General Ricardo Sanchez's Book Slams Bush, Iraq Handling

The Washington Post points out that in the hubbub of the McClellan book, another scathing memoir has come out exposing the truth behind Iraq.

Getting lost in the media furor over McClellan's memoir is the new autobiography of retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the onetime commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment that the Bush administration "led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions."

Among the anecdotes in "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" is an arresting portrait of Bush after four contractors were killed in Fallujah in 2004, triggering a fierce U.S. response that was reportedly egged on by the president.

During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk:

"Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

A White House spokesman had no comment.

Comments

[Chillinout]

These two books, McClennan's and this one are only the first in a tidal wave of books that you are going to see coming out about this administration's blunders and crimes. I would even imagine that those in the administration that were going to wait until after January are going to start putting them out even sooner so that they will still be relevant.

[ErnestineBass]

I want to hear from a few of the 9/11 insiders.

[Vinca]

To ErnestineBass: I would LOVE for that to happen, I don't believe it will ever happen, SO MANY QUESTIONS, SO FEW ANSWERS

[JennyJay]

Let me hear the words loud and clear - - - - IMPEACH THE SCUM! I am a Democrat, why are we not
looking into impeachment here????

[eminencefrontman]

At this point there can, and will be, no impeachment: what good would dragging the nation through endless hearings and political maneuverings do for our present state? The best thing to do is minimize any further damage this administration is capable of inflicting and prepare for criminal indictments, possibly even international war crimes indictments, against the main actors who have perpetuated this deceit on the nation and the world. My hope is for Bush 43 to be the first president in history indicted and imprisoned after leaving office, and Dick Cheney can follow Spiro Agnew into the disgraced VP wing of a federal prison.

[Alethea]

Because several prominent Dems in the Senate Arms Committee are just as guilty for enabling the invasion, as well as torture and Guantanamo Bay. So it would come back to bite them just as hard as it would Bush if there was a true investigation.

Frankly, I don't care. If they were complicit, which they were, then I think they should be brave enough to suffer the consequences for the sake of the greater good. But unfortunately politics usually doesn't work that way. So that would be why Pelosi took impeachment off the table, not to save Bush, but to protect themselves.

[exmun]

There's not enough time. And the case is something thin for impeachment. I don't mean to defend Bush (I am NOT a Bush supporter), but the standard for impeachment is the commission of treason, bribery, or other 'high crimes and misdeameanors."

Even if you can make the case that the President was careless in his march to war in Iraq, there's little definitive evidence that he know the information was totally false. I understand that McClellan's book (and General Sanchez's book) seem to make the case that the record supporting the war was 'thin', but I don't believe anyone is saying that it was patently false... or that the President know of false information and still passed it off as true.

I hate to be in the camp of defending George Bush, because much of his actions are indefensible, but in the interest of offering a rational explanation and argument against impeachment. Like war, impeachment should be the exception and not the rule.

[esquire07]

There will be no Impeachement because "Impeachment off the Table" Pelosi is a worthless Coward. Why should she care about US Troops dying because of the Commander in Chiefs lies ? She is quite comfortable.

Pelosi is scum... a Bush Enabler.

[michiganfan]

Yep. If we let him go out on his own terms, he will pardon everyone in his administration (including himself and Cheney) to make sure we can never prosecute them. We have to get Bush and Cheney out of there before January.

[Ariadne]

Georgie's chickens are truly coming home to roost. Can't wait for the real invetigations to begin.

[Gary47]

Bush is so sick - I hope he gets help soon.

[TXfemmom]

Why did none of these people stand up immediately and tell the American people about this monster and his goons?

These well-educated people stood by and permitted Bush to destroy the country...reminds me of the Nazis in Germany.

[mamacat]

Ambassador Wilson tried to speak out. The White House launched a campaign to discredit him, even to the point of exposing the covert CIA operation to find WMDs. McClellan, in his book, has said that the release of the info in the NIE report relevant to Mr and Mrs Wilson was authorised by POTUS, the same man who said he would fire anyone who was found to have exposed Ms. Wilson and her network.
Newsbulletin: the President has just fired himself.

[quincey]

I'm not an American, but I wonder after all the revelations from within the Bush White House and the above insight from one of his top commanders in Iraq, what more does one need to launch impeachment proceedings against these people? Clearly, you've all been misled, we've all been misled!

