My versions are what succeed. They are what get the job done. I have proven that over 40 years. You do not tell me to do anything.

"You" have proven NOTHING to me. Except of course how you tend to ignore things when they don't fit with your preconcieved notions. Of course I don't tell you to do something. You can't tell a jack-a** "anything"!

"Rummy, you're doing a heckuva job!"

holy baananas! we are in agreement on a subject, bless you!

Compliment accepted with thanks.

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006ModeratemanI will respond to a request. I will not respond to a demand such as drmiler made.I was not assigned to combat in Vietnam much to my surprise. From 1964-1968 I was regular Army and thought in 1966 I was to be assigned to the 4th Div. As it turned out, my assignment as a nuclear weapons officer and the very sensitive information I obtained prevented my assignment anywhere where I might be captured. I did not learn that until 1986 when I was not selected for promotion to BG. I held most staff positions and had three commands. Two commands were LTC slots and one was a COL position. I was a Field Artillery Officer from 1963-1966. I then became a Finance Officer. I was recalled in 1981 to head the team that redesigned the Military Pay System for the Army Guard and Reserve. I had a total of 6 years on active duty and 24 years in the Active Reserve.

First I thank you for your service, From your time im military, you really should know, we go to war with the army we have.

I was totally against Bush going to Iraq, I thought it was a huge mistake, still do.

Opinions, even from generals are like assholes, everyone has one.

Tommy Franks stated, it was his decision to make a run to Bagdad and not secure towns he passed through, Rumsfeld gave Tommy his head and let general franks make all the decisions about how to conduct the war.

Were mistakes made? hell yes, but name a war that was not a fubar? The truth is even if we sent one million men, it would have been impossible to guard 25 million Iraqis, with the amount of weapons in iraq no one could have stopped the looting and subsequencely all the disapperance of said explosives.

Were mistakes made? hell yes, but name a war that was not a fubar? The truth is even if we sent one million men, it would have been impossible to guard 25 million Iraqis, with the amount of weapons in iraq no one could have stopped the looting and subsequencely all the disapperance of said explosives.

That is my point exactly, regardless of how many soldiers we could have sent to Iraq, it is impossible to keep every single one of them alive. There is just no way to know who is the terrorist and who is a civilian and where are all the weapons. Chances are this many soldiers would have died anyways. But Col makes it sound as if somehow this would have never happend had Bush not been in charge. Talk about stupidity at it's finest. BTW, keep in mind that some of those 2000+ dead died from accidents such as vehicle malfunctions and friendly fire.

Reply By: Charles.CPosted: Thursday, April 20, 2006Were mistakes made? hell yes, but name a war that was not a fubar? The truth is even if we sent one million men, it would have been impossible to guard 25 million Iraqis, with the amount of weapons in iraq no one could have stopped the looting and subsequencely all the disapperance of said explosives.That is my point exactly, regardless of how many soldiers we could have sent to Iraq, it is impossible to keep every single one of them alive. There is just no way to know who is the terrorist and who is a civilian and where are all the weapons. Chances are this many soldiers would have died anyways. But Col makes it sound as if somehow this would have never happend had Bush not been in charge. Talk about stupidity at it's finest. BTW, keep in mind that some of those 2000+ dead died from accidents such as vehicle malfunctions and friendly fire.

colgene bless his heart has no idea about what war really is, from his own mouth.

War is a collection of missions, some go well, some go bad, the whole Ideas of seven generals coming out at the same time to condemn bush and rummy smacks of colusion. Never has a general trashed the President while at war! Let alone 7 at the same time, somewhere behind the scenes is a liberal democrat pulling the generals strings. I for one am ashamed of them.

52 by Miranda Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Rummy, you're doing a heckuva job!"

is this sarcasm I smell myrrh? heh

Geeze colgene you couldn have at least acknowledged my lengthy reply to you.

Rumsfeld is actually more loyal than Bush. He splendidly followed the dictates of his commander in chief.

You have just proven my point. Bush with NO active military experience disregarded the planning of the most experienced combat veterans and sent 1/3 the number of troops they said was needed to secure Iraq.

Now lets look at the results-- After Bush said Mission Accomplished we had 90% of the deaths and injuries because we were unable to control 25 million people in a country the size of California with 135,000 troops. Just what those generals with untold combat experience said would happen. Most of our dead and injured are because of the way Bush choose to fight this war( a choice he had no experience to make- that was a military decision) and ALL of our dead and injured are because he attacked a country that did not pose ANY danger to this country.

