digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

"Iraq `nightmare' for US" says Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez

news.yahoo.com — ARLINGTON, Va. - The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein that continue today, a former chief of U.S.-led forces said Friday.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Fallout911, on 10/14/2007, -10/+26Why is this not on the first page?
    • Nick2830dc, on 10/26/2007, -5/+33Because people care more about Halo and the Iphone than about whats happening in the real world.
    • carpespasm, on 10/15/2007, -5/+2chill guy, it's only got 38 diggs ATM.
    • epicstruggle, on 10/14/2007, -5/+20Thats not all he said, but unfortunately the MSM wont cover the rest:
      http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/003494.h ...
      He spends nearly half the speech to criticizing the Media for inaccuracies and failure to update stories once more is known. Take a look at the whole thing and not just the sensational Iraq quote.
      • christor, on 10/16/2007, -2/+11And the makes the other half, in which he describes the war as a gigantic *****-up that has become an endless nightmare, irrelevant how?
    • ByteGuerilla, on 10/14/2007, -1/+4Because you posted right after it was submitted
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/15/2007, -2/+1Iraq disaster news fatigue.
    • sangjmoon, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1How many of you read his whole statement? He is basically blaming the bureaucracy, as all soldiers in the field do, for so many of the mistakes that have been made. If he was totally honest, he would admit he was part of the bureaucratic mess. Government agencies, by nature, are bureaucratic messes. But to put this into perspective, everything the government does is a bureaucratic mess. This is why those who push for the government to do more for them are only setting themselves up to be abused.
    • spankaccount, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Because "The evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute."
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
  • Fallout911, on 10/15/2007, -10/+8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Sanchez
    • spankaccount, on 10/15/2007, -2/+1Thank you for posting this. Why are Diggbats so lame?
  • bbrodsky, on 10/14/2007, -7/+3hopefully it will be soon
  • igorvolsky, on 10/14/2007, -5/+9Sanchez made similar comments back in June... “I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will — not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat.” http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/04/sanchez-iraq/
  • bbrodsky, on 10/14/2007, -28/+4check my website, www.Nff.be
    lots of good stuff like this
    • JoeVet, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1There is nothing good in any of this stuff.
  • LoneRanger85, on 10/15/2007, -29/+11When he was running the war, you people were calling him incompetent and a war criminal. Now, he's your darling. Need I remind you that he's one of the people who got us into this?

    "I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his suit and to mothball his opinions." -- General Omar N. Bradley
    • sensoukami, on 10/14/2007, -7/+11He was never "running the war" dude. You're getting the chain of command screwed up.
      • LoneRanger85, on 10/14/2007, -15/+8Don't split hairs with me. He was commander of coalition forces in Iraq. That doesn't change the fact that liberals hated him.
        • sensoukami, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3You are correct, I was in error. I had my generals mixed up. My apologies.
      • jakeson2, on 10/14/2007, -5/+2You don't think so huh? He was the man in charge of those prisons that the stupid female was leading prisoners around by a leash. Of course that was when the radicals were beheading live people on the street and the leftists liberals like you did not worry about that. You were only worried about how our President uses the Texas language. This general was incompetent when he was leading and he shows his stupidity when he speaks like he just has. He condemned himself. And you wild eyed flaming leftist liberals are so dumb you did not even notice.
        • sensoukami, on 10/14/2007, -1/+4Dude, that is too funny as it is one of the first time I've ever been called a "flaming leftist liberal". Made me laugh. I supported Ronald Reagan, argued with half of my high school during the Cold War (most people were blaming America, I was defending them) and have been a die hard free market capitalist for as long as I can remember. Not everyone or everything fits into nice simple little boxes marked "left" and "right" ya know? Ever stop to think that people who genuinely understand things like capitalism and democracy and freedom might just disgusted by unspeakable level of greed, dishonesty, incompetence, and abuse of power by the current batch of "phony conservatives" running the show? (and I say in a comment a little lower down, I was in error re: General Sanchez. My bad)
          • Caffeinate, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1If you don't support Bush, then you are the enemy and therefore a "flaming leftist liberal". In other words, you have a brain and use it.
    • sensoukami, on 10/14/2007, -2/+5On the subject "that he's one of the people who got us into this? "

      Really? Did he order the invasion on false pretenses? Did he set the force level for occupation to be too low? Did he fail to put together a post-invasion reconstruction plan? Did he lay off the entire Iraqi army leading directly to a huge upsurge in the insurgency? No, no, no, and no. So how precisely did he "get us into this"?
    • SmokedL, on 10/14/2007, -2/+71. It's not a popularity contest.
      2. The validity of an opinion is not automatically negated because you dislike the person that uttered it.
      3. Agreeing with a statement does not imply liking the person that uttered it.
      4. There is nothing wrong with agreeing with statements that are made by someone that you despise for other opinions or actions.

