Command Responsibility and Bush Failures

WalterM140 wrote:

Operation Provide Relief in Somalia began in August 1992,

I have a quote too. It's even from globalsecurity.org, and it gives the
start
of US involvement as December 9, 1992 --- after Bush One lost the election:

You sad, pathetic little troll, now you are arguing U.S. involvement didn't
begin until December?

That is how globalsecurity.org characterized it.


You fool, a large armed U.S. force did not appear until
December and was sent it at the request of the U.N.

So GHWB was employed by the UN?

Operation Restore Hope
was
an unqualified success and you snipped the part of my post where it was
praised
for preventing 200,000 Somalis from starving to death.

Not germane. GHWB sent in troops -after- he lost the election. An
uncharitable person might theink he did that just so the incoming Clinton
administration could stumble, which they promptly did.

One thing we saw with Clinton -- his SecDef -was- fired. Rummy keeps hanging
on, with the Howdy-Doodie praises of GWB in support.

You are the most
pathetic troll I've seen on this news group.


Don't like being caught in lies, huh?

Walt

WalterM140 wrote:

Because Bufdrvr is in a dream world of slaveish devotion to Bush and his
agenda.

You fool, I'm not a member, nor will I ever be, of any political party. I tend
to vote Republican in presidential elections, but I have voted democrat for the
Senate seats in my home state of record. You, on the other hand, are a blinded,
partisan fool who blames Bush for every action taken by the military while
excusing Clinton and blaming Bush ("the elder") for Somalia. You're an idiot
that's trying to have things both ways.

Go away troll.

If he's a detainee, he certainly is.

According to the Genevea Convention, he certainly is.


A Saudi shooting an AK-47 at U.S. military troops in Iraq is an unlawful
combatant with no protection under the Geneva Convention. And you wonder why I
doubt your military service?

Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with
the
Geneva Conventions?

Good point.

Because official U.S. policy is to treat all captured personnel in accordance
with the Geneva Convention. Because we choose to do that, does not mean they
are granted automatic status under Geneva.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

WalterM140 wrote:

You sad, pathetic little troll, now you are arguing U.S. involvement didn't
begin until December?

That is how globalsecurity.org characterized it.

Idiot. U.S. forces were involved from the beginning. Only an idiot would argue
against facts.

You fool, a large armed U.S. force did not appear until
December and was sent it at the request of the U.N.

So GHWB was employed by the UN?

Employed? Are you that dumb? The U.N. made a request, the U.S. obiliged, I
thought you leftys loved this kind of U.N. stuff?

Not germane. GHWB sent in troops -after- he lost the election. An
uncharitable person might theink he did that just so the incoming Clinton
administration could stumble, which they promptly did.

So the 200,000+ lives that Bush saved by securing the food shipments is
irrelevant and it was all a big right wing conspiracy to set up Clinton? At
this point I think I may have to begin ignoring you. If you truely believe
that, while at the same time claiming "ultimate responsibility" by Bush leaves
him to blame for every infraction by every U.S. military member, than it
becomes a waste of my time dealing with you. You are beyond hope.

Don't like being caught in lies, huh?


Lies? All I've ever posted were facts. Only a retarded troll like you would
call the fact that U.S. military involvement in Somalia began in August 1992 a
lie.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

WalterM140 wrote:

I believe he used the term "highest levels of civilian control" or words to
that effect.

So you didn't even read the article? What a boob. His "highest levels of
civilian control" ended at the SecDef, not the President. Post an article and
then not even know what it says. Typical troll.

No comment about Webb? He's one of my heroes, and he did call the invasion
of
Iraq the greatest strategic ---blunder- may have been the word he used.

Why should I? I could do a 10 minute search on the internet and find an article
written by someone touting OIF as the greatst political-military victory in
history. Would you post that if you happened across it?

I haven't said they -never- had been granted the protections of the GC. What
seems obvious is that by last fall, pressure was being put on some that was
well outside the bounds of what the GC calls for.

Now we can talk about lies.

On 11 May you posted this:

I said:

"From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention."

You responded:

"Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that any
large
number have."

Again, I tried to attach abuse reports to the growing involvement of foriegn
fighters when I wrote:

"It wasn't until the introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry."

You retorted:

"You can try and show that."

