• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Blair forced to claim army general criticisms are 'absolutely right'

Anyone have a link to what the general actually said?

From another article Honest man who spoke for his men
Although the detail of Sir Richard's words have got lost in the outcry, he stresses that he was not suggesting the British Army should pack its bags tomorrow.

He merely believes that a schedule for an early exit is necessary, because as long as American and British troops are perceived as occupiers of Iraq, they provide motivation and targets for one of the most violent insurgencies in modern history.
Click to expand...
If that is what he said then he is saying the same thing a lot of other people are saying. While it is news worthy, I would not call it Earth shattering.

Only thing I would question is that the insurgents are killing each other, if we left there is no reason to believe any of that would change. WE wouldn't be getting killed anymore, but the violence that plaques the country would most likely go on. Although with us being gone one excuse of the Iraqi people on the cause would be removed.

I'll go back to what Rush suggested. In the next 6 months hand over control of the cities to Iraqis and move our troops to the outskirts of the country where we can patrol the boarders and keep outside forces from being involved.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I'll go back to what Rush suggested. In the next 6 months hand over control of the cities to Iraqis and move our troops to the outskirts of the country where we can patrol the boarders and keep outside forces from being involved.
Click to expand...
Once again, the resident forum pathetic neocon apolgist comes back with another pathetic neocon apology. General Dannatt has tried, with no success, to back away from, dance around and soften the impact of his initial statement, but his words speak for themselves. From The Daily Mail:
The soldier who speaks for Britain
Last updated at 15:54pm on 14th October 2006

Today the Daily Mail salutes an honest soldier and an outstanding man. pb[With his devastating interview in this paper - reported all over the world - the head of the Army gives the lie to every word uttered by Tony Blair on the worsening catastrophe in Iraq.[/b]

General Sir Richard Dannatt warns that the presence of our troops in that benighted country "exacerbates the security problems". He says they should pull out "soon" or risk consequences both for Iraq and Britain. He is scathing about the "poor" planning of the occupation.

Never in modern times has a top commander so publicly challenged his elected masters. But then, never has the Army been faced with a Prime Minister so deep in denial, a man who still claims the invasion was right and pitifully pretends Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.

That is why there is such a surge of support for the General from rank-and-file soldiers and, we suspect, from the great majority of the British public. The overwhelming message on military websites and radio phone-ins yesterday was: thank God someone is telling the truth and standing up for us at last.

Make no mistake. In one shattering blitzkrieg General Dannatt has undermined the whole of Tony Blair's foreign policy. And not surprisingly, the Number 10 spin machine (the same propagandists who set out to destroy Dr David Kelly) is gearing up to seek revenge.

Yes, Mr Blair claims the General has his "full support". There is no sign - yet - of the usual New Labour smears. But there are plenty of whispers about how outrageously unconstitutional it is for a general to speak out and gainsay the politicians.

But the real outrage is the way this Government has cynically exploited our armed services for its own ends, while denying them the money or resources to do their job properly.

Dishonest politicians sent our troops into the quagmire of Iraq on the basis of dodgy dossiers without the slightest idea of how to manage the occupation or what the exit strategy should be. Proper equipment? Forget it. Many of our soldiers didn't even have the right boots for the job.

In Afghanistan, it is the same sorry story. Too few troops are engaged in the fiercest fighting seen by the Army since World War II, without the helicopters they need or even the necessary military hospitals to care for the wounded.

Which is why Richard Dannatt is overwhelmingly justified in speaking his mind - and not just as head of the Army, but as a father with a son serving in Iraq (not an experience familiar to the politicians who started this war).

He has seen how the Government has ignored repeated warnings and overstetched our Armed Forces to breaking point. He has seen his men - many from impoverished backgrounds - fobbed off with pitiful pay, subjected to endless cuts and denied the kit they need.

But most of all he has seen his beloved British Army - to which he has devoted his life - threatened with destruction.

No wonder this outstandingly brave officer-who won the Military Cross at the age of 23 - believes New Labour is breaching the "covenant" between the Armed Forces and the nation.

So will he pay for his honesty by being demonised, sacked or hounded to resign?

Given the huge support for his stand, it seems unlikely that the politicians will dare to move against him just yet.

But don't underestimate the sheer vindictiveness of New Labour. The General must know Ministers will never forgive him.

But he can equally be assured that the public and the men under his command are deeply in his debt. In the midst of all the lies and deceits in modern politics they have seen that clarity, candour and integrity still exist in public life.
Click to expand...
If the best you've got to support your stance on any issue is a reference to a drugged out whack job like Rush Limbaugh, you've proven you've got nothing to say and far too many words to say it.