      I really wish all the blindly partisan people out there, wherever in the political spectrum they fall, could grasp these simple concepts. Judging the merits of a statement based on whether or not the person making it is on "your side" is lunacy. Sadly, it's also frighteningly common.
    • JoeVet, on 10/14/2007, -3/+3What an idiot. It wasn't the generals that got us into this. It was people like you who followed a false leader because he said he was a right wing conservative. The Iraq quagmire is the product of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Sanchez was a soldier that had to follow orders or the civilians over him. Its a constitutional thing. And I doubt Omar Bradley would have sat quiet while Bush and company trashed the US military and tarnished the reputation of the United States.
  • Nick2830dc, on 10/14/2007, -6/+19Sanchez and people like him, who are not afraid to speak out and tell the truth, restore my faith in the US. Sanchez says "While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," I couldn't agree with him more.

    We as a country, in my opinion, need to stop just worrying about how and if we can be victorious and how we can leave as quickly as possible. We destroyed these peoples' (Iraqi) lives and we have the nerve to tell them to get hold of their own problems. We created the environment in Iraq for these problems to manifest themselves as they have. We owe them at least a plan that involves perhaps the UN but definitely other countries to help restore peace and get them on the road to their eventual recovery.

    We speak about morals and ethics in this country everyday. But talk is cheap and the world and future generations will judge us on our actions.
    • hiphoc, on 10/14/2007, -5/+9Morals and ethics to me means not waiting till over 3000 soldiers and 1,000,000 Iraqis are dead to speak out. These generals follow a flawed plan into war. Then 1 trillion dollars later they get a conscience. But hey, never late than never. I wonder if this guy will be called a "Fake soldier"?
    • epicstruggle, on 10/14/2007, -4/+5Read the other 50% that the media isnt covering from the speech:
      http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/003494.h ...
      • christor, on 10/14/2007, -1/+3Well, the link you cite says 40%, not 50% - but who cares. I hope it's ok with you if the rest of us stop to wonder a bit when the former commander of US forces in Iraq describes the entire enterprise as hopelessly flawed. Are you saying this part, the part about how the war is an endless nightmare of death and destruction, shouldn't be discussed because Sanchez also said some other things?
        • Caffeinate, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2That is exactly what these GOP Bush supporter nutjobs are saying. They don't want to discuss the fact that Sanchez said it is a disaster, they want to call attention to other meaningless crap so that they can then say "You liberal lefties don't support the troops!" despite the fact that this has nothing to do with left and right, it has to do with facts.

          Never mind that none of them have ever held a gun in war before or been to West Point. I'd say a General who says the situation is hopelessly flawed has a lot more credibility than Bush shills and Bush administration profiteers. He isn't the only one that has said it, either, he's just the next in the line of experienced generals and military affairs experts that have outright said this war is a catastrophic mess. They know it, you know it, and most of the people discussing this know it. I don't know who these Bush shills think they are fooling, but it isn't the generals, the people in the military or the American people. I think the only ones they are trying to fool is themselves.
    • allan17, on 10/14/2007, -2/+5Sanchez also says the US needs to stay in Iraq. How do you feel about that?
      • chase001, on 10/14/2007, -3/+3Disgusted.
      • JoeVet, on 10/14/2007, -2/+2Obviously he is a man of honor that wants to finish the job he was handed. Unfortunately it is a losers proposition. Stopping a civil war in Iraq is not the duty of our young men and women in uniform. They are soldiers and not police. Their job is done and they should come home. Iraw belongs to the Iraqis and they don't need a babysitter.
    • digsig, on 10/14/2007, -2/+1Nobody says otherwise. The US should acknowledge that the war was illegal and involve the UN in the rebuilding of Iraq. Some US troops would have to stay until Iraq has rebuild it's army.
  • Maninthemiddle, on 10/14/2007, -2/+7One can agree or disagree with his assessment of Iraq - and his highly negative primary point of media malfeasance. But where is the reporting on his scathing attack on the press?

    The point may be - is not the media being fallacious in its reports by ignoring his attack on the press - nearly 40% and the lead point - of his speech?
  • goforbroke, on 10/14/2007, -20/+12It appears there is more to the speach than the selective quotes from the MSM again.

    http://blackandright.mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/13/ ...

    THIS IS THE WORST DISPLAY OF JOURNALISM IMAGINABLE BY THOSE OF US THAT ARE BOUND BY A STRICT VALUE SYSTEM OF SELFLESS SERVICE, HONOR AND INTEGRITY.

    That's going to leave a mark.

    ALMOST INVARIABLY, MY PERCEPTION IS THAT THE SENSATIONALISTIC VALUE OF THESE ASSESSMENTS IS WHAT PROVIDED THE EDGE THAT YOU SEEK FOR SELF AGRANDIZEMENT OR TO ADVANCE YOUR INDIVIDUAL QUEST FOR GETTING ON THE FRONT PAGE WITH YOUR STORIES! AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR MEASURE OF WORTH IS HOW MANY FRONT PAGE STORIES YOU HAVE WRITTEN AND UNFORTUNATELY SOME OF YOU WILL COMPROMISE YOUR INTEGRITY AND DISPLAY QUESTIONABLE ETHICS AS YOU SEEK TO KEEP AMERICA INFORMED.

    In other words, as we're talking about liberals, it's all about them. It's all about what they want the story to be. Please remember people; journalists are just supposed to report the news. They're just supposed to tell you what happened. Not analyze, and certainly and purposefully not add or omit things that will shape your impression of the events.

    Sanchez is merely reminding these journalists and editors how to do their jobs, and he's right on the money.

    THIS IS MUCH LIKE THE INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS WHOSE EFFECTIVENESS WAS MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF INTELLIGENCE REPORTS HE PRODUCED. FOR SOME, IT SEEMS THAT AS LONG AS YOU GET A FRONT PAGE STORY THERE IS LITTLE OR NO REGARD FOR THE "COLLATERAL DAMAGE" YOU WILL CAUSE. PERSONAL REPUTATIONS HAVE NO VALUE AND YOU REPORT WITH TOTAL IMPUNITY AND ARE RARELY HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT.

    I have never read a better use of verbal cluster bombs being dropped on the arrogant, unaccountable-for-their-actions media elite. Bravo, General.

    Those media members in attendance were probably seething, having to listen to this tongue-lashing from some mere military hack that’s supposed to be there to bash President Bush….

    GIVEN THE NEAR INSTANTANEOUS ABILITY TO REPORT ACTIONS ON THE GROUND, THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ACCURATELY AND TRUTHFULLY REPORT TAKES ON AN UNPRECEDENTED IMPORTANCE. THE SPECULATIVE AND OFTEN UNINFORMED INITIAL REPORTING THAT CHARACTERIZES OUR MEDIA APPEARS TO BE RAPIDLY BECOMING THE STANDARD OF THE INDUSTRY. AN ARAB PROVERB STATES - "Four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity.” ONCE REPORTED, YOUR ASSESSMENTS BECOME CONVENTIONAL WISDOM AND NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE.

    The media constantly makes trouble by the intentional misinterpretation of events, and then leaves the ramifications for others to have to deal with. In this case, we're talking about the soldiers on the ground who have to deal with the encouragement and rage of the enemy after the media's selective and misreporting of events, phony quotes of events that never happened without formal retractions, and recitations of falling support back home.

    OTHER MAJOR CHALLENGES ARE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE MANIPULATED BY "HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS" WHO LEAK STORIES AND BY LAWYERS WHO USE HYPERBOLE TO STRENGHTEN THEIR ARGUMENTS.

    I sincerely hope we find out just who's behind a lot of those leaks. I'll be willing to bet we may see some familiar names (and affiliations) associated with their actions, some of which we deem treasonous.

    YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCURATELY AND PROMINENTLY CORRECT YOUR MISTAKES AND YOUR AGENDA DRIVEN BIASES CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT.