So once again you a proven troll, and now I think my job is done. In fact I
notice I'm the only one dealing with you which means I'm the only one dense
enough to have not realized how hopeless you are. See ya troll.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

(WalterM140) wrote in message ...
No one has ever shown any hard evidence that the US intelligence
abotu WMDs in Iraq was substantively in error.

Except we can't find them.



Precisely. If we could find the evidence provided by US
intelligence I'll bet it would show that the analysts
concluded Iraq had no WMDs. The administration statements
on WMDs appear to be deliberate lies, not errors.

--

FF

From: (WalterM140)


BUFDRVR sends:

snip

According to Walt, its because Bush ordered
it, or somehow (through his "behavior") condoned it.

Bush is ultimately responsible.


The logical extension of that is Bush isn't responsible because he works for
and is employed by the United States citizenry. Since one can delegate
authority but not responsibility every U.S. citizen is responsible for what
happened even if they didn't vote for Bush.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Your humble narrator was quoted:

WalterM140 wrote:

I believe he used the term "highest levels of civilian control" or words to
that effect.

So you didn't even read the article? What a boob. His "highest levels of
civilian control" ended at the SecDef, not the President. Post an article and
then not even know what it says. Typical troll.


Well, here's what the Military Times editorial said:

"But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges,
it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the
military hierarchy and its civilian leadership."

That would seem to be covered by the phrase, "words to that effect."

Also, I didn't post the article originally. It does back up substantially
what I said. The president is ultimately responsible for what the military
does or doesn't do. Or are you saying that the president -can't- sanction the
SecDef over -his- failures? That responsibility stops at the SecDef and
-cannot- go further? I mean, seriously now, Rumsfeld has -said- he is
responsible for these abuses. He said that. And to whom does he report? The
president is ultimately responsible -- to the American people, who, pray to
God, will kick his Connecticut cowboy butt all the way back to Crawford come
November.

No comment about Webb? He's one of my heroes, and he did call the invasion
of
Iraq the greatest strategic ---blunder- may have been the word he used.

Why should I?

Because Webb is a graduate of the Naval Academy, former Marine Officer and
true American hero.

I could do a 10 minute search on the internet and find an article
written by someone touting OIF as the greatst political-military victory in
history.

You should do that then.

This was in the NY Times yesterday:

It was a measure of the troubles Mr. Bush is running into within his own party
that Senator Pete V. Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who usually sides with
the administration, expressed his frustration to Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld on Wednesday that he could find no clear vision in the
administration's Iraq strategy.

"I am very worried about how prepared the Iraqis are to take over this
responsibility and, secondly, what we have done to prepare ourselves and them
to work together to make this work," Mr. Domenici told Mr. Rumsfeld at a budget
hearing. "I can envision that this situation will not work, and that we won't
have an organizational structure that will do anything other than have
Americans fighting and us supplying those fighters with more and more money."

The unease among conservatives has also been given voice in recent days by a
number of influential commentators. George F. Will wrote in The Washington Post
on Tuesday of a series of "failures" by the administration for which no one was
held accountable, including post-war planning that was "botched." On Monday,
the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak wrote that there was a clear consensus
among Republicans in Congress, Republican fund-raisers, contributors and others
he had canvassed that Mr. Rumsfeld had to resign."

If you can find an article:

"touting OIF as the greatst political-military victory in
history."

I'd be glad to see it. Otherwise, you might consider stopping the
self-flagellation.

Would you post that if you happened across it?

Maybe. Such an article would be hard to find I am thinking. Pretty much every
one knows that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a disastrous failure.

I haven't said they -never- had been granted the protections of the GC.
What
seems obvious is that by last fall, pressure was being put on some that was
well outside the bounds of what the GC calls for.

Now we can talk about lies.

On 11 May you posted this:

I said: (that being BUFDRVR)

"From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention."

You responded:

"Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that any
large
number have."


I haven't seen anything that contradicts my statement. What seems to have
happened is that it became more and more obvious that OIF was foundering, that
pressure was ramped up on the detainees.

Again, I tried to attach abuse reports to the growing involvement of foriegn
fighters when I wrote:


What I said seems pretty well ringed about with qualifications. I don't have
enough information. We do know that at some point, many detainees were treated
like animals -- worse than animals -- by US servicemen.


"It wasn't until the introduction of foreign fighters that things got
blurry."

You retorted:

"You can try and show that."


Can you show that or not? Do you think that changing the subject and calling
me names will get you off the hook?

Walt