Now lets look at the results

No , let's look at what you only see.

After Bush said Mission Accomplished we had 90% of the deaths and injuries because we were unable to control 25 million people in a country the size of California with 135,000 troops

Wait a minute, who are we fighting the insurgents or the iraqi people? You see what I mean, thi is stupid talk. We don't need 300,000 soldiers to control the Iraqi people, they are not the ones fighting us. And there are not 25 million insurgents in Iraq so you are talking from you a$$.

Most of our dead and injured are because of the way Bush choose to fight this war( a choice he had no experience to make- that was a military decision) and ALL of our dead and injured are because he attacked a country that did not pose ANY danger to this country.

More ignorance from a person with the body of an old geezer and the brain of a gorilla. This could have happend if we had 1 million soldiers in Iraq. Most of the deaths were not direct combat with insurgents (seems you're too stupid to see this), most died during non fighting situations where roadside bombs went off, something that could have happens if we had the combined military forces or Russia, England, China, Australia, Spain, Canada and US. They did not die fighting, they were murdered you stupid old goat.

For a guy with a military background you really suck at using it to your advantage. Even I see more than you do in a war. You sicken me sometimes Col.

Charles.C
You do not know what you are talking about. The issue of insufficient troops is now the position of MOST of the senior military. The lessons learned by our military are what is used to establish the tactics that we have used successfully. During my career I attended the same training as most of the military leaders of the country whose judgment was disregarded by AWOL George W. Bush. For example we all attended training such as:

Basis Branch Combat Training
Combat Intelligence
Command and General Staff College
War College

The decisions of Bush violated the teachings of ALL those schools.

The insurgents are Iraqi's. They are believed to be mostly former members of the Saddam military.

Our lack of troops made it impossible for our troops to accomplish the following missions:

Secure the cities where the Saddam loyalists have been operating from in their attacks on our troops.

Secure the over 200 Ammo Dumps that were the source of the explosives that have resulted in MOST of our dead and injured.

We could not seal the borders of Iraq and there are some terrorists operating in the country.

We were unable to protect the oil, water and power systems.

We have not been able to provide the security needed to allow anything like a normal life to return to the most populated areas in Iraq.

You and Bush do not what you are talking about. The proof is 3 years AFTER Mission Accomplished the death toll last month was near an all time high. When will it end? Bush is directly responsible for 2,400 dead Troops and over 17,500 combat injuries!!!!

They did not die fighting, they were murdered you stupid old goat.

Harsh and unwarranted. The standard expression is dying in a combat zone. Murder is not applicable in war; otherwise, 200,000 deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been genocide.

Harsh and unwarranted. The standard expression is dying in a combat zone. Murder is not applicable in war; otherwise, 200,000 deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been genocide.

OK bad choice of words. I admit it. Thanx for the correction.

But you do get my point? Right?

You do not know what you are talking about. The issue of insufficient troops is now the position of MOST of the senior military.

So 7 is most of them? And what about those who think the opposite, they don't count? You're just plain ignorant. Nothing more, nothing less. You'll never get it cause you don't want to. You're not worth it, at all.

Charles.C

You had better read the books that Generals Trainor and Zinni wrote. They are FULLY documented with all the sources. Better read what the two CIA section chiefs said about how Bush IGNORED the Intlligence that said Saddam was NO THREAT to this country in late 2002 and early 2003.

Stevendedale

You know more then almost ALL the 4 star generals. What an ass you are. THE reason the insergency was able to grow and KILL and INJURE our troops is because we were unable to control them in Iraq after Saddam Fell. You stupid people on this Bloig site set your self up as knowing more then the military professiuonals that have spent their lives protecting this country. How so many stupid and totally uninformed people got on one web site is amasing. Beloe is a E-Mail I receved from General Zinni's assistant. You are a sad group of people:

Gene:
Your blog is dead on. Just a few weeks before the war started, Zinni testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said, "This is the wrong war, at the wrong time." We can take out Sadaam easily, any time we want. But, he said that if the president decided to do this anyway, then, for the sake of the troops, it must be done correctly, i.e., as outlined in the CENTCOM OPLAN, revised and updated over a decade, as you mentioned. That plan called for between 400,000 and 500,000 troops, the vast majority of which were NOT true combatants (grunts), but rather security for logistics and for the Iraqi infrustrure, civil affairs and political specialist, humanitarian and medical units, etc. One of the many stupid things done was disbanding the military, and the bureaucracy (de-Baathitization); another was the C

Charles.C

You had better read the books that Generals Trainor and Zinni wrote. They are FULLY documented with all the sources. Better read what the two CIA section chiefs said about how Bush IGNORED the Intelligence that said Saddam was NO THREAT to this country in late 2002 and early 2003.

