but it was something like this...we were moving and came across some dead U.S. solders, the Japanese had cut off their genitals and stuffed them in their mouths. The Vet said "after that, I don't remember my company EVER taking a prisoner again".

Last night I saw a segment were they were sweeping the caves and holes of the Japanese. One Jap came out, arms raised slightly, and they shot him on the spot.

No problem IMO..The problem is...If the PC crowd and the left had as much influence then as now, we'd have never won WWII.

War is about breaking things and killing people...simple as that, there is no civil warfare as some might suggest. One thing for sure though, in war if you play nice, you get yer throat cut!

I was predominately in free fire zones while there. But even in the no fire zones we always carried our rifles and ammo. Just no magazine in the weapon.

The free fire zones were occupied by Vietnamese civilians. We used our judgment on whether they appeared hostile. There were no ROE's if we saw someone with a weapon we went after them. If we were fired on we fired back. If we were engaged by multiple enemies we called in artillery and air support. Those were the rules we went by.

The only time we ever did anything that was out of line was when a sniper was shooting at us from across the border in Cambodia. Our captain got tired of taking casualties from him and sent our platoon across to flush him out. The captain caught three kinds of hell for that, but the sniper wasn't a sniper anymore. The rule of not going into Cambodia was broke. The captain got an ass chewing and we went on about our business. In todays military we would have all been up on murder charges.

[OCA]

So when Petraeus is insulted for telling what the political guy wants him to say instead of telling the truth he is beyond reproach but these military officials are not because they are trying to follow the rule of military enguagement laws?


Please prove that what Petraeus said is what the political guy wanted him to say instead of the truth.

[truthmatters]

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39094

The GAOs report on Iraq.

[jimnyc]

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39094

The GAOs report on Iraq.

From the very same site that was just found GUILTY of making up the comments about Admiral Fallon! I won't even click on that link after seeing the type of "news" they report.

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2c6vxr


Itsa a GAO report and the site did not make it up. Heres a differnt link to the report from the Government Accounting Office.

[OCA]

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39094

The GAOs report on Iraq.

Ummmmm that is a report which has already been proven false, its all over the media lately, maybe you are retarded and don't comprehend shit so well?

Sad, really really sad, I pray for you.

[OCA]

Oh shit the Post!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: