Gotta love that Hackworth

[monkeyboy]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35534

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Yep he tells it like it is

by the way, we do have a bunch of career brown nosers right
now running the show.

The officers club is now fully opened, and running this.

They will get people killed (on both sides mind you)

[Howardx]

2. i like hack

he answers his email:)

[DinahMoeHum]

3. Tee Hee !! "Perfumed Princes" indeed !!

starting with King CandyAss Pussy in the WH.

:kick:

[J B]

4. Not that what this officer did was right.

But I'd MUCH sooner accept this than terrorizing the civilian population with 2000 lb LGB's hitting into empty buildings near major civilian areas.

[dfong63]

5. i disagree

we should not have every commander making up his own rules about what's permissible during interrogation. the behavior that Hackworth is defending, was a violation of rules that were undoubtedly written with the utmost care and forethought. don't forget the big picture. it's not all about getting "results". you also have to consider the longer term consequences of breaking the rules. those consequences include: the fact that if our side does something, the other side will be justified in doing it also. not just in this war, but in every war.
the fact that if commanders are allowed to break one rule with impunity, they'll be encouraged to break others. the fact that illegal interrogation techniques will harm the army's public image among the populace of Iraq.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. I smell yet another rat

Hack is all worked up about the officer who threatened an Iraqi by shooting his weapon near the guy. It's against the rules of engagement under normal circumstances, but it's A-O-K when life and limb are at risk. Which, it seems, was the case.

So this turns into a cause celebre and brings all the fulminating about "political correctness" out. Even Hack took the bait.

I'm also a fan of Hackworth, even though I've disagreed with him on many occasions. If Hack says it, I have at least a little confidence in the truth of it. But this whole dust-up screams Karl Rove and has drained some of the attention off of the inconvensiently impolitic Jessica Lynch, and her fellow soldier who won't take her lickin' like a man, Shoshana Johnson.

Hack is right, when you come down to it. Battle is a messy, ugly business, and bringing the "offender" up on charges over this episode is absurd, to say the least. And I'm sure it happens pretty often. The Iraqi Irregulars are driven by the fanaticism of patriotism, and don't play by any set of rules.

So why now, why this, why this way?

It screams Karl Rove. It screams Spin.

--bkl

[CarinKaryn]

7. Why are you linking articles from a Right Wing site?

How can you belive anything that's posted there?

[Catherine Vincent]

8. Tell me about it...

[Dogmudgeon]

9. David Hackworth is an excellent critic of the RW/Military "romance"

http://hackworth.com/

You really have to read some of his stuff to understand his point of view. He is not a standard-issue wingnut. His opinions are all over the political map, but are self-consistent. He has consistently been in the corner of the Veteran, against abusing the Constitution in the name of National Security, and he's very cutting in his remarks about the chickenhawks.

He also took the hide off of Bill Clinton on several occasions, but always came clean when the accusations were proved to be unfounded. That's impossible to find in the modern Right Wing.

WorldNetDaily publishes his stuff, but they've been distancing themselves from the Bush Administration over the last year or so. It's hard to tell why, but I think there is discord in the cabal. The military and intelligence communities are now well-aware that Bush is using them like crack whores, and they're outraged.

Besides, there are several right-wingers with whom I frequently take issue, but they more than make up for it by showing the world a truer picture of conservative thought than the Neo-Cons. Buchanan, LaRouche, many of the "gold bugs" all are worth reading, especially if you have confidence in your own beliefs.

--bkl

[jayfish]

10. While That My Be True As Of Late...

I think he is dead wrong on this issue.

-SNIP-
In my outfit, West would have gotten a pat on the back and been told to press on. But even though the double-crossing turncoat spilled his guts – enabling West's unit to ambush the ambushers – West is looking at serious slammer-time if found guilty by court-martial.
-SNIP-

How the hell does he know who West's men ambushed. For all he knows the Iraqi could have fingered his in-laws. I'm sure that under the circumstances that Iraqi would have told West he was the second coming if that's what West wanted to hear.

Jay

[Dogmudgeon]

14. I also think he's wrong

But not for the same reasons.

First, the news I've heard is that the troop was either ambushed, or on the receiving end of unwanted "activity". Either way, the anxiety of combat pressure was high, and there may have been an actual threat. If West did err, was it in the heat of combat, or was it a safe, well-contained, interrogation scenario?

This issue has also made it to the radio; I heard it described earlier today.

As to Hackworth, like most leaders who actually are leaders, he is a man who acts with passion, and sometimes jumps the gun himself. The Powers-that-Be also know that he's well-respected among active military people, vets, and anyone who is concerned for their well-being. So I think he's been played this time, which is how I think he's wrong.

Whatever LtCol West did will be disputed, because the big problem with episodes like this is we really can't be sure of what happened.

And why not? First, war is messy, and most of what passes as the "truth" is revisionism anyway.

Second, and much more my concern, is that Team Bush has complete control over military communication, and has proven time and time again that they are willing to lie, cheat, and steal, to get what they want. So I'm more than willing to hold my own fire on West for the time being.

The guy West was interrogating was frightened, I'm sure. But we still don't know a damn thing about this guy, either. And I'm willing to bet we won't -- ever. This whole thing stinks of a political "op", and will likely be conveniently gone in about nine days.

Cui Bono? -- Team Bush!

And that's why I say, "I smell a rat".

--bkl

[jayfish]

16. From The Mouth Of Lt. Col. West Himself...

Story

-SNIP-
The Times contacted Col. West in Iraq via e-mail this week. He responded by providing a narration of his actions on Aug. 21 when he questioned the Iraqi in a town north of Tikrit. He went to question the Iraq policeman after an informant said the detainee was involved in deadly ambushes of American soldiers.
"I did not want to expose my soldiers to a possible attack," he said. "When they told me they were not progressing I decided to go along. I asked for soldiers to accompany me and told them we had to gather information and that it could get ugly.
"I did use my 9 mm weapon to threaten him and fired it twice. Once I fired into the weapons-clearing barrel outside the facility alone, and the next time I did it while having his head close to the barrel. I fired away from him. I stood in between the firing and his person.
-SNIP-

Earlier Discussion

The fact's don't seem to be too contested on this one. But, either way, we both believe he is wrong.

Jay

[Dogmudgeon]

20. It just gets stranger

I do believe this one is bigger than the both of us, Jayfish.

The Times contacted Col. West in Iraq via e-mail this week. He responded by providing a narration of his actions on Aug. 21 when he questioned the Iraqi in a town north of Tikrit.

Now what officer in his right mind writes e-mail on the record without careful consultation with the higher brass?

Even if it is to a right-wing rag.

I know the guy's a lieutenant colonel, but everything works its way up the chain of command. Everything. This just "does not compute".

So far I've heard four different takes on the matter from the media, each of them slightly different, and three of them ranting about how "political correctness" or "the liberal media" is handicapping our troops' ability to win the war, just like in Vietnam. (Imagine that!)

Yep ... a mighty big rat ...

--bkl

[monkeyboy]

12. Just recv'd an email response from Hackworth

in which he referred to "making those bastards in Washington listen". Hardly the response of a wing-nut...

[monkeyboy]

11. Why do you have such a knee-jerk reaction?

I don't automatically "believe" anything, no matter where it comes from. I just happen to think this is an intersting article, coming from someone with Hackworth's real world experience. I especially enjoyed the part about the rush to war and lack of preparation. Read the whole article before commenting, please.

[dutchdemocrat]

13. Read Paul Sperry's articles - he's their Washington Bureau Chief

Surprised? I was too.


Paul Sperry is Washington bureau chief for WorldNetDaily.com. He is author of "Crude Politics: How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism" (WND Books, an imprint of Thomas Nelson Publishers).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=139


Yes, Bush lied
Monday, October 06, 2003 by Paul Sperry -- WASHINGTON – A year ago, on Oct. 1, one of the most important documents in U.S. history was published and couriered over to the White House. The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley, includ ...

The real 9-11 conspiracy
Thursday, September 11, 2003 by Paul Sperry -- WASHINGTON – The 9-11 attacks have spawned a cottage industry of conspiracy theories that has only grown larger with the recent release of the congressional report on pre-9-11 intelligence. One of the most popular theories argues that P ...

Osama bin Forgotten
Monday, September 08, 2003 by Paul Sperry -- WASHINGTON – Why is Osama bin Laden still a threat to America two years after President Bush promised to capture him "dead or alive"? Why does Bush continue to appease Pakistan, where bin Laden is hiding, even when Pakistan bars our milita ...

Playing politics with security
Friday, August 15, 2003 by Paul Sperry -- WASHINGTON – Ever wonder if the tough-talking Texan in the Oval Office and his tough-looking homeland security czar are really doing all they can to protect you and your loved ones from another al-Qaida attack? If you don't, you ...

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Thomas "God's Favorite Publisher" Nelson published THAT?

Jesus H. Christ, Incorporated, now you know there's a rift in the Rectal Right community!

--bkl

[dutchdemocrat]

18. Sperry Voted for Bush

And was Farah's choice (the owner) for the top job in DC. Sperry didn't like what he saw obviously. Kudos to Farah for keeping him on, though I notice he is on the bottom of the list of contributors and rarely gets in op-eds anymore. I think he is kept to make worldnetdaily look less biased. But I have seen other lefty stuff in their as well.

Not that I lurk there, but I have contacted Sperry about that article by email and asked him if that leaked document he has is impeachment material.

...

[SahaleArm]

21. SFTT link instead.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=39&rnd=162.71248603722975

[PapaClay]

17. Yup

He's walked his talk and the chickenhawk war-mongerers know it.

They fear him.

[monkeyboy]

19. And in his email he referred to himself and others as "we critics"

He was talking about the Bush administration. It's clear he is no fan of the current regime.