Stevendedale

You know more then almost ALL the 4 star generals. What an ass you are. THE reason the insurgency was able to grow and KILL and INJURE our troops is because we were unable to control them in Iraq after Saddam Fell. You stupid people on this Blog site set your self up as knowing more then the military professionals that have spent their lives protecting this country. How so many stupid and totally uninformed people got oh one web site is amassing. Below is an E-Mail I received from General Zinni’s assistant. You are a sad group of people:


Gene:
Your blog is dead on. Just a few weeks before the war started, Zinni testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said, "This is the wrong war, at the wrong time." We can take out Sadaam easily, any time we want. But, he said that if the president decided to do this anyway, then, for the sake of the troops, it must be done correctly, i.e., as outlined in the CENTCOM OPLAN, revised and updated over a decade, as you mentioned. That plan called for between 400,000 and 500,000 troops, the vast majority of which were NOT true combatants (grunts), but rather security for logistics and for the Iraqi infrustrure, civil affairs and political specialist, humanitarian and medical units, etc. One of the many stupid things done was disbanding the military, and the bureaucracy (de-Baathitization); another was the CPA, which is theory might have been OK, but in practice, a disaster (I was in Kuwait and Iraq after the war as a private contractor).
Since the "shit hit the fan" when Zinni answered a direct question on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago, about who was responsible, and who should go (Rummey), I have received thousands of emails through my Zinni web site. The vast majority are positive, and praise Zinni for stating the obvious - if you are well-to-reasonably informed about the facts. The press has had a heyday with the other generals joining in.
Your point about the relieving of the Army COS is one that should get far more ink/air time. Tow the policy line, or get fired - really encourages dissenting views and open dialog, doesn't it.
What is distressing to me, however, has been the receipt of terrible hate mail (about 2 dozen) by former military and uninformed civilians, some of them REALLY bad.
What really tears Zinni up is the casualties. It is not unusual for him to start a conversation with me, "We lost two more Marines (soldiers) today, before that news is on the net or media - he knows exactly what our KIA/WIA count is at every minute, and he agonizes over each unnecessary loss.
I am a former Marine, who served in Vietnam for 13 months ('67-'68). Shit happens in conflict. But this is different, isn't it. I remember Jane Fonda being in Hanoi, and literally tore the Stars and Stripes paper to shreds in anger when I read that piece of news. I would have torn HER to shreds, were it possible.
I guess the term Lessons Learned has been lost.
(I must stop this - this email could end up being dozens of pages!)
Thanks for your comments.
Fred Williams
----- Original Message -----
From: gene abel
To: fred@fwaconsultants.com
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: My Blog and new book

I agree with Gen Zinni and below is a Blog about my feelings on the Iraq War. Please pass on my comments to Gen Zinni. If you would like to see my Web Site for my upcoming book (June 2006) click on: www.saveusanow.com.

Thank You,
Gene P. Abel
COL, USAR Ret.






America Should Thank our Generals

By COL Gene
Posted Saturday, April 15, 2006 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics


The undeniable truth about Iraq has been confirmed by the detailed information being provided by our most senior retired military leaders. Some try and deflect the real culprits by saying WHY did these Generals not come forward at the time? First, many of the facts now coming to light were classified and when The Army Chief of Staff did disagree with Bush he was removed so that any other similar minded officials would take note.

The two issues that been confirmed beyond any doubt by the information that has been revealed by our generals are:

Iraq was NO DANGER to the United States in March 2003 when Bush invaded.

The conduct of the war was dictated by Bush/Cheney and executed by Rumsfeld was responsible for the vast majority of the deaths and injuries and for the hundreds of billions of tax dollars we have spent on that war.

