U.S. generals call for Democratic takeover

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/10/25/generals/

U.S. generals call for Democratic takeover

Disgusted with the leadership of the Iraq war, two retired generals say the GOP must go. Plus: More than 100 current military personnel join a campaign to get the U.S. out of Iraq -- now.

By Mark Benjamin

Oct. 25, 2006 | WASHINGTON -- Two retired senior Army generals, who served in Iraq and previously voted Republican, are now openly endorsing a Democratic takeover of Congress. The generals, and an active-duty senior military official, told Salon in separate interviews that they believe a Democratic victory will help reverse course from what they consider to be a disastrous Bush administration policy in Iraq. The two retired generals, Maj. Gen. John Batiste and Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, first openly criticized the handling of the war last spring, when they called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"The best thing that can happen right now is for one or both of our houses to go Democratic so we can have some oversight," Batiste, who led the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, told Salon. Batiste describes himself as a "lifelong Republican." But now, he said, "It is time for a change."

Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004, agrees that Democratic control of Congress could be the best way to wrest control from the Bush administration and steer the United States away from a gravely flawed strategy in Iraq. "The way out that I see is to hand the House and the Senate to the Democrats and get this thing turned around," Eaton explained, adding that such sentiment is growing among retired and active-duty military leaders. "Most of us see two more years of the same if the Republicans stay in power," he said. He also noted, "You could not have tortured me enough to vote for Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore, but I'm not at all thrilled with who I did vote for."

An active-duty senior military official who also served in Iraq said that, among a surprising number of his otherwise "very conservative" colleagues, there is hope that Democrats will gain control of Congress. "I will tell you, in the circles I talk to, the only way to enable or enact change is to change the leadership," he said.

<snip>

reading that gave me visions of happy

in the aftermath of Katrina or was that some other guy with a similar name?

Rummy to resign.

How, I don't know. :)

he could speak out.

It was Lt. Gen. Russel Honore of the National Guard who took over in New Orleans.

:silly:

Is that who you mean? Or was this Batiste guy also sent?

:thumbsup:

:patriot:

K&R

this admin! Thanks, haruka!

You mean Mr. Kerry with the Purple Heart and the shrapnel in his leg? Or another one?

Apparently, it's more honorable to be getting extremely drunk in Alabama than to be getting slightly wounded in Vietnam.

Newsprism

Wow, just wow.

Kinda hard to be "tough on defence" when the generals are protesting against your competetence to lead, no?

K&R!

Notice that these two, while speaking out in ways that agree with our views, are also saying they couldn't vote for a Dem and, while calling for a change in the House and Senate, may not be on our side come 08. Or not.

That's not to diminish one iota the import of what they've said. But it does not accrue to the credit of the Dems, either. And that means we still have a GREAT deal of work to do to convince people such as these two fine men that we're much more than a convenient governmental hiatus while the somewhat more sane Republics get back power in their party.

This guy still hasn't learned everything he needs to apparantly..ugh. As bad as it is, Kerry and Gore couldn't be any better or some such nonsense..barf. Try tuning in to another tv channel or reading some different publications for perspective, general. And try coke or pepsi instead of koolaid, oh yeah.

They don't want to be accused of being liberals or Democrats — Oh heavens NO, anyting but that! — because that will diminish what they have to say. My sense is that they are speaking to Republicans and Indpendents, not to us. In that context, it doesn't matter how they have to couch their message so long as it gets the job done.

I'm only guessing. I heard Batiste in his testimony to the Democratic Policy Committee, and he was practically BEGGING Americans to vote for a change in leadership. I think it was Batiste who made it clear he is a Republican but he isn't voting Republican this time.

Vote for a Democratic Congress because they'll start trying to clean up the horrible mess these gentlemen voted for!!

Don't blame them, they R the extreme r-w propaganda brainwashers's products of the past three decades.

They never thought President elect Al Gore would have prevented the PNAC's wet dream of a new Pearl Harbor from even happening in the first place (he would have successfully worked on all 52+ warnings instead of going on vacation to clear brush with barney while not telling anyone else taking commercial flights at the same time), let alone invading a sovereign nation that never did anything wrong to the US, based on blatant lies, distortions, and criminal manipulations, to 1) avenge poppy 2) to obscenely enrich darth chenious and his big oil CEOs, and 3) to dominate the world afterwards.

But ohhhhh! the irony... Don't vote for our (life-saving) Hero, Mr. Kerry, for President, but please vote for the Democratic Party candidates because they will clean up the titanic mess the lying AWOL a-hole we voted for accomplished...

:kick:

eternally.

They are realizing that they were used for the neo-con oil agenda and are finally speaking up.

But don't forget they also supported the swiftboaters, and will again in 08.

But this "war on terra" BS.

Quick!

Beat the GOP won't be so interested in making sure every military ballot is counted no matter what the postmark says.

doesn't give freakin' damn about them. The Military is being trashed, used and abused and spit upon by the RWing.

:kick:

Thank you, generals. I hope you are just a few of the many Americans who believe this country is strong enough to act with the world in a manner that reveres our best beliefs and honors the patriots who came before.

He led the initial assault for the 1ID into Iraq. He was well-liked and respected by the troops.

A version of "Sir, NO SIR" at the highest levels. Now, is anyone paying attention to the (now FOUR) battle groups

DU post re 4th battle group addition:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2467508

being sent into the Straits of Hormuz as a bait to an Iranian attack a.k.a. an October Surprise ? Let's hope the Iranians aren't stupid and act rashly.

DU Post re naval NATO build up in eastern Med:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2471159

What is going on here DUers ? Shouldn't Congressional Dems be speaking out ?

"I will tell you, in the circles I talk to, the only way to enable or enact change is to change the leadership," he said. -Senior active-duty military officer who served in Iraq,

U.S. GENERALS CALL FOR DEMOCRATIC TAKEOVER

"Disgusted with the leadership of the Iraq war, two retired generals say the GOP must go. Plus: More than 100 current military personnel join a campaign to get the U.S. out of Iraq -- now."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/10/25/generals/index_np.html

***

Regime change has come to Washington.

The signs of this have been coming for years. In mid-2003, the Joint Chiefs backed the CIA in taking down the neocons to prosecute Plamegate, and then a year later went after Mossad's agents in the OSP-AIPAC case. When the neocons pushed the White House to go to war with Iran, the Pentagon brass pushed back. They've been wanting out of Iraq since the summer of 2003. As this hasn't happened, there will be hell to pay for Bush-Cheney and the GOP.

I wrote in March:

The Generals and intelligence chiefs have understood that quite well since the Spring of 2004. U.S. national security is better served by regime change in Washington than in Tehran -- the former objective is also far more realizable.

Now its being said publicly by the Generals.

The U.S. Military Will Not Go to War With Iran for Bush
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/17/172417/205
by leveymg
Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 02:24:17 PM PDT
Don't fight wars you can't win.

That's the bitter lesson of Vietnam; it was the mantra of the U.S. military until the Bush Administration took power and changed it to, "Attack first, plan later". The old doctrine was codified as the so-called Powell Doctrine, which is back in vogue at the Pentagon after its most recent demonstration in Iraq.

In just five years, the unthinkable has become real. That includes both the threat of a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf or that a sort of legal coup might overthrow this Administration.

The fact is, Bush-Cheney screwed the military so badly in Iraq, that the Pentagon brass, along with the CIA, decided in 2004 to bump the Admininistration rather than being dragged into a far more disasterous adventure in Iran. The Joint Chiefs of Staff joined the CIA in referring the Plame case and the Larry Franklin OSP-AIPAC spy case to the Justice Dept., effectively crippling neocon ambitions for "regime change" in Tehran.

The war drums we hear now are part of large disinformation campaign intended to keep Iran off balance while we withdraw from Iraq.

MORE below . . .

leveymg's diary :: ::
The Powell doctrine basically says, don't commit U.S. forces unless you have overwhelming force, international support, and a domestic political consensus behind you. Most important of all, have a clear exit plan.

