Retired General says Obama paralyzed with fear...

This is a breaking story on World Net Daily. A retired General says that Panetta saying, "The basic principle is we don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," is remarkable and incomprehensible. He said this is a change from America's doctrine since the Civil War.

In the words of Gen. Creighton Abrams, former U.S. Army chief of staff and former supreme commander in Vietnam: “A special word about the Dust Offs … Courage above and beyond the call of duty was sort of routine to them. It was a daily thing, part of the way they lived. That’s the great part, and it meant so much to every last man who served there. Whether he ever got hurt or not, he knew Dust Off was there. It was a great thing for our people.” Fast forward to current battlefields. We hear horror stories about patients waiting and dying because Dust Off didn’t launch or came too late. The launch standard in my unit in Vietnam was two minutes; today it is 15 minutes! Can anyone imagine a fire truck taking 15 minutes to get under way? I could go on and on, but one has to ask, why? Why the changes to an excellent, proven system? The answer is the Obama-Panetta Doctrine. In response to the horrible abandonment of dying Americans in Benghazi, Defense Secretary Panetta said: “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.” On its face, that is a remarkable, indeed incomprehensible, change from America’s doctrine in past wars. By that standard, there would have been no Normandy or Inchon. In fact, I can’t think of a war we fought in which we didn’t go into harm’s way without real-time information or to save lives – something the president refused to do in Benghazi. Dust Off would never launch in Vietnam under that doctrine.

This is quite an interesting perspective coming from a general. He also says this about Obama;

To fully understand the doctrinal change, one has to understand President Obama. He has a dearth of understanding of our military and military matters. We hear he is uncomfortable in the presence of ranking military and seldom meets with them. He is not a person who can make decisions, and he takes an extraordinary amount of time to do so, leading to such unseemly labels for a commander in chief as “ditherer in chief.”

To read the full story

Source

I guess you can make the same assessment with dumb dubya.

We all know that it was DICK making the military decisions.

you gotta love the amount of BS thats comes out right before election day.
I can not wait until it is over and the partisan sheep stop bleating.

ETA:hey OP nothing against you, just sick of this election and lies and i was never a fan of WND

World Net Daily?

WND

Enough said.

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

On its face, that is a remarkable, indeed incomprehensible, change from America’s doctrine in past wars. By that standard, there would have been no Normandy or Inchon. In fact, I can’t think of a war we fought in which we didn’t go into harm’s way without real-time information or to save lives – something the president refused to do in Benghazi. Dust Off would never launch in Vietnam under that doctrine.

The X-box generation with their overwhelming reliance on technology has fogged their minds as to the nature of reality - and this statement above is a testament to that.

Drones controlled from the comfort of a chair by individuals whom will never feel or experience the consequences of pressing their little red buttons is a testament to that too.

"Get the info boys - then we'll have a meeting - then we will take a vote - then we will take action........maybe - then we will get another commander in chief - then we will do it all again - for our corporate buddies"

Mean while our brave men and women at the coal face die.

Standby - the "source" trolls will be along shortly.

If he is saying that we are changing doctrines from throwing soldiers into unknown situations as fodder to something more logical and intelligent like knowing the situation before moving in...then I fully support it.

Just because someone is former Military, doesn't mean they are intelligent, in fact it may suggest quite the opposite.

reply to post by Taiyed


But didn't the usa win Vietnam with that tactic?

Oh wait....

Originally posted by muse7
World Net Daily?

Yeah. Well, like Fox also is so bad, but if you listened the MSM you won't know that there even was a real problem at Benghazi, would you?

Did the MSM tell you that Obama's Chicago babysitter for his children was a convicted terrorist and felon Bill Ayres?

Can you even imagine what the MSM would be saying about Mitt if that what his babysitter? It is just incredible what some of you people won't believe or accept. Obama has so many tell-tale factors about him and yet you folks ignore them all. Jesus never had it so good.

I used to give WND and Breitbart the benefit of the doubt as simply being biased aggregators. So is Matt Drudge. It doesn't stop me from checking D.R. a few times over a regular day. However....OP, like others, no offense because the story sounds important. I sure need to hear another source though.

After reading a story tonight about Obama's Virginia rally and it's problems....led by descriptions of who led Obama as a "Rapist" and "Molester of Women"? Well... That was a Breitbart story and the man they described that way Former President Bill Clinton. They're about 1 step from hitting my digital dust bin for any credibility.