    I and many others are still waiting for the formal acknowledgements and retractions for the Jesse MacBeth and Scott Beauchamp frauds the left paraded throughout the world media. Their words of false rapes and murders, even translated into Arabic, emboldened the enemy, and when proven false these same liberal enablers remain silent to this day.

    ALL OF THESE CHALLENGES COMBINED CREATE A MEDIA ENVIRONMENT THAT DOES A TREMENDOUS DISSERVICE TO AMERICA. OVER THE COURSE OF THIS WAR TACTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT EVENTS HAVE BECOME STRATEGIC DEFEATS FOR AMERICA BECAUSE OF THE TREMENDOUS POWER AND IMPACT OF THE MEDIA AND BY EXTENSION YOU THE JOURNALIST.

    No *****.

    IN MANY CASES THE MEDIA HAS UNJUSTLY DESTROYED THE INDIVIDUAL REPUTATIONS AND CAREERS OF THOSE INVOLVED. WE REALIZE THAT BECAUSE OF THE NEAR REAL TIME REPORTING ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU FACE IT IS DIFFICULT TO REPORT ACCURATELY. IN MY BUSINESS ONE OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS IS THAT "THE FIRST REPORT IS ALWAYS WRONG."

    Now, many of you may understand my skepticism with certain stories when they first break. If something smells bad, it's probably spoiled.

    UNFORTUNATELY, IN YOUR BUSINESS "THE FIRST REPORT" GIVES AMERICANS WHO RELY ON THE SNIPPETS OF CNN, IF YOU WILL, THEIR "TRUTHS" AND PERSPECTIVES ON AN ISSUE. AS A COROLLARY TO THIS DEADLINE DRIVEN NEED TO PUBLISH "INITIAL IMPRESSIONS OR OBSERVATIONS" VERSUS OBJECTIVE FACTS THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL CHALLENGE FOR US WHO ARE THE SUBJECT OF YOUR REPORTING.

    I wonder if there's a reason why he singled out CNN…?

    WHEN YOU ASSUME THAT YOU ARE CORRECT AND ON THE MORAL HIGH GROUND ON A STORY BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT RESPOND TO QUESTIONS YOU PROVIDED IS THE ULTIMATE ARROGANCE AND DISTORTION OF ETHICS.

    Where have you heard that before…?

    ONE OF YOUR HIGHLY RESPECTED FELLOW JOURNALISTS ONCE TOLD ME THAT THERE ARE SOME AMONGST YOU WHO "FEED FROM A PIG'S TROUGH.” IF THAT IS WHO I AM DEALING WITH THEN I WILL NEVER RESPOND OTHERWISE WE WILL BOTH GET DIRTY AND THE PIG WILL LOVE IT. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOUR STORY IS ACCURATE.

    This is a world-class spanking the media will NEVER repeat on their broadcasts. The truth hurts.

    I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHAT OUR FOREFATHERS INTENDED. THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS STATES: “…PUBLIC ENLIGHTENMENT IS THE FORERUNNER OF JUSTICE AND THE FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY. THE DUTY OF THE JOURNALIST IS TO FURTHER THOSE ENDS BY SEEKING TRUTH AND PROVIDING A FAIR AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS AND ISSUES. CONSCIENTIOUS JOURNALISTS FROM ALL MEDIA AND SPECIALTIES STRIVE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC WITH THOROUGHNESS AND HONESTY. PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY IS THE CORNERSTONE OF A JOURNALIST'S CREDIBILITY”

    Now Sanchez went and did it: telling the media how to do their job, and the ethical standards expected. Now for specifics….

    THE BASIC ETHICS OF A JOURNALIST THAT CALLS FOR:

    1. SEEKING TRUTH,

    2. PROVIDING FAIR AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS AND ISSUES

    3. THOROUGHNESS AND HONESTY

    Sorry for the cap locks...all part of th original piece.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/14/2007, -12/+10Funny how you select a screed that fails to call out, say, Fox for its reporting that was so divorced from reality it made its viewers a lot more likely to believe falsehoods about the war: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/in ...