First time, in Desert Storm, it was proved valid. But, its absence in 2003 during the planning and implementation of Operation Iraqi Freedom resulted in the failure of the occupation, an operational quagmire, and the humiliation of the U.S. military. The most serious damage in their eyes is that the guerrilla resistance in Iraq has demonstrated to the world the true vulnerabilities of American forces, as well as the farcical incompetence of its present political leadership. President Bush's war in Iraq has made the U.S. less secure.

While they don't express it publicly, the professional military is enraged at the Bush Administration. After all, it's their lives that have been wasted in ever-greater numbers during the three years since the invasion. If the White House orders Iran attacked for no apparent reason better than partisan domestic politics, that would be taken as a grave abuse of command authority by the armed services, and would prove a fatal error for Bush-Cheney.

The lesson of Iraq For Iran

The reason the First Gulf War was won was because it had limited objectives: clear the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait, and go home. You can't clear the Iraqis out of Iraq, however. Wars of occupation can't be won by military means. Occupations are political wars, and this one is lost for a thousand foreseeable reasons. Even less so, can we hope to fight a limited war with Iran or occupy that country. There is little or no chance the U.S. could force successful "regime change" in Tehran by bombing or invasion. It would weaken us further, while making the most radical elements of their leadership stronger.

So, the lesson of Vietnam and Iraq as widely understood by the uniformed military is this: don't go to war with Iran, unless you want to lose again.

The Generals and intelligence chiefs have understood that quite well since the Spring of 2004. U.S. national security is better served by regime change in Washington than in Tehran -- the former objective is also far more realizable.

SNIP

Mr. Five Deferments Chenious.

But then, why 'wait' before throwing these criminal cowards out of the People's House because thousands of their innocent victims (including thousands of young soldiers) would still be alive and well today if they'd have used their quite sufficient load of weapons to kick these greedy Republican bastards in jail (where they belong) sooner?

Hope it's better late than ever anyway.

Think about that. Are we really ready to pick up the pieces and run this country?

Damn straight, we are!

I don't know how effective it'll be, but it's a nice "in your face" moment...

As a Salon subscriber of three years, I'm beginning to wonder more and more often whose interests they are serving. The article seems to be all about boosting Dem morale, but it comes with a poison pill, please don't overlook it. Towards the bottom, there's this from one of the generals:



This comment doesn't quite belong to the article, does it? But it comes just in time. Two weeks ago or so you would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion that Iraq could or should be partitioned, or made into some sort of a confederate state of the Kurds, Sunni and Shia. But within the last week, suddenly this very thought has been floated all over the place, occasionally with as a "rumour". Here, for example, is WaPo, Oct 18:



Here's an interesting piece from Harpers:



So now James Baker, Bush Sr's right hand man, the Saudinista who never saw an oil-rich prince he didin't like (read Craig Unger), will now be dictating the future of Iraq? It's all about Baker's still-secret report, where he is supposed to be bashing Bush and advocating a still-unconfirmed solution. Apparently the solution is to partition Iraq. And Salon is making his case.

Without James Baker there would be no Bush presidency - neither of the two. Please remember about it. Remember also that an independent Kurdish state, though Kurds most likely deserve it, will see a Turkish invasion before they are finished raising the flag.

I have no idea what the Iraqis will eventually want, or what would be best for their country, but be wary of advice signed James Baker.

I've asked this before and never receive an answer... I don't see any sponsor link.

http://salon.com/news/cookie756.html?aid=327

I have no clue why you don't see a sponsor link though.

Everytime someone posts a Salon article I'm unable to read most of it because of no "sponsor" logo. You've done me a great service. You're great!

You probably checked a "block popups" box in one of the toolbars that you use use such as, GOOGLE, YAHOO, and others. Also, it could be blocked in internet security software such as Symantec products (Norton System Works, Norton Internet Security, Norton Personal Firewall -- or McAfee products as well. Look around and see what the settings are and change them.

The good popup blockers will allow you to un-block popups for specific sites, and block others.

:7

Breath-taking.

:bounce:

and with Cheney personally waterboarding them.