Go home and practice. :thumbsdown: :laugh: :thumbsdown:
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Once again, the resident forum pathetic neocon apolgist comes back with another pathetic neocon apology. General Dannatt has tried, with no success, to back away from, dance around and soften the impact of his initial statement, but his words speak for themselves. From The Daily Mail
Click to expand...
Why do I get the feeling the dailymail does not like Blair? hmmmm
 
This is the full statement released by Sir Richard Dannatt on Friday.
"We have been in Southern Iraq for three and a half years and we have made significant progress, with two of the four provinces now handed over to Iraqi control and our responsibilities are much reduced in one other province.

"The point that I'm trying to make is the mere fact that we are still in some places exacerbates violence from those who want to destabilise Iraqi democracy.

"Currently Operation Sinbad is trying to make Basra better and a lot of British soldiers are doing a really good job. In that regard, their presence is helping but there are other parts where our mere presence does exacerbate, and violence results.

"But that is not a reason for us to leave. I am on record publicly saying we're standing shoulder to shoulder with the Americans.

"I am on the record from a speech three weeks ago saying that I'm planning force packages in Iraq through 2007 into 2008.

I'm a soldier - we don't do surrender, we don't pull down white flags. We will remain in southern Iraq until the job is done - we're going to see this through."
Click to expand...
I would still like to see his actual comments that started this whole mess.

What he says above sounds a lot like whatever else is saying. Call it towing the company like if you want.
 
I get the feeling that we will start to change our policy post election and may make moves towards a limited withdrawal from at least the cities.

Following this there will be a spike in violence at which time everyone on the left will blame the US for the violence, even though they have been calling on us to leave for years.

It looks like we are in a situation where no mater what we do something bad may happen.
 
Yup. It's called a no-win situation, and it's what our Great Leader has put our country in. I still see you support him though, now why is that? Could it be that you don't want to admit he's wrong, and therefore you yourself are wrong? I like the post about con men someone made the other day. It's the people who've been conned that defend the con man to the bitter end, because they don't want to admit to themselves that they've been fooled. It's like Steve Jobs and Apple customers.
 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
It's the people who've been conned that defend the con man to the bitter end, because they don't want to admit to themselves that they've been fooled. It's like Steve Jobs and Apple customers.
Click to expand...
LOL :laugh:
 
You guys can not seem to understand that the support on the right for Bush has nothing to do with thinking he is right on everything, and instead has more to do with the thought that the Democrats will do worse.

Bush has made mistakes, and we all bitch about that all the time.

But looking at the crazy liberals who will take over the house if Democrats win a majority and it is a little scary.

Look at Nagin, after everything that went wrong during Katrina the people in NO still voted for him over a Republican. Why? Was it because they were happy with what Nagin did? Or was it because they would rather have a Democrat than a Republican?

Sean Hannity has been reading a list of things that the Democrats want to do, I haven't been able to find it buy I'll post a few I remember.

If Dems take over congress here is what they will try to do, some members are already saying so.

1. Try to impeach Bush (in the middle of a war, bad idea)
2. Raise taxes (like the Federal government needs more of our money)
3. Pull our troops out from Iraq with in months (who cares if the terrorists see it as a victory over us)

I wish I had the rest, but those are the reasons we vote Republican.
 
We knew it! The Republican party is SO BAD that the only reason its most devoted members vote for them is because Rush Limbaugh has convinced them the Democrats would be worse! With no corroborating evidence!

Holy ******, the GOP is in a far worse state of affairs than the Democratic party ever was these last six years. And that is saying something.
 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
We knew it! The Republican party is SO BAD that the only reason its most devoted members vote for them is because Rush Limbaugh has convinced them the Democrats would be worse! With no corroborating evidence!

Holy ******, the GOP is in a far worse state of affairs than the Democratic party ever was these last six years. And that is saying something.
Click to expand...
ummmm I didn't even mention Rush, if you are going to try and insult me at least get the radio show right....

What evidennce do you have that the Democrats will do better?

Edit #2: I have been asking for weeks to name me one reason why I should vote Democratic. So far the only answer I get is that they aren't Republican.
 
So every sane person is saying we need to set a schedule and leave, and GOP and CO is still saying we gotta stay the course.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Aisengard
We knew it! The Republican party is SO BAD that the only reason its most devoted members vote for them is because Rush Limbaugh has convinced them the Democrats would be worse! With no corroborating evidence!

Holy ******, the GOP is in a far worse state of affairs than the Democratic party ever was these last six years. And that is saying something.
Click to expand...
ummmm I didn't even mention Rush, if you are going to try and insult me at least get the radio show right....

What evidennce do you have that the Democrats will do better?

Edit #2: I have been asking for weeks to name me one reason why I should vote Democratic. So far the only answer I get is that they aren't Republican.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, you said Sean Hannity. No big difference there, they all spout the same BS talking points that you gobble up. Still don't want to admit you were conned? It's okay. We won't make fun of you too much when you do. But really, the best way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. Stop digging, ProfJohn. Admit you've been conned, and you can start your redemption as a sane human being.

What evidennce do you have that the Democrats will do better?
Click to expand...

Recently? None. They haven't had any power in 6 years. And what I've seen is this country has gone completely down the tubes. That alone is a pretty big reason to vote Democrat. The other reason, if you prefer not to listen to any of their ideas (or suck Hannity's dick and accept his "Democrats have no ideas" spiel), is simply balance. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No better example in this country than the Republicans the past 6 years. With a Democratic House and/or Senate, we'll finally have checks and balance in the government. And the way this country is going, gridlock is a GOOD thing. Remember the gridlock of the mid-nineties? Our country had never been in better health. We need to get back to those days where one party didn't have all the power.

Edit #2: I have been asking for weeks to name me one reason why I should vote Democratic. So far the only answer I get is that they aren't Republican.
Click to expand...

You've been given many reasons, if you choose to read threads that aren't yours. Again, contrary to what Hannity might force into your ears every night, Democrats have many credible ideas that aren't given any press time simply because they're shot down by the Republican majority. How can the Democrats push legislation when they have absolutely no power? So go educate yourself. Listen to someone other than Sean Hannity. Please. You are a joke on this forum, like an exact copy of Sean Hannity. In fact, I would reckon that if Sean Hannity suddenly started posting on this forum under your name, we wouldn't think anything had happened.

And also, if your ONLY reason to vote Republican is that they aren't Democrats, what the ****** are you doing asking this question? Do you WANT to be laughed at?
 
It looks like we are in a situation where no mater what we do something bad may happen.
Click to expand...

And where's the accountability for 'The insurgency is in the last throes'? For 'the war may last six weeks, I'd be surprised if it's six months, but no longer than that'? For the rejection of the State Department's post-war plan in favor of chaos and understaffing, including putting no-experience right-wingers in their 20's in important roles?

I have been asking for weeks to name me one reason why I should vote Democratic. So far the only answer I get is that they aren't Republican.
Click to expand...

I hadn't seen the question but I've been answering it for weeks.

Here are 10, only one of which is because they aren't republicans.

1. Democrats will pursue a much greater degree of fiscal responsibility. Republicans are plundering the public trough and borrowing to force the public to lose its power to invest where it wants because of debt, while democrats will pursue a more balanced approach. Sorry if my facts and your ideology differ, but I'll go with the facts.

2. Democrats will pursue a more thoughtful foreign policy. They are not pandering to crass politics and are not locked into ideologies that make communism look pragmatic, with the embarrassing contradicitions where they predict flowers, short cheap war and say the war is almost over when it's barely started. They pursue national interest *and* world opinion.

3. The democrats will put in place policies which protect American workers more than they are now.

4. The democrats will protect the system of democracy as the rule of the people, and not let corporations own the government.

5. The democrats will take action on global warming.

6. The democrats will protect the environment, and restore government oversite of food and drug safety.

7. The democrats will invest in public education.

8. The democrats will improve medical care for tens of millions of Americans, making it available to all Americans.

9. The democrats will increase the minimum wage and reduce poverty.

10. The democrats will slow or reverse the increasing concentration of wealth so that all Americans share in economic gains.

11. Bonus - it will provide some accountability for the republicans theft, dishonesty, and undo some of the corrupt systems they have put into place like the K Street project, and reduce the secrecy which prevents the public from knowing the wrongs the government does.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You guys can not seem to understand that the support on the right for Bush has nothing to do with thinking he is right on everything, and instead has more to do with the thought that the Democrats will do worse.

Bush has made mistakes, and we all bitch about that all the time.

But looking at the crazy liberals who will take over the house if Democrats win a majority and it is a little scary.

Look at Nagin, after everything that went wrong during Katrina the people in NO still voted for him over a Republican. Why? Was it because they were happy with what Nagin did? Or was it because they would rather have a Democrat than a Republican?

Sean Hannity has been reading a list of things that the Democrats want to do, I haven't been able to find it buy I'll post a few I remember.

If Dems take over congress here is what they will try to do, some members are already saying so.

1. Try to impeach Bush (in the middle of a war, bad idea)
2. Raise taxes (like the Federal government needs more of our money)
3. Pull our troops out from Iraq with in months (who cares if the terrorists see it as a victory over us)

I wish I had the rest, but those are the reasons we vote Republican.
Click to expand...


Sean Hannity?

he isnt a real person, youve been fooled. He is a robot that is emailed a list of talking points and clever "catch" phrases daily from the RNC, Then all you have to do is make sure he is plugged in at the right time and press the play button.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You guys can not seem to understand that the support on the right for Bush has nothing to do with thinking he is right on everything, and instead has more to do with the thought that the Democrats will do worse.
Click to expand...
Really? How? Even if they take both houses of Congress, you still have Bush for the veto (he's finally learned how, you know). The Dems aren't anywhere close to taking enough seats to override a veto.


Bush has made mistakes, and we all bitch about that all the time.
Click to expand...
Examples of you bitching about that all the time? Seems like you mostly offer excuses, and diversions about Clinton and the Democrats.


But looking at the crazy liberals who will take over the house if Democrats win a majority and it is a little scary.
Click to expand...
Case in point. Crazy liberals? Democrats? Please. While there are a few true liberals left in the Democratic Party, they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by moderates. There is no danger of "liberals" (Oh, teh noes!) taking Congress.


Look at Nagin, after everything that went wrong during Katrina the people in NO still voted for him over a Republican. Why? Was it because they were happy with what Nagin did? Or was it because they would rather have a Democrat than a Republican?
Click to expand...
Some of both. The right tried to scapegpat Nagin. I don't think most of his constituency bought it.


Sean Hannity has been reading a list of things that the Democrats want to do, I haven't been able to find it buy I'll post a few I remember.
Click to expand...
Or just make up stuff. That's what he did.


If Dems take over congress here is what they will try to do, some members are already saying so.

1. Try to impeach Bush (in the middle of a war, bad idea)
Click to expand...
Investigating Bush is a great idea. If they discover enough justify impeachment, so be it. That's called accountability, something Republicans used to support.

I'm curious. Did you object to Clinton's impeachment because it was in the middle of a "war"?


2. Raise taxes (like the Federal government needs more of our money)
Click to expand...
Oops. I think you mean "reduce the deficit" -- that's called fiscal responsibility, something else Republicans once supported -- and slightly temper the wealth transfer from the middle class to the wealthy elite (that's called equity).


3. Pull our troops out from Iraq with in months (who cares if the terrorists see it as a victory over us)
Click to expand...
I'll grant you the Iraqi people may see it as a victory, though not much of one considering they're merely defending their country, and they've lost hundreds of thousands of their countrymen and had their country trashed. The real terrorists, i.e., NOT Iraqi insurgents, may see it as a sign we're done with distractions and are finally ready to focus on preventing terrorism. Then again, they may see the two as unrelated issues, like pretty much everyone else except the Bush faithful.


I wish I had the rest, but those are the reasons we vote Republican.
Click to expand...
I believe those are called rationalizations, not reasons. It's really about blind faith. Reason has nothing to do with it. (And yes, there are people on both ends of the political spectrum who are equally blind.)
 
We're into that pleasant political phase of war where the main purpose for it is the political need of the leader who started it not to look bad.

What's funny is that they usually continue it too long and get nailed even worse.

Although I think it's likely that the republican plan is to lie about the war until the election, and then use the Baker Commission as political cover to get out. Baker is already paving the way by going on the talk show circuit (not how the Bushies operate much except when they're trying to push a message) by talking about a 'third way'.

Then, after the election, the republicans can adopt a new plan, put some twist in so they can deny they're adopting the democrats' position, and claim they did not 'cut and run'.

I think the real lesson may be just that 'absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely', and we need to figure out how to have effective international law, including on our own nation against invading others, before we startin invading more countries. It's sad that in this modern time, it's more military might than law and principle that set the policy.
 
It's looking more and more that I was correct in my guess on the October Surprise-Bush will recast "cut and run" and claim it as his own strategy.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why do I get the feeling the dailymail does not like Blair? hmmmm
Click to expand...
Why do I get the feeling you don't like the truth or the U.S. Constitution? hmmmm...
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why do I get the feeling the dailymail does not like Blair? hmmmm
Click to expand...
Why do I get the feeling you don't like the truth or the U.S. Constitution? hmmmm...
Click to expand...

LOL, ProfJohn likes Rush, Hannity and the rest of the whackos, but claims foul about the dailymail.

I guess the fact they had the whole interview published shows they are biased and have an axe to grind, unlike Rush, Hannity, and himself.

ProfJohn, you remind me of TastesLikeChicken. You try to appear to be impartial, but you just can't seem to pull it off.
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
It's looking more and more that I was correct in my guess on the October Surprise-Bush will recast "cut and run" and claim it as his own strategy.
Click to expand...


I disagree. James Baker is withholding the commission's recommendations until after the elections - something Jon Stewart suggested to his face is politicizing the recommendations.

If they changed the plan now, it'd be a benefit to the democrats by intorducing confusion and doubt in the base.

No, it's more likely we have the October surprise with the story that Saddam's conviction and sentence are set to be announced Nov 5, 2 days before the election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top