This election is making AND breaking a number of people and organizations for a long time to come, IMO.

Originally posted by Taiyed
If he is saying that we are changing doctrines from throwing soldiers into unknown situations as fodder to something more logical and intelligent like knowing the situation before moving in...then I fully support it.

Just because someone is former Military, doesn't mean they are intelligent, in fact it may suggest quite the opposite.

Its obvious you dont understand the military or how it works.

In fluid situations all you can hope for is to get an update as you leave for the objective or are en route to it. If you sit around waiting for everything to be placed on the table people will die.

And for crying outloud dont feign concern for military personal while in the same breath insult the intelligence of a senior experienced officer whom, by the way, has a couple of degrees under his belt.

reply to post by Bixxi3

you gotta love the amount of BS thats comes out right before election day.
I can not wait until it is over and the partisan sheep stop bleating.

Yah, enough of this peaceful interlude. Lets just get back to conquering the world already.

Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full...

Originally posted by Taiyed
If he is saying that we are changing doctrines from throwing soldiers into unknown situations as fodder to something more logical and intelligent like knowing the situation before moving in...then I fully support it.

Just because someone is former Military, doesn't mean they are intelligent, in fact it may suggest quite the opposite.

This General wrote a book! Suppose that makes him pretty dumb huh? Also, dummy's don't make it to be generals.

reply to post by Rezlooper

Remember "I Pet Goat II"? The part early on where Obama is handed the truth of 911 and all the wars to follow? He is left sitting in the classroom on that same stool George Bush was on, staring down at the "Knowledge of Good and Evil". He looks worried...

Originally posted by Annee
WND

Enough said.

What does the site have to with it? Does that mean the general doesn't exist? The story is more of a commentary written by the general.

Originally posted by Rezlooper
This is a breaking story on World Net Daily. A retired General says that Panetta saying, "The basic principle is we don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," is remarkable and incomprehensible. He said this is a change from America's doctrine since the Civil War.

In the words of Gen. Creighton Abrams, former U.S. Army chief of staff and former supreme commander in Vietnam: “A special word about the Dust Offs … Courage above and beyond the call of duty was sort of routine to them. It was a daily thing, part of the way they lived. That’s the great part, and it meant so much to every last man who served there. Whether he ever got hurt or not, he knew Dust Off was there. It was a great thing for our people.” Fast forward to current battlefields. We hear horror stories about patients waiting and dying because Dust Off didn’t launch or came too late.......

How did someone get to general without understanding that "dustoffs" in vietnam were often CAUSED by sending troops into harms way with insufficient information about what was goign on??

Panetta didn't say "we have to know everything that is going on" - he said we need to have "SOME real tiem intelligence" - which is jsut basic common sense even in the military - it is why you ahve scouts and recon!!

clearly needing intelligence was not a requirement in Abrams day!!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I used to give WND and Breitbart the benefit of the doubt as simply being biased aggregators. So is Matt Drudge. It doesn't stop me from checking D.R. a few times over a regular day. However....OP, like others, no offense because the story sounds important. I sure need to hear another source though.

After reading a story tonight about Obama's Virginia rally and it's problems....led by descriptions of who led Obama as a "Rapist" and "Molester of Women"? Well... That was a Breitbart story and the man they described that way Former President Bill Clinton. They're about 1 step from hitting my digital dust bin for any credibility.

This election is making AND breaking a number of people and organizations for a long time to come, IMO.

I hear ya there, but the source on this WND story is Major General Patrick Brady, US Army (ret.), and it's in his own words and he has written a book as well. Most likely, no other news organization would have the balls to print it except for WND. My hats off to them!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


So, while you'd be waiting for intelligence, our people would die! That sounds like a great strategy.

reply to post by Rezlooper


And you're happy charging into a situation with no intelligence?? sounds about right on many levels to me....

Custer anyone??

anyone in the military will tell you the more intelligence the better, and at some point you make a decision to "go" or "not go" based on the intelligence you have, knowing there is more intelligence you can get.

Training officers to realise when this point occurs is a major deal.

There may be times when you think it is necessary to go withotu intelligence - but that should be an exception, not the rule.

reply to post by Rezlooper


The source is WND.

Not saying that they don't have a point. Just saying that it's a highly unreliable source at this point.