% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Coca-Cola Company Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • azalphainvestor azalphainvestor Oct 13, 2006 11:05 AM Flag

    State of Denial

    Now that Canoodle has stepped up and admitted he and his NeoHeads lied all along about why we are in Iraq, we can see better just how badly they are doing the job of pacifying Iraq. And as for listening to one;s Generals, it becomes clearer everyday if you are a General, you better be delivering the Administration's Script or, like General Shenseki, you may be asked to leave. Now a British General who told the truth is being forced to reinterpret himself:,1,1976862.story?coll=chi-news-hed

    British Army Head Denies Government Rift

    Associated Press Writer

    October 13, 2006, 8:34 AM CDT

    LONDON -- Britain's army chief, who set off a political storm by calling for troops to be withdrawn "soon" from Iraq in part because their presence made the situation worse, said Friday he meant a phased withdrawal over two or three years. He also denied that he was attacking government policy.

    Gen. Richard Dannatt gave a series of interviews after newspapers ran front-page stories interpreting his remarks published Thursday by The Daily Mail as a critique of Prime Minister Tony Blair's policy.

    Dannatt said in the initial interview that the British military should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."

    On Friday, he insisted Britain stood "shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, and their timing and our timing are one and the same."

    "We'll probably reduce our soldiers over the course of the next year or two or three -- let's wait and see. That's what I mean by sometime soon," Dannatt said in an interview with Sky News.

    "We don't do surrender. We don't pull down white flags. We're going to see this through," Dannatt said in an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

    Britain has not set a timetable for the departure of its 7,500 troops from Iraq, but it has handed over security responsibilities in two provinces to Iraqi forces and is preparing to do the same in a third.

    Dannatt said his criticism of postwar planning in Iraq as "poor," and his concerns about troops being stretched by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, had been voiced by others. Retired senior officers have raised those concerns, but they bore more weight coming from a serving officer at Dannatt's level.


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Alpha, putting words in other people's mouths is a sign of a "little man". Just make your point. Or is it that you don't feel it is as worthy without justifying it by falsely assigning thoughts to me?

      What the British and American Generals and politicians are doing is a healthy exercise on how to address Iraq. What you did, by advocating going in and then running away, is just plain wrong.

      • 1 Reply to canucanoe1
      • Canoodle... Stop whining. YOu have been depants. You finally admitted what your objective in Iraq was/is and now we can objectively address just how badly it is going. If you are now withdrawing your statment that the objective was pacifying Iraq, your certainly welcome to contradict yourself. Most of recognize how two faced you and your ilk are anyhow, so go right ahead. Tell us what your objective is today then.


42.74-0.22(-0.51%)Sep 23 4:00 PMEDT