[gorgol]

How did Bush convince the Christian Right that he was a BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN...as he went to war, and Now...we hear..he had a taste for blood, as long as it isn't his.....And Sanchez...as troops lost their lives...why didn't you resign and speak against all this?? WHY???!!! YOU BASTARD>..WHY??????
You would have lost your job...but all those against this war...would have hired you on.....Our soldiers were losing their life and limb...WHAT DID YOU LOSE SANCHEZ????..I"LL TELL YOU...NOTHING!!!!
and NOW you're making BOOK DEALS ON THE GRAVES OF OUR SOLDIERS...

[Chrys]

One thing I can not understand about this so called President and his administration who claimed to be a Christian and believes in LIFE. Americans you were fooled and the blame of having such a President and administration is on the American people.

This is the more reason why I am so disturbed when, Americans still talk about Sen John McCain, who would be no different from Bush. When you hear McCain talk you really feel disturbed. Here are some of what the so called Maverick says and I would hope Americans should see if there is anything like Bush here.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCISY40qns&feature=related

When McCain tells Americans such a thing, then you know we are looking at Iran or Venezuela as another target for the Neocons and the Republicans who think they can only be in Power when they frighten the American people with "We are at war".


Just listen to McCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOSYRm137Aw

Its a shame... this is the person who wants to the President of America. So why should an American President like George W. Bush not say such a thing, if the American people could select McCain.

"Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and KILL them! We must be tougher than hell! ."


Unfortunate


"

[michiganfan]

Yep, but 2 things are different now.

1 - The majority of Americans have (finally) woken up and realized what's happening in Iraq and realized who our "president" really is.

2 - We have a different kind of Democrat running against McCain. Obama has shown that he actually has a spine. He isn't afraid of looking weak when the Republicans act macho and bang on the national security drums, unlike the majority of Democrats we've been stuck with. (*cough* Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi *cough*) Obama isn't afraid of standing against the Republicans and telling them they're wrong.

I think Jon McCain is in a world of trouble now that Hillary is (almost) done trying to hog the spotlight. Now that we can turn the light on McCain, most Americans will see what would happen if we elected him. This election is going to be a landslide. I think McCain will have have trouble winning even Arizona and Texas.

[DFDoerr]

A "strategic blunder" that worked.
The horror!

[marinade]

"Horror" is pretty much the right word.

[blueshield]

Well, it sure worked if you're a defense contractor or construction corporation. Iraq has been a "goldrush" , as the Financial Times put it, for companies that make money on wars, and rebuilding after wars

You must own Haliburton stock. You're sure not a parent of a legless soldier.

[ErnestineBass]

DF stands for Dumb Fu...

[Ladyrantsalot]

DF, I take it you are one of those Republicans who thought that enhancing Iranian and Shiite power throughout the Persian Gulf was strategically brilliant.

[RedWhiteandBrooklyn]

"A "strategic blunder" that worked."

I would imagine that your head is so far up your bytt that you need a glass bellybutton just to be able to see where you're going, huh?

[Crowhaul]

In what world does invading a foreign country that has never once attacked nor threatened you work??? Do you not understand that Bush committed an act of aggression of the highest order per the Second Geneva Convention that we, in fact, ratified?

[Ammobob]

Another disgruntled FIRED General shoots his mouth off AFTER-THE-FACT, go figure.......At least he waited until he was FIRED, some honor there somewhere, I suppose......

[sd4david]

I guess you don't know military officails CANNOT criticize the president while active.

I guess you are part of the 28 % who support the president who started an illegal war based on lies, that cost over 4,000 American lives, over 600,000 Iraqi lives, and will cost over 1 TRILLION dollars.

[BUMbO]

How many "disgruntled" minions does this make? At some point even the insane far right has to acknowledge that something is not right with this president, that there may have been a mistake of historic proportions made. But I suppose there will always be those that are against America that will hide behind false patriotism and agree with this failed president.

[Ammobob]

I don't know, how many from last Administration? Is this an unprecedented amount for wartime? Everything is PERSPECTIV­E.........­.

[thirteen13]

The "mistake of historic proportions" was the Supreme Court awarding the presidency to Bush.

[esgabel]

Sanchez was let go because he did not agree with the course of the war and did let people know...when they realized he didn't buy into their view they replaced him...
Over and over the President has used the mantra that " we listen to the commanders on the ground", of course only those commanders who told him what he wanted to hear. (the last career officer was the one who was let go over the story that he was standing between the President and war in Iran)
This is consistent with recollections from McClelland's book.

