Two quotes worth repeating

Stinger · 09-16-07, 02:50 PM

From the best General this country ever produced and the best President it ever had.

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.

Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."
~Robert E. Lee, 1863

************************************************** ****

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."
~President Abraham Lincoln

Think they still apply?

The silenced majority · 09-16-07, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

From the best General this country ever produced and the best President it ever had.

Funny, I was thinking it was the same guy.

Good quotes anyhow.

Chanda · 09-16-07, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."
~President Abraham Lincoln

President Lincoln never said that, but even if he had, he would certainly have understood the difference between a real war and the war profiteering scheme in Iraq.

Honest, It Wasn't Abe's Comment - washingtonpost.com

1069 · 09-16-07, 11:24 PM

A little off topic, but since this thread is based on a bogus and now thoroughly debunked premise anyway, I'll just add that I was watching some show on some educational cable channel today (I think it was about the Little Ice Age and how it changed our culture) and it said that George Washington was the largest manufacturer of rye whiskey in the US in his day. And that Jefferson was one of the biggest producers of beer, which he brewed at Monticello.

It's just... interesting that they had time for such pursuits; I usually don't imagine them doing anything but sitting around in powered wigs, being all politician-y. I try not to think about what else they did, since I don't like to think about living in a country founded by slave-owners.
But still, this beer and whiskey thing was interesting, I thought.
It adds another dimension to them, a not entirely unfavorable one.

Stinger · 09-16-07, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanda

President Lincoln never said that

Honest, It Wasn't Abe's Comment - washingtonpost.com

Too bad it sounds just like something he would have said at the time.

Quote:

, but even if he had, he would certainly have understood the difference between a real war and the war profiteering scheme in Iraq.

Has there ever been a war when someone didn't profit?

Sergeant Stinger1 · 09-16-07, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

From the best General this country ever produced and the best President it ever had.

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.

Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."
~Robert E. Lee, 1863

************************************************** ****

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."
~President Abraham Lincoln

Think they still apply?

---
Hey thats not bad!

Good post,

nice quotes.

Maybe we should send that to Bush and see if he is willing to yield his command to someone more intelligent than him. You know like some kid in the 5th grade that would be willing to do Bushs job better.

niftydrifty · 09-16-07, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.

Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."
~Robert E. Lee, 1863

I was just about to call out Stinger on the bogus Lincoln quote. good catch, Chanda.

This Lee quote doesn't quite apply. I mean, what happened "from the start" with this war in Iraq? most of the MSM was almost totally aboard with it!

However, there WERE some that did see all the strategic defects from the very beginning, and they said so. They highlighted the fact that tensions between Sunnis and Shiites would cause instability in the region and that the US occupation would become a quagmire. They were nearly all ignored, at first. fortunately, most of the country has now caught on. but it was too late.

(some links are likely dead. I collected these years ago)

Harry Dunphy, Associated Press, 10/5/2002: "Even before hostilities erupt in a war with Iraq, what happens the day after President Saddam Hussein falls is raising critical questions. A new and legitimate authority may take time to emerge, civil war could break out between the majority Shiite and minority Sunni Arabs, and Kurds in the north might press for an independent state, which U.S. ally Turkey opposes."

" The possible pitfalls are huge: The Consequences of War" by William Raspberry, March 2, 2003

" The U.S. is not prepared: Unready for the Aftermath" by Kenneth H. Bacon and George Rupp, March 6, 2003

Paul Krugman, 5/16/2003: "Saddam wasn't a threat to America -- he had no important links to terrorism, and the main U.S. team searching for weapons of mass destruction has packed up and gone home. Meanwhile, true to form, the Bush team lost focus as soon as the TV coverage slackened off. The first result was an orgy of looting -- including looting of nuclear waste dumps that, incredibly, we failed to secure. Dirty bombs, anyone? Now, according to an article in The New Republic, armed Iraqi factions are preparing for civil war."

Will Sunnis fight Shiites in Iraq? by Juan Cole, July 22, 2003

" How the US is Sowing Gridlock in Iraq" by Juan Cole, March 14, 2004.

