Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Well, they were in previous CENTCOM plans.They were in Frank's original plans. Pity he let Rumsfeld erode that away. 651084[/snapback] They were in Franks' original plan because Zinni says so? Is this anotoher one of these "Making sh-- up that other people didn't say" things you're indulging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 They were in Franks' original plan because Zinni says so? Is this anotoher one of these "Making sh-- up that other people didn't say" things you're indulging? 651128[/snapback] Are you calling Zinni a liar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Are you calling Zinni a liar? 651129[/snapback] No, I'm calling Scraps functionally illiterate. Once again, he reads but doesn't comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 No, I'm calling Scraps functionally illiterate. Once again, he reads but doesn't comprehend. 651133[/snapback] LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Welcome to the world of Al Quaida. They were the ones who taught the somalis how to down helicopters with rpgs. 651113[/snapback] DING DING DING, we have a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 They were in Franks' original plan because Zinni says so? Is this anotoher one of these "Making sh-- up that other people didn't say" things you're indulging? 651128[/snapback] No, its from a number of cooberative stories. Zinni's discussion is but one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 No, I'm calling Scraps functionally illiterate. Once again, he reads but doesn't comprehend. 651133[/snapback] I remember a discussion we had a couple of years ago regarding whether or not there were "thousands" of casualties in the war in Iraq. You fought long and hard but finally agreed that the "s" at the end of "thousands" was indeed accurate. I know you pride yourself on being an obstinante ass at times. This is one of those times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Dems are desperate, I just don't know Zinni's slant on other issues to comment on whether he would have a chance. Still I see the Dem nomination as wide open for an outside to take. 651097[/snapback] Here are a couple of links to articles I've saved regarding Zinni Zinni at the Middle East Institute Washington Post article on Zinni shortly after Saddam's capture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 I couldn't care less whether Bernsten praises Bush or not. You wanted to address an item and I addressed it. Then you B word because the response is not in line with yours. Jeez o Flip. God forbid people use their brains to form opinions instead of using the opinions of others.It is not two-faced as BiB pointed out. The fact that you ignored what he had to say because it did not fit your agenda is disingenuous. Just look at your comments on Franks and this proves me correct. Bernsten criticized Bush: Good. Franks did not: Bush apologist just falling on his sword. BiB did not: trying to build a cocoon around Bush, trying to protect him. I couldn't care less what your opinions of Clinton are since they really have absolutely nothing to do with this argument. The fact that you brought him in made your point meaningless because, as BiB pointed out, the campaigns were executed differently. If you cannot see that, then there is no point in discussing this further. 651002[/snapback] I has nothing to do with whether or not the response was in line with what I wanted. To insinuate that it was is putting words in my mouth. I guess its okay if you do it Mr Hypocrite. I might accept BiBs arguments and a rational as to why Clinton was worse. I do not see them as a rational to give Bush a pass. This nonsense that the campaigns were executed differently is simply that, nonsense. Are two campaigns ever executed identically? Can your excuses be more lame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 I'm still back on page 6 or so trying to figure out the how I'm building a cocoon around Bush, because Franks denied a request for a bunch of Marines, that then got described as Franks falling on his sword in order to deflect blame, which also isn't anywhere near what even Bernsten said. In a more serious vein, right or wrong Commanders and their staffs get multiple things from the field in a constant stream. They have to develop the common operating picture. I don't have anything against Bernsten. But, he also wasn't the only guy involved on the ground. Neither was he in a position to know the full COP from the CENTCOM perspective. People write first person accounts from their perspective. That's why they are called first person accounts. Somewhere down the road responsible historical types gather as much data as they can from as many sources as they can, and history gets written. 