Issue # 1. Danger from Iraq

Generals Zinni and Trainor in their books have documented that Iraq was incapable of ANY military action beyond limited operations in the central portion of Iraq. They had no Air Force, Navy nor had they an effective Army. They were limited by the No-Fly zones from operating in the northern and southern areas of Iraq. This was the military assessment apart from the issue of WMD. In addition, the total body of intelligence about WMD clearly indicated that at best Saddam had some old gas filled artillery shells from the first gulf war and even those were thought to be suspect because the gas over time tends to loose its potency. The assessment by the CIA, DIA, Dept of Energy, and Dept of State was that Saddam had no active nuclear program and was not in possession of ANY nuclear capability. The desire he may have had for such weapons did not present any danger. There was NO creditable evidence of any viable bio material or any way to employ such material.

The generals have confirmed that the decision to invade Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was made long before the attack on the United States.

On December 19, 2001 at a meeting between President Clinton and Pres-Elect Bush, Clinton told Bush that from his campaign statements it appeared Bush felt the two security issues most important to him were Missile Defense and Iraq. Bush confirmed that to Clinton. Clinton told Bush that he has a very different set of potential dangers- Al Qaeda, Middle East (Israel/Palestine conflict) and North Korea. Bush DID NOT RESPOND.

Right after the Supreme Court settled the 2000 election; VP Elect Cheney requested a security briefing from Secretary of Defense Cohen on Iraq. Not Iran, Not Al Qaeda, Not North Korea and not the Palestine issue- Just Iraq.

Gen Zinni, who was retired but serving as a security consultant at the Pentagon and who saw ALL the intelligence leading up to our invasion has stated he could not believe what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were saying about the danger from Iraq given the intelligence he was seeing. It did not square with the information that he was reviewing. General Zinni has stated that the intelligence and military assessment of Saddam clearly showed he was no danger to the United States and had only limited capability within certain areas in Iraq itself.

Former Secretary of the Treasury confirms that the plan to take action against Iraq was on the drawing board at the first Bush Cabinet meeting in early 2001 about eight months BEFORE 9/11 or ANY talk about the War On Terrorism.


Issue #2 The conduct of the Iraq War

Most of the American deaths and injuries occurred after Saddam fell during our occupation of Iraq. Most of the money spent occurred during the occupation phase of the war. The reason we sustained most of the deaths and injuries is because of the decision by Bush as implemented by Rumsfeld to disregard the military plan for the Iraq War.

Soon after Rumsfeld took over he asked for a briefing on the Iraq War Plans. That plan was designated as OPLAN 1003-98. It had been prepared and updated over the past ten years by the people who ran the first Gulf War and was the BEST military assessment of the way a war should be conducted against Iraq including the required manpower. That plan called for 500,000 troops to properly insure security when the existing government fell. When Rumsfeld heard of the manpower requirement he said that was not correct and told the military staff including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the COS of the Army that it would only take 125,000 troops. Gen Franks was directed by Rumsfeld to revise the plan. He returned some time later with a requirement for 300,000 troops. Bush went to war with about 150,000 to control a country the size of California with 24 million people including about 300,000 former Saddam military that were dispersed thought the country.

The lack of manpower that resulted from the decision by Bush and implemented by Rumsfeld to abandon the most senior military advice and planning resulted in the following after Saddam fell:

We could not secure the several hundred Ammo Dumps spread thought Iraq. This is where the insurgents got the explosives and weapons they used to kill about 2,000 and injure over 15,000 of our young man and women.

We could not control the growing conflict between the factions in Iraq that have killed and injured our troops. Today this failure threatens a Civil war in Iraq.

We could not secure the borders and prevent outside terrorists from entering Iraq like Al Qaeda. Thus we have enabled terrorists, responsible for 9/11, to begin operating in Iraq where they did not operate PRIOR to our invasion.

We could not secure the oil, water and electrical infrastructure or provide the level of security that would enable Iraq to recover from Saddam and the impact of our invasion. After over three years, and three elections, the areas where the most people live are anything but secure.

The blood of 2,360 brave American Troops and over 17,000 combat injuries are on the hands of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld!

Other then the loss of life and injuries, the issue for me, having served in the military for 30 years, is that we have:

Deceived our brave and dedicated military into thinking their sacrifice was because America was threatened by Saddam and Iraq.