      Day after day, we'd get people who were cheerleaders for the war, reporting what Bush and his cronies would say verbaitm, without fact-checking or even challenging their base (and now revealed to be flawed) assumptions about what was going to happen. These are the people that "lost" the war by making sure everyone thought we'd be greeted as liberators or that Iraqi oil would somehow pay for this fiasco.
      • p0s3r, on 10/14/2007, -9/+7Funny how his "selective screed" was the portion of the generals speech you liberals tried to flush down the memory hole.
        • christor, on 10/14/2007, -3/+7This is so unbelievably ignorant. When the former commander talks about how badly the war is going - that's big news. When he lashes out at the media, it's still interesting but obviously less newsworthy. He's no better a media critic than anyone else. While it's useful to get his opinion on how the media's conduct affects his work, and I for one am interested in what he has to say on this score, it's nowhere near as important as what he says about our progress in the war itself.

          But to suggest that focusing on this part of the speech is a purposeful effort by "liberals" to flush information down the memory hole is both paranoid and stupid. We do have a problem in our society today with the concealment from the public of important information, but you know damn well that it's not any imaginary liberal conspiracy doing the concealing. Stop being a shill and think for yourself for a minute.
          • p0s3r, on 10/14/2007, -4/+2When the former commander talks about how the media is doing this country a disservice in a time of war, thats just "lashing out at the media" and should be ignored, but when he "lashes out at the administration" it's big news to you?
          • JoeVet, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3Yep, Christor is right......you are unbelievable ignorant. Yes, when the commander on the ground says that the administration is a ***** up, that is news and well worth paying attention. Everyone likes to bash the press so not much news there.
        • SuperMoses, on 10/14/2007, -2/+4You ***** idiot, if the media did it's job in the first place there would be no Iraq war. Period. Cut the "you liberals" ***** and look at it as an objective human being you silly *****. While the rest of the world media was unimpressed by Colin Powell's MS Powerpoint presentation at the UN, the American media creamed their pants, calling it the "smoking gun" that Iraq has WMDs. It's no wonder the US public was behind the war in 2003. Look at all of the polls around 2003. The public thought Iraq was involved in 9/11 and was sitting on a stockpile of WMDs. How do you think the public got so misinformed numb nuts? There wasn't a "liberal" bias, I'll tell you that much.
      • christor, on 10/14/2007, -3/+4Oops, sorry. Meant to dig you up Dumbledorito. Well said.
    • onisamsha, on 10/14/2007, -4/+7You left out the medias inattentive, repeat-verbatim-what-the-president-says reporting injustices leading up to the war....

      Maybe if they'd done they're job then, they wouldn't have (in your eyes) been able to ***** up the reporting of the war now, since we never needed to go to Iraq in the first place and wouldn't have wasted all this money and blood on something that had nothing to do with 9/11.
    • wetard57, on 10/13/2007, -4/+5HUGE WALL OF TEXT!!!11111111111111
    • webcite1, on 10/14/2007, -6/+4Another GOP nut job!
    • SuperMoses, on 10/14/2007, -1/+6This guy is right on the money. He's not a GOP nutjob, he clearly hates the partisan politics going on in Washington and in the MSM.
      "The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing out servicemenvers who are at war."

      What he should have added was that it was this same behaviour by the MSM that got them into war in the first place.
  • Dumbledorito, on 10/13/2007, -5/+11Welcome to what was being said about invading Iraq in 1993.
  • dagnew, on 10/14/2007, -4/+11The article states, "Asked why he waited until nearly a year after his retirement to voice his concerns publicly, he responded that it was not the place of active- duty officers to challenge lawful orders from the civilian authorities."
    I guess the general never heard of the Geneva Conventions or the United Nations Charter. Lawful my ass.
  • heystoopid, on 10/14/2007, -2/+10Nice to see the US Army has yet still to learn the lessons of Vietnam 1949 to 1975 !
    What price stupidity and idiocracy for the occupant in the White House ?
    • JoeVet, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1The army has a duty to follow all legal orders of the civilians you elect into the office. The lessons of vietnam nd Iraq are not for the army to learn but for the electorate to remember as they cast their vote.
  • Caffeinate, on 10/14/2007, -3/+14" The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" "