" Welcome to the quagmire" by Juan Cole, March 19, 2004

" Iraq on the brink of anarchy" by Robert Fisk, April 6, 2004

" The U.S. Is Losing Control in Iraq" by Juan Cole, April 6, 2004

" How Iraq Is About to Explode" Robert Fisk, August 6, 2004

" Crushing Iraq's insurgency may take up to 10 years" Middle East Online (UK), August 23, 2004

" Iraq resistance far from over" New Straits Times, August 28, 2004

" Saddam's Baath Party is back in business" Knight Ridder Newspapers. September 7, 2004

" Why the insurgency won't go away" Boston Review, October, 2004

Now, compare those earlier March 2003 assessments, with this one:

Quote:

Dick Cheney on Meet the Press: 03/16/03:

Russert: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

Cheney: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.

I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."

Stinger, if your neocon heroes had paid attention to the left wing media, we'd be a hell of a lot better off right now.

bhkad · 09-17-07, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

Funny, I was thinking it was the same guy.

Good quotes anyhow.

Lincoln was never a General. Grant was not a great president. Lee was never president.

But the quotes ARE very good!

bhkad · 09-17-07, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sergeant Stinger1

---
Hey thats not bad!

Good post,

nice quotes.

Maybe we should send that to Bush and see if he is willing to yield his command to someone more intelligent than him. You know like some kid in the 5th grade that would be willing to do Bushs job better.

Whenever you do that it is as though you are intentionally trolling to get a rise out of the Bush supporters, because maybe you get a thrill from provoking this type of response.

Yours is a form of self-gratification.

bhkad · 09-17-07, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

I was just about to call out Stinger on the bogus Lincoln quote. good catch, Chanda.

This Lee quote doesn't quite apply. I mean, what happened "from the start" with this war in Iraq? most of the MSM was almost totally aboard with it!

However, there WERE some that did see all the strategic defects from the very beginning, and they said so. They highlighted the fact that tensions between Sunnis and Shiites would cause instability in the region and that the US occupation would become a quagmire. They were nearly all ignored, at first. fortunately, most of the country has now caught on. but it was too late.

(some links are likely dead. I collected these years ago)

Harry Dunphy, Associated Press, 10/5/2002: "Even before hostilities erupt in a war with Iraq, what happens the day after President Saddam Hussein falls is raising critical questions. A new and legitimate authority may take time to emerge, civil war could break out between the majority Shiite and minority Sunni Arabs, and Kurds in the north might press for an independent state, which U.S. ally Turkey opposes."

Paul Krugman, 5/16/2003: "Saddam wasn't a threat to America -- he had no important links to terrorism, and the main U.S. team searching for weapons of mass destruction has packed up and gone home. Meanwhile, true to form, the Bush team lost focus as soon as the TV coverage slackened off. The first result was an orgy of looting -- including looting of nuclear waste dumps that, incredibly, we failed to secure. Dirty bombs, anyone? Now, according to an article in The New Republic, armed Iraqi factions are preparing for civil war."
[...]

Now, compare those earlier March 2003 assessments, with this one:

Stinger, if your neocon heroes had paid attention to the left wing media, we'd be a hell of a lot better off right now.

Let's walk through this slowly.

Your name is Ariel Sharon and you are the Prime Minister of Israel and as a former military General you understand the importance of a strong and bristling military in not only deterring attacks from your hostile neighbors on all sides of your small country, but also in defending against attack. But you also know that no matter how formidable your military is, the only thing your enemies need do to destroy your nation is to explode a small nuclear device or two over Israel before you can respond and Israel would cease to exist.

You must not allow that to happen.

One day your intelligence service reports several clues suggest the possibility that your mortal enemy, Iraq, is planning a WMD attack on Israel and as you simultaneously try to verify the information you also explore ways to eliminate the threat if it is real.

You get enough evidence that the WMD threat is real and you tell your Generals to prepare a first strike on Iraq.

But you are well aware of the possible effect of a 1st strike on Saddam's Iraq.

Saddam has been courting favor in the Jihadist 'world' by paying martyr families in Palestine. He has built a huge Mosque in Baghdad "four of its minarets resemble the barrels of Kalashnikov rifles. Another four look like Scud missiles, and the similarities are not a mistake."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in537051.shtml

He is wrapping the cloak of Islam around him to use as a way to win the loyalties of jihadists so that if a non-Islamic force attacked his nation the Islamic Ummah might rise up to his aid as is mandated in the Koran.

So, Ariel Sharon, you need to prevent a WMD attack on your country but you must recognize that striking Iraq 1st would mean starting a regional Holy War.

What do you do?