650966[/snapback] Contrary to the mind reading simians claims, I took Bernsten's piece as just that, a first person account. I thought his writings were frequently over the top, reminding me of a John Wayne movie at times, but he did provide information that dovetailed with what I was reading at the time and accounts by his predecessor in Jawbreaker, Gary Schroen. With respect to Tora Bora, Bernsten provided some details that dovetailed well with open source material I read a few years agos and added some details. He claims that we knew Bin Laden was in Tora Bora based on conversations overheard on a radio. The person who heard this was a CIA linguist who had listened to Bin Laden tapes. He also describes a cease fire in which Al Qaeda wanted to discuss surrender terms. During this time some of the Pushtun surrogates took food and water into Tora Bora and described three people, who looked liked Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri and one of Bin Laden's sons. Frank's claims that we didn't know Bin Laden was in Tora Bora. Frank's claims that the Eastern alliance was eager to engage Al Qaeda. Bernsten claims just the opposite. Do you really believe that Pushtuns, some of whom were fighting on behalf of the Taliban just a couple of weeks earlier, were eager to engage Al Qaeda? It doesn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 I has nothing to do with whether or not the response was in line with what I wanted. To insinuate that it was is putting words in my mouth. I guess its okay if you do it Mr Hypocrite. I might accept BiBs arguments and a rational as to why Clinton was worse. I do not see them as a rational to give Bush a pass. This nonsense that the campaigns were executed differently is simply that, nonsense. Are two campaigns ever executed identically? Can your excuses be more lame? 651261[/snapback] Funny, when someone criticizes Bush, you deify them. When they do not criticize Bush, you call them a Bush apologist. Yeah, real hard to see what you want. Now, you said you might accept BiB's rational, but you cannot keep from blaming Bush. You don't see the complete contradiction in that statement? Yeah...OK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Contrary to the mind reading simians claims, I took Bernsten's piece as just that, a first person account. I thought his writings were frequently over the top, reminding me of a John Wayne movie at times, but he did provide information that dovetailed with what I was reading at the time and accounts by his predecessor in Jawbreaker, Gary Schroen. With respect to Tora Bora, Bernsten provided some details that dovetailed well with open source material I read a few years agos and added some details. He claims that we knew Bin Laden was in Tora Bora based on conversations overheard on a radio. The person who heard this was a CIA linguist who had listened to Bin Laden tapes. He also describes a cease fire in which Al Qaeda wanted to discuss surrender terms. During this time some of the Pushtun surrogates took food and water into Tora Bora and described three people, who looked liked Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri and one of Bin Laden's sons. Frank's claims that we didn't know Bin Laden was in Tora Bora. Frank's claims that the Eastern alliance was eager to engage Al Qaeda. Bernsten claims just the opposite. Do you really believe that Pushtuns, some of whom were fighting on behalf of the Taliban just a couple of weeks earlier, were eager to engage Al Qaeda? It doesn't make sense to me. 651267[/snapback] Thats the part I heard on the book review....Thanks for bringing this topic to the board.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 4, 2006 Author Share Posted April 4, 2006 Something that bugs me just a tad, is that the call was made to go with the CIA presented plan. There were good reasons for this, but still... It wasn't the military's idea in the first place to rely on the Northern Alliance to work as a surrogate. It was the CIA's. Then, when stuff wasn't exactly going according to plan, somehow Franks and CENTCOM end up getting the blame line? Like I said earlier, personal perspectives looking at things in hindsight. Just remember, it is hindsight and personal perspective from the standpoint of people writing books. All these authors (I pre-caveat with the statement that I have nothing against any of them, their credibility or their ability) now have the benefit of being able to see their part of things through a larger window. I don't know that anyone (Bernsten, Franks, even Clarke) is trying to purposely mislead anyone. Well, maybe Clarke...but since these things are all various shades of gray maybe everyone discussing is partially "right" and partially "wrong". There are also "corporate mindsets" in the military as there are with anyone else. And I don't mean military overall. There are definite "personalities" involved in CENTCOM that are different than PACOM that are different than EUCOM that are different than STRATCOM. In effect, the personalities of these commands are shaped by the four star in the head office. It's also not like WW2 days where Patton led his troops. None of the combat commands, save JFCOM "own" any forces. Forces are apportioned as required to support mission. The actual COCOMs are relatively small. Basically a planning staff (simplified term, but whatever). Some are easier to work with than others, and none