Stormin' Norman: Don't rush into war

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Well, well, well. Another Marxist anti-American.

**Stormin’ Norman: Don’t rush into war**, BBC, 29 January 2003

Former US Gulf War commander Norman Schwarzkopf has said a new war with Iraq has not yet been justified.

General Schwarzkopf, who became known as “Stormin’ Norman” during the 1991 Gulf War, called for United Nations weapons inspectors to be given more time to assess whether Iraq had any illegal weapons.

“I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive,” he said in an interview with the Washington Post. Interviewed at his home in Tampa, Florida, the 68-year-old retired general said he would like “better information” before he supported an invasion of Iraq.

“The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought,” he said. “Now, having said that, I don’t know what intelligence the US Government has.”

US President George Bush, speaking in his annual State of the Union address late on Tuesday, said he would present fresh evidence to the UN next week about Iraq’s weapons programme. General Schwarzkopf praised his former comrade-in-arms, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, but said he was “somewhat nervous” about comments made by the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

“When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the Army,” he was quoted as saying. “He gives the perception when he’s on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him - or else.”

General Schwarzkopf led US troops to victory in a UN-sanctioned allied military operation that followed Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. He served under President George Bush senior. At the time, Colin Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and current Vice President Dick Cheney was defence secretary.

He remains close to the Bush family and campaigned in Florida with Mr Cheney during the 2000 presidential election, the Washington Post said.

2

To have General Schwarzkopf the Ex-Commander of Allied forces being highly critical of current US policies, must be another setback for the Bush Adminstration.

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
To have General Schwarzkopf the Ex-Commander of Allied forces being highly critical of current US policies, must be another setback for the Bush Adminstration.
[/QUOTE]

Very true indeed, especially as Stormin Norman is a personal friend of Bush and Cheney, which must be a particular slight to them.

4

He sees poor management and calls it out. It is known that among the upper levels of military that Rumsfeld is a loud-mouthed fool. Cheney has some followers, but this is because he played the good-ol-boy system to the extreme (therefore his followers are ass-kissers).

Granted, Schwartzkopf himself was an egotistical jerk.. he does know the material. I would like to see any responses from the Administration if anyone has seen them. Lets see if Schwartzkopf gets busted with kiddie porn sometime soon...

5

So glad you all are annointing Norman:

Schwarzkopf Reassured; More Information Coming
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
January 29, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - General Norman Schwarzkopf made headlines on Tuesday when he told The Washington Post he “would like to have better information” before endorsing a U.S.-led war against Iraq. War skeptics seized on his remarks to paint any U.S. action as ill-advised.

But on Wednesday, Gen.Schwarzkopf told NBC’s Today show he thought President Bush’s State of the Union speech was “very compelling,” and he said he looks forward to hearing the declassified information that Secretary of State Colin Powell will share with the world next week.

“Saddam’s got to go,” Schwarzkopf said Wednesday morning. “He’s a monster in every single way you can think of and with the linkage to the terrorists, it’s scary what in fact could be done.”

Schwarzkopf said he expects key facts to emerge after Powell briefs the U.N. Security Council next Wednesday. “I think that the intelligence people obviously have information about activities, and I think you’re going to see proof of those activities that show that in fact Saddam Hussein still has nuclear weapons or chemical weapons or biological weapons in his possession and has in fact hidden them someplace…I think that there’s going to be conclusive evidence to show that he has not destroyed all the weapons that they say he’s destroyed.”

The general told NBC he would like to see the U.N. weapons inspectors come up with more hard evidence. “But I just think the time has come. We’ve kicked this football up and down the field over again. Saddam is a legitimate monster, and he’s got to go - there’s no question about that.”

6

This looks to me like a personality thing rather than a policy one,i dont think the army is ever completly in line with the sec. of def. and Shwartzkopf is having a dig at Rumsfeld for being too gung-ho.

Its is amazing how quickly the oppostion will jump on the side of anyone who utters anything,no matter how tenuous it may be,against going to war,no matter who it may be,even the guy who commanded the last Gulf war.

7

it's the same as denouncing allies from the previous war because they don't support this one..

8

Quite a wobble by Norman Schwarzkopf in just one day, I don't know how Bush's words alone turned his mind like that.

9

Patton was had a bad case of "foot-in-mouth-disease" with reporters too. Norman sort of runs off at the mouth from time to time....

10

Or Bush made him aware of certain evidence?

11

Actually Norman does not have much to do lately. A lot of retired generals go back to the Army War College and teach and lecture. He has a personal battle going with Rumsfeld, so he is pretty out of the mainstream Army. (I think he got a lot of phone calls asking him what the hell he was doing). Norman has pretty much stayed home and nursed a bad prostate. I think he was just blathering....

12

What he said though I don't think is asking for too much, which is further evidence of Iraqi violations.

That said, even if no further evidence is provided, Saddams refusal to tell inspectors what they did with the few tons of chemical weapons (along with proof of what they did with it) they had is justification enough for an attack.

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Patton was had a bad case of "foot-in-mouth-disease" with reporters too. Norman sort of runs off at the mouth from time to time....
[/QUOTE]

I think many in the world are used to Bush running off the mouth more than any other, sometimes quite foolishly. :)

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *

I think many in the world are used to Bush running off the mouth more than any other, sometimes quite foolishly. :)
[/QUOTE]

running? try sprinting.

15

UTD, i agree - he is not asking for too much. Surely if the dramatic proof is there, then i am sure Powell will present it to the Security Council as promised. Let's hope it has more substance in it than other so-called "evidence" their allies have tried to present in the past.

16

An opportunity lost.

Norman KNOWs how Saddam put down rebellions in Iraq after the Gulf War by murdering his own people with helicopter gunships. To bad he did not take the opportunity to describe what he knows about Saddam instead of hyperfocusing on WMD as is the rest of the world.

17

For better or worse (worse IMHO) this war isn't about how evil Saddam is to his people, it's about Saddam's WMD. Freeing the Iraqi people is just a side effect as it's been called before.

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Norman KNOWs how Saddam put down rebellions in Iraq after the Gulf War by murdering his own people with helicopter gunships.
[/QUOTE]

OG, i have to leave in about 15 mins. so i don't have too much time at the moment, but -- was the above before or after Bush I ordered the Shi'ite rebels to "rise up" against Hussein, and then watched silently as Iraq's Elite Guard massacred the rebels?

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
For better or worse (worse IMHO) this war isn't about how evil Saddam is to his people, it's about Saddam's WMD. Freeing the Iraqi people is just a side effect as it's been called before.
[/QUOTE]

i think the lines have been deliberately blurred by Bush and Blair. It is now as much about how "evil" he is, as it is about Iraq's supposed WMD.

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
An opportunity lost.

Norman KNOWs how Saddam put down rebellions in Iraq after the Gulf War by murdering his own people with helicopter gunships.
[/QUOTE]

Oh you mean the Shia uprising after the Gulf War which was encourged by George Bush Snr's call for the Iraqi people "to set aside SaDdam, the dictator". Then when they heeded Bush's call they were left to be slaughtered by Saddam's gunships (which the US military allowed it use), even though American troops occupied a large slice of Southern Iraq, and its figter planes hovered over Iraqi skies (taking photos of the slaughter).

Where was the American support for the Iraqi people then? Shameless hypocrisy.

P.S. utd