[Marlyn]

"the last career officer was the one who was let go over the story that he was standing between the President and war in Iran."

Yes, Admiral Fallon.

[HerbTee]

Uh, Ammobob. Active duty military personnel CANNOT shoot their mouths off "during the fact" or be disrespectful against Bush...the Commander-in-Chief unless they want to be court-martialed and wind up in the brig! General Sanchez had no choice but to do it this way after his retirement. I am surprised he did this while Bush is still in office. Nevertheless, I am sure General Sanchez will have some very interesting stories to tell on how the Bush Administration totally screwed up this war...which we should never have waged in the first place!

[Mike169]

George Bush said he was listening to the generals on the ground - apparently he didn't listen to this one and fired him instead. What goes around...

[Paul]

I suppose General Sanchez was responsible only for the tactics on the ground. I wonder if he discussed his misgivings with the Joint Chiefs at the time - perhaps enough of them would have resigned to make a difference back when it counted.

But just once I wish these guys peddling insider books would say that they should have resigned rather than carry out this fiasco in Iraq.

But there is no money in that....

[qdog112]

In the military dissention is a career killer at best.

AT WORST - THEY TRUMP UP CHARGES FOR UCMJ.

YOU FOLLOW ORDERS!

[Mike169]

I thought he was listening to the generals on the ground? I guess that when they told him something he didn't like he replaced them.

[tcement]

What everyone seems to be missing is that 43 is just being a good son. What else could explain how a successful oilman-sports team owner-brush clearer turned governor--ignoring for the moment his past as a drunken, lying coward--could be such a disaster as President and war leader other than his need to make his father look good? After the future eight years of Jeb's presidency followed by that of Neil, 41 will rate as one of our best leaders. It's like no child left behind on a grander scale. The more Buchanan's, Polk's and Filmore's you add, the better everyone else will look.

[DumbDad]

Raises the question: did this man ever actually work for anybody but himself? Even in the baseball junket he was a 'part owner'. How can you learn any responsibility if you never have to answer to a boss and never lose your shirt when your business fails? So why did real generals ever take him seriously enough to look at the videoconference monitor in the first place?

[thirteen13]

Chaney runs Bush. So, Chaney is Bush's boss. Bush was born rich and privileged.

Why work president when Chaney wants to run things.

[Forester]

I will leave it to the sociologists to analyze, but I think these types of books fill an important service in coming back to some kind of consensus reality after all the lies and self delusion of post 9/11. Many, if not most Americans smelled something wrong and this just continued until the current unraveling of the administration. There will always be a dead-end group of 25-30% who are incapable of seeing the facts , and will not change their views. Some people, even very smart ones you might find down at the Hoover Inst., are so committed to a particular paradigm, that no evidence to the contrary will elicit change. This is human nature. Several HuffPosters argue that no new information comes from these books. That may be partially true, but that is not the point. They are validations that we the people are not crazy. The things we suspected were true, generally were true. You can argue, why didn't they do anything at the time? Well that is somewhat unfair unless you have been there. Richard Clark paid a pretty high price, but no one else really stepped up that early. I suspect many in the administration were seduced by the power and could not see the truth - also very human. Bush will be an object lesson for this country - kind of an ant- 9/11 event , that will also have a whole lot of unexpected consequences - we'll see.

[Marlyn]

"They are validations that we the people are not crazy."

Quite right.

[wadenelson1]

Except for your claim of having left it to the sociologists that was a pretty good analysis ,.

[marinade]

Is this the way our system is supposed to work? It is scary that Bush was allowed to do all this damage and there were no safeguards to stop him. All this talk about the balance of power between the different branches of government is a bunch of hooey.

[Marlyn]

Balance of power was the original design, which has now been dismantled by the GOP.

[Forester]

I propose a Constitutional amendment that requires the Executive and House be dominated by different parties. The most productive national governments we have had in the past 50 years have been when the the POTUS and the Houses are from different parties. That is where the balance of power would be. The parties would actually have to work together toward the center, and not be in rubber stamp mode/permanent campaign mode. The founding fathers had the second place presidential candidate serve as VP - now there's an idea, W with Kerry as VP.

[Marlyn]

I disagree. LBJ was able to push through many measures that helped the common people BECAUSE he had a Democratic majority, and it was a GOOD THING. Obama may be able to do the same, and restore credibility to government.