We sent our military into combat WITHOUT the troop levels or equipment to accomplish their mission and to minimize the danger to them.

Our President and his immediate subordinates are responsible for the loss of life and injuries to our military. We have not had many darker days in our history then during the administration of George W. Bush.

Again col you miss the point entirely! 7 Generals do NOT equal most of the generals. And the rest do NOT agree with your 7.

Stevendedale You know more then almost ALL the 4 star generals. What an ass you are. THE reason the insergency was able to grow and KILL and INJURE our troops is because we were unable to control them in Iraq after Saddam Fell. You stupid people on this Bloig site set your self up as knowing more then the military professiuonals that have spent their lives protecting this country. How so many stupid and totally uninformed people got on one web site is amasing. Beloe is a E-Mail I receved from General Zinni's assistant. You are a sad group of people:

"If" we're so stupid why do you keep coming back? Seems more like "you're" the stupid one.

No you miss the point. The generals and CIA officials that are speaking out are the people that were at the center of the intelligence and knew what was taking place. There are a lot more then seven generals that have stated that we did not send nearly enough troops to Iraq. Not all of them have joined in the call for Rummy to go. In reality it is Bush and Cheney that need to go. That is where the incompetence starts.

Give Zinni his due for being consistent - he still has the opinion he had before the war.

I hate to point out the obvious, but no military leader has ever had all that he thought he needed. Hindsight has proven some of Zinni's pre-war assessment to be correct, but I don't think putting half a million troops into Iraq was feasible. Furthermore, had we done so we would have been hearing far louder squealing about "occupation" than we have (which was loud enough, thank you) and turned Iraq into what the insurgent terrorists would consider a "target-rich environment."

Some of the considerations were political, and rightly so. Some right, some wrong. Deal with it.

No you miss the point. The generals and CIA officials that are speaking out are the people that were at the center of the intelligence and knew what was taking place. There are a lot more then seven generals that have stated that we did not send nearly enough troops to Iraq. Not all of them have joined in the call for Rummy to go. In reality it is Bush and Cheney that need to go. That is where the incompetence starts

BTW, ain't happening. Deal with it! No "you" miss the point. And I'll prove it. Here is a statement by Major General Rick Lynch. What have you to say now?

MG R. Lynch stated this week - Bordering on peace “We believe that 90 percent of the suicide attacks in Iraq are conducted by foreign fighters. Last year this time, across Iraq, we were averaging about 75 suicide attacks a day. Now we’re averaging about 24 a day. One of the reasons for that drawdown is not that Zarqawi and al-Qaida doesn’t want to do it anymore, but effective border operations have been capturing foreign nationals at the border. “Just before the first of the year, we were averaging about 44 captured foreign nationals per month, and now we’re down to less than half of that.” Iraq’s experts “In the western portion of Baghdad, mosque caretakers called the Iraqi Army and said, ‘Hey, there is a suspected IED in the vicinity of this mosque.’ The mosque wasn’t an active mosque, but it clearly is a cultural site. “The Iraqi Army responded - the 3rd Brigade of the 6th Iraqi Army Division. They brought in that division’s own explosive ordnance detachment to find the IED and to detonate the IED before it could detonate itself. Found and cleared.”

Daiwa

That is just what we did in the first Gulf War. We sent 495,000 troops. That was to deal with a much smaller country without the internal disputes that we knew existed in Iraq. Bush 41 listened to his military experts. Bush 43 did not. Look at the difference in the results!

There's no point people, Col has thought of every possible scenario for anything we say to him and he has developed a response that he believe adecuate to his ideas and therefor continue to convince himself that everyone else is wrong but him. Hell he does it even when people agree with him.

It's a waste of time plain and simple, he is completely convinced of his hatred towards Bush that a serious debate with his is not even possible. Hell, we have better chances of convincing him that the ocean is actually blue in some places and green in others.

Charles.C

It is not just me but most Americans (about 75%) believe we were wrong. Most of the senior generals also believe the way the war was conducted was a mistake. Soon just the people on JoeUser and the White House will still cling to the belief we acted correctly. Does your favorite book have a BIG White Rabbit with a gold pocket watch as one of the characters?

74 by COL Gene Thursday, April 27, 2006

Most of the senior generals also believe the way the war was conducted was a mistake.

gene there are 6000 retired generals, 8 hardly makes them 'MOST" please...