    This statement certainly wins the "No *****" award of the week.
    • jakeson2, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4Since this general was in charge when much of the crazy things happened at Abu Graub prison, I guess you can now place much of the current assessment of failure on himself.
      • JoeVet, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3Rumsfeld is much more culpable for the actions at Abu Graib.
      • Caffeinate, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2I'll be honest - there is so much failure in Iraq, that there is plenty of blame to spread around. Rumsfeld certainly, Bush definitely, Cheney and the Halliburton money-grubbing crew absolutely, and everyone else that pushed us to war in an attempt to make big bucks off of it. Is this General specifically responsible? I actually don't think so, anymore than I think Abu Ghraib can be placed solely at the feet of the soldiers doing the torture. The decisions come from somewhere. It makes me very angry when I see people blaming the military for everything that goes wrong in Iraq, because the military wouldn't even be there in the first place if it weren't for our "leaders". "Leaders" get the glory when things go right, and they take responsibility when things go wrong - that is what the position of leadership is all about. Our "leaders" though, make it a point to blame everybody else but themselves when things go wrong, and never take responsibility for anything. Our soldiers wouldn't have been over there in the first place were it not for them, and they wouldn't have been torturing people for "intelligence" if it were not for our leaders ramming that through despite opposition from many in the military. It is very easy to order something that you don't have to do yourself, and if you are pathologically incapable of accepting any responsibility for your actions. Those closer to the situation, and that might have to do it themselves or give a direct order to do so, though, actually resisted many of the methods of torture that Rumsfeld, Bush and the gang authorized.
  • chrissandvick, on 10/13/2007, -0/+6The entire speech here: http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.ht ...
  • LucasKane, on 10/14/2007, -3/+7Abu Gharid definitely didn't help, guy
  • neeyo, on 10/14/2007, -2/+5This, and other stories, can be found in this months issue of "Duh!" magazine.
  • OrigamiRonin, on 10/14/2007, -1/+9Now we'll probably be subjected to a media campaign to discredit the General. Should be in full swing over the next couple of days.
    • jakeson2, on 10/14/2007, -2/+2I would think so. He was in charge when the prison scandal broke. He likely should have been court martialed for his personal shortcomings in leadership.
      • JoeVet, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3And what of the one who ordered the prison scandle....Rumsfeld.
      • Caffeinate, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1It is impossible to get the ones that are truly responsible, Rumsfeld and no doubt Lord Cheney and Darth Incompetus. They are completely incapable of taking personal responsibility for anything, no matter how horribly it might harm a person. They don't think the rules apply to them, and they don't believe that they are ever wrong. Even if they were charged, they would just whine and cry that people are witch-hunting, then promptly round up as many scapegoats as necessary to take the blame for them. As long as Bush is in office, it is impossible for anyone to succeed in Iraq because they are too busy making backroom deals to profit off of it. They would torture their mothers if they thought there might be some power and profit in it don't think they care about destroying careers and people in the military.
  • Pitofdoom, on 10/14/2007, -8/+2June 03 out of Iraq June 04 retired Nov 06. I think he's selling a book.
    I guess I'll have to look up to aid and abet the enemy and treason.
    • jakeson2, on 10/14/2007, -4/+1I agree with this comment along with condemning all those leftists liberals who are supporting this failure of a general.
  • f4nt0m4s, on 10/14/2007, -3/+4Iraq is more like a succession of nightmares for the US. It's costing us billions of dollars, thousands of lives, national reputation, and because we literally destroyed Iraq's government, we can't leave until there is stability (will there ever be stability? it won't happen for a lonnnngg time). I just want to know how pointing out the ***** obvious is helping anybody. I think by now it's pretty set in stone that going into Iraq wasn't a great move, especially when you consider just how unprepared we were. So, how do we fix this -nightmare- when pulling out will be a long, slow and painful process?
    • jakeson2, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1Unless you factor in the fact that the terrorists may have been blowing your ass out of bed or work or airplane, or train, or subway, or while you and your family was shopping at a grocery store. How narrow and short minded this page if displaying today.
  • allan17, on 10/15/2007, -6/+8Sanchez also said the US needs to stay in Iraq. Or are we choosing to ignore that fact?
  • Jude007, on 10/14/2007, -2/+5The USA administration has already achieved it's goals, in that the war against Iraq is actually designed to give themselves big payouts. There is no end goal of victory rather the continued persistance of the war as the status quo. That way the US government buys more over inflated goods and services from certain providers, the US government borrows more money at interest from the fed, thereby increasing the amount of money repaid to rich bankers and the revenue from raping Iraq resources is maintaned. Every day is like a lottery win.
    • webcite1, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1That is the real edn game! Cash and oil!
  • ZenMojo, on 10/13/2007, -3/+3I was about to say, "This guy's going to get fired pretty quickly." Then I realized he was retired.
  • CDRaff, on 10/14/2007, -2/+4Do we really need another person to tell us that it is a mess. I can see with my own eyes that it is a mess. It is very easy to say "This is a mess!", it is much harder to say "This is a solution".

    I really do not think that "pulling out" quick and totally is the answer either. As much as we do not like it we are in this mess and we need the stones to say, "We made a mistake and we will fix it." Bush may have lied, but that does not mean that our congress at the time could not have actually researched the issue and made a different decision on the matter.
    • SuperMoses, on 10/14/2007, -3/+4You'll need to fix the mess in America before you can fix the mess in Iraq. The best thing for the US to do is get the hell out of there and work with Iraq's neighbouring countries to help stabilize Iraq.
      • krnldmp, on 10/14/2007, -2/+2You could do that with a half trillion dollar campaign to remove weapons from the area. Too bad we already spent the wad doing the opposite. Billions of dollars worth which can't be accounted for.
      • Caffeinate, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1I don't know why people dugg you two down. You were telling the truth. Must have been some Bush supporters - they are allergic to the truth.
  • chrissandvick, on 10/15/2007, -4/+5Sanchez: "AS A NATION WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT THE ENEMY WE FACE IS COMMITTED TO DESTROYING OUR WAY OF LIFE. THIS ENEMY IS ARGUABLY MORE DANGEROUS THAN ANY THREAT WE FACED IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY." (bold in the original)
    Another quote that's not going to be found in the MSM much. Nor is it going to be popular here on Digg. But true nonetheless.
    • SuperMoses, on 10/14/2007, -5/+5This is the dumbest of all his statements. He was right on in his criticisms of the media, but this statement is ridiculous and only works on simpletons. For one "the enemy we face" isn't just one enemy, there are many enemies of the US. The ones in Iraq even hate each other. To bunch them altogether as one is idiotic and only appeals to people's ignorance. Secondly, it has NOTHING to do with US way of life by everything to do with US foreign policy. If the enemy who hates US 'way of life' wanted to attack a country that expresses freedom they would attack Norway, Sweden, or some other european country that doesn't freak out when they see a breast at a half time game show. The US is closer to middle-eastern religious fundamentalism than it thinks.
      • webcite1, on 10/14/2007, -5/+2The only people that hate America have been created by Bush&Co! Wake to hell up, Fool!
      • jakeson2, on 10/14/2007, -2/+5Evidently no one remembers the Muslim riots in France and the Norwegian and danish areas. It could be here if you leftists win. And soon!
        • SuperMoses, on 10/14/2007, -2/+3If you weren't so ignorant, you would know that not all Muslims are terrorists and the riots in France had to do with domestic issues and nothing to do with the "war on terror". The same thing goes for the riots in the Norwegian and Danish delegations.. they weren't rioting because of their "way of life".
          • SuperMoses, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Thanks for showing me that video which came from a pro-nazi website.

            Btw, the video was showing Muslim protests not riots. The riots in France were nothing compared to the LA riots.
  • webcite1, on 10/14/2007, -6/+1We need a group called "Snipers for the FREE World"!!! The whole damm world votes for the next, lying assed so called "LEADER" to be shot next! Man! That would end all WAR! Bring about PEACE and end Bush&Co's. terror hold on America! Bush would be the first man dead!
    • webcite1, on 10/14/2007, -4/+1Digg me down or say something cowards!
    • unitedstatians, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Why not go all the way and create a [The United States Department of Peace], I believe one already exist. http://www.usip.org/ It was introduced by Dennis kucinich (D-OH) Bill H.R.808, in February 05, 2007 proposes the creation of an executive branch Department of Peace and Non-Violence. Some highlights include: the Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence, Peace Academies (with training in sharp-shooting, guess who the gold plated bullets are for?), the training of civilian peace-keepers for international multi-national forces and much, much more...
      http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h808/show