of them appreciate anyone treading on their turf. I've personal experience working with (and sometimes against) the combat commands at the major operational planning level, especially the 4 GOCOMs. Another factor involved, and very relevant, is that those 4 stars get to become COCOM Commanders in part because they are in line with a particular administrations ideas and oftentimes long term relationships. This extends to the Joint Chiefs as well. They are all, also supremely qualified, dedicated, often brilliant and absolutely incredible people. I personally am awed by many of them. They could pull down multi-million dollar salaries in many a corporation, but they have chosen to dedicate their lives to their country. But, politics is politics and that's how things are. OK, I've rambled excessively, again...but there's just so much to these things that so many don't get to see and experience. And it all contributes. If I just made any sense to anyone, think of it as some background as you read the articles and books. BTW, I commend and appreciate everyone here that actually reads the books. Part of why I like our exchanges. Most people with opinions don't bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Funny, when someone criticizes Bush, you deify them. When they do not criticize Bush, you call them a Bush apologist. Yeah, real hard to see what you want. 651313[/snapback] Deify them? Who am I deifying? You show an amazing lack of reading comprehension. If I deified anyone who criticized Bush, I'd be would be praising the Democratic Agenda, which I have actually criticized. I'd be praising Kerry and Gore. I would not be praising Zinni and Bernsten, who have either endorsed Bush at one time or are far more complimentary that critical of Bush. That charge is just stupid but is consistent with a hypocrite who can't defend his position, so he tries to change the topic. Now, you said you might accept BiB's rational, but you cannot keep from blaming Bush. You don't see the complete contradiction in that statement? Re-read the statement. I accept his statement as to why one might be worse than the other, not why Bush should be held blameless, which goes back to the original question I asked that you have continuously dodged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Something that bugs me just a tad, is that the call was made to go with the CIA presented plan. There were good reasons for this, but still... It wasn't the military's idea in the first place to rely on the Northern Alliance to work as a surrogate. It was the CIA's. Then, when stuff wasn't exactly going according to plan, somehow Franks and CENTCOM end up getting the blame line? 651482[/snapback] I don't know that I am blaming them so much as 1) Pointing out that people in the field in Afghanistan have not received the assets they have requested. 2) Expressing skepticism regarding the rational for not providing those assets, i.e. that the Eastern Alliance was eager to engage and destroy Al Qaeda at Tora Bora when intelligence assets involved in the actual combat claim just the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Deify them? Who am I deifying? You show an amazing lack of reading comprehension. If I deified anyone who criticized Bush, I'd be would be praising the Democratic Agenda, which I have actually criticized. I'd be praising Kerry and Gore. I would not be praising Zinni and Bernsten, who have either endorsed Bush at one time or are far more complimentary that critical of Bush. That charge is just stupid but is consistent with a hypocrite who can't defend his position, so he tries to change the topic. Re-read the statement. I accept his statement as to why one might be worse than the other, not why Bush should be held blameless, which goes back to the original question I asked that you have continuously dodged. 657419[/snapback] I answered your question. Again, we get beack to your lack of reading comprehension (as evidenced by both my and the monkey's posts). Bush Bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I answered your question. Again, we get beack to your lack of reading comprehension (as evidenced by both my and the monkey's posts). Bush Bad. 657449[/snapback] Well then your not being consistent. What did you mean by this? Now, you said you might accept BiB's rational, but you cannot keep from blaming Bush. You don't see the complete contradiction in that statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Well then your not being consistent. 657485[/snapback] How am I not being consistent? Bush Bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 How am I not being consistent? Bush Bad. 657501[/snapback] BiB's statement is that Bush can not be blamed. Where did I accept that his argument that Bush can not be blamed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 BiB's statement is that Bush can not be blamed. Where did I accept that his argument that Bush can not be blamed? 657593[/snapback] So, I am not being consistent because of what BiB and you said. Yeah...OK. Keep trying Sparkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts