Noted peace activist "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf (General, US Army, retired) hasn't seen enough evidence to make him think attacking Iraq is necessary. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html Of course, we all know what a left wing commie pinko scum bag he is. He should be forced to walk back to Berserkeley in his Birkenstocks.
I think that link is bad, Mike. Try this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html
And? So what? He is retired and from the rest of the article it is clear he only has access to the information available in the public media. Obviously, the Administration is going to have to reveal more direct evidence prior to any attack on Iraq. The fact that Norm hasn't seen that evidence yet means about as much as the fact that Ted the fry cook or Mary the checkout girl haven't seen it yet. Promise me you'll post a link to the article about his reaction once the evidence is made public, ok?
Gen. Schwarzkopf is retired, he hasn't seen any evidence that we haven't seen yet. Word is that Bush is planning to go public with the evidence in about a week. Alex
Re: Re: Norman Schwarzkopf Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq Riiiiiighhhttt. Which automatically means that Ted the fry cook or Mary the checkout girl know as much about Iraq as Schwarzkopf does. Riiiiiighhhttt. Gee, since John Madden wasn't in the locker room for either Oakland or Tampa Bay, why was he providing expert commentary for the Super Bowl, then?
Re: Re: Re: Norman Schwarzkopf Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq You don't get it. He is retired and the article makes it clear that he has distanced himself from the military. Thus it is obvious that he has not had access to any intel gathered since he retired. The Bush administration has made it clear that they have not provided the public with the evidence they have of Iraq's WMD and missile programs. They just recently began sharing some of it with Blix. Thus a story saying that what Norm has seen on TV and read in the paper hasn't convinced him that we should go to war is not very interesting, because it does not contain the evidence that would be used to go to war. I'm afraid that is a simple as I can make it. Schwarzkopf's prior experience has nothing to do with this. The fact that he lead an army to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait a decade ago has little bearing on the current status of Iraq's WMD program. He was never involved in dealing with that program beyond the specific threat that WMD weapons could have presented to his troops. To use your example, I wouldn't expect Madden to speak about the financial ramifications of a new stadium for the Raiders just because he was their coach in the past. His knowledge is not relevant to the issue and he has not worked in even a related field for quite some time.
See, folks like Schwarzkopf really WANT us to fail...deep down inside, Schwarzkopf WANTS us to make a complete disaster out of this whole thing...to engage in the kind of horrific acts he seems to THINK we will to justify the loathing he feels.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Norman Schwarzkopf Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq 35 years of military experience isn't relevant? The fact that he did some growing up in the Middle East and studied it extensively as part of his job isn't relevant? The fact that he's a little more geopolitically attuned than Ted the frycook or Mary the checkout girl isn't relevant? He wants to see the proof, which places him right squarely smack dab in the same cohort with millions of his fellow Americans, including me. With his experience, how is that not "relevant?" Show us the proof. I don't exactly think that's "irrelevant," considering that we're putting thousands of American lives at stake here. And then you have the gall to tell me that I don't get it. OK, tell me exactly what it takes to achieve "relevance" on this debate. Being in the Bush White House, regardless of past military service? A spot on the Fox News Network? Mindlessly spouting conservative groupthink? Do tell.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norman Schwarzkopf Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq Tim, There's no point arguing with him. It's obvious that he didn't read the article, and if he did, he entirely missed the point of what Schwarzkopf said. Personally, if inspectors have credible proof that Saddam is violating 1441, then I we SHOULD attack, with the backing of our UN allies. Schwarzkopf is asking for more proof before we attack. So am I. If there's something there the American people deserve to know about it before our Commander in Chief makes a commitment to sending troops into war. BTW, Stormin' Norman's assessment of Rumsfeld is right on the money.
Interesting article. A few things struck me. First the phrase "fatigues clad martinet" is the PEFECT description of him in the Gulf War. I know someone who was a staff officer in Desert Storm and, let me tell you, "boss from hell" just scratches the surface Second, he has distanced himself so much from the military now that it is possible that anything he says about the quality of operational planning is bordering on speculation. However, I thought this quote was intriguing: But, he adds, he is more comfortable now with what he hears about the war plan than he was several months ago, when there was talk of an assault built around air power and a few thousand Special Operations troops. Third, he's naturally concerned about the information coming out (or not) about WMD, and post Iraq planning. Reasonable concerns, but if he were more involved with the military, he might know more. So he's a knowledgable person in military matters, but in intelligence and nation building he is, right now, just a layman. Of course, he doesn't demonize GWB and think we're out for the oil. For some anti-USA types, maybe that's not a pass on the litmus test.