      Well, I hope he succeeds. Least it will do is balance our current state of disrepair.
  • krnldmp, on 10/13/2007, -2/+3No matter how many times a different old general says so, it's still true.
  • shykofsky, on 10/13/2007, -1/+4Very clear, gutsy speech.
  • webcite1, on 10/14/2007, -2/+2A "butter bar Lt." in the USAF gets more respect than Bush! AND that's not saying much!
    • JoeVet, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1That butter bar usually starts with an earned degree, not a bought one.
  • bsmeteronhigh, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2When the republicans did all they could to dismantle the FCC and oversight it provided by way of the equal time provisions we have a fifth estate of journalism more concerned with ratings than with the truth. The airwaves belong to the people. Broadcasters used to operate in the public interest. Now they operate solely in the interest of politicians seeking airtime for commercials during re-election season. (At the lowest price on the rate cards, by the way.)
    • webcite1, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1Fox not NEWS comes to mind!
    • Shantry99, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1I'd add democrats to the mix.
      • bsmeteronhigh, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2I think we need a new term for Republicans and Democrats that would convey how something can be exactly the same on the inside, yet appear somehow different on the outside. Any thoughts?
  • MarkusGarvey, on 10/14/2007, -3/+2send our troops home, then, send ALL those Blackwater asstunnels over there........
  • jacquesm, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2it's only a matter of time before an active general will speak out like this. Wonder who has cojones enough but if that guy then runs for president I think the bunch of lame me toos that are the current lineup can all go home.
  • Shantry99, on 10/14/2007, -4/+1Wow, I really thought the war was going great. I'm glad this article is on here to shed some light. Along with every other piece of ***** article like this on digg. We all get it, the war was a bad idea. How about shifting your focus to something different for a change.
  • kelsosmythe, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1In other news, water is wet.
  • thewatchman, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2in other news, U.S. is re-establishing its presence in Lebanon... I want to bring our troops home, too (and change military policy from "pre-emption" to "deterrence w/unlimited retaliation"), but it's obvious that U.S. is intent on surrounding Iran and Syria, and maintaining bases all over the Middle East. Think that's gonna change with Bush gone? Don't hold your breath.
  • Richandler, on 10/14/2007, -3/+1We can't do anything but play Halo 3 until the elections. The Democrats have had the power to defund the war since they got office and because they failed they will not get my vote.
  • Jugalator, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1The problem is that I think there's no known clean way of getting out of the conflict. If they leave, the backlash could be worse than if they stay from a destabilized region + the brewn terrorism from that. But if they stay, there's no real way I can see them succeeding in stabilizing the region, because with all good intentions they may have, their mere presence is a problem. The current government has a lot to answer to. :-(
  • ff1959, on 10/14/2007, -3/+2Note that he waited until he was retired. This is just up-front advertising for his book deal. The General knows that the country is polarized about this war, and that sells books. He could not care less about war at this point.
  • ralph12c41, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4How many of you agenda driven folks have bothered to read the Generals entire remarks?. The real story and one which we should all be concerned about are his comments regarding the press...as an example this excerpt " THE BASIC ETHICS OF A JOURNALIST THAT CALLS FOR:
    1. SEEKING TRUTH,
    2. PROVIDING FAIR AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS AND ISSUES
    3. THOROUGHNESS AND HONESTY

    ALL ARE VICTIMS OF THE MASSIVE AGENDA DRIVEN COMPETITION FOR ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL SUPREMACY. THE DEATH KNELL OF YOUR ETHICS HAS BEEN ENABLED BY YOUR PARENT ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH POLITICAL AGENDAS. WHAT IS CLEAR TO ME IS THAT YOU ARE PERPETUATING THE CORROSIVE PARTISAN POLITICS THAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OUR SERVICEMEMBERS WHO ARE AT WAR."

    This is the real story. We have a corrupt, lazy, agenda driven press/media and they failed all of us again by not reporting the most significant aspect, or if you will the entire story. We all need to wake up and make fixing the press our focus since it hurts us all.
  • MacLiberal, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1This must be a terrible blow to the americans. Sanchez was held is such respect in and awe by the american army that it must be horrible to see him finally admitting the truth. Sanchez was a much greater General and all the rest in Iraq put together, now he does the world a favor.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Does anyone have an address for Sanchez? I'd like to send him my copy of DERELECTION OF DUTY by H R McMaster. Maybe he would learn something about military commanders allowing politicians to subvert their authority.

    I wouldn't be against sending a copy to Petraeus, but considering COL McMaster is already on his general staff, I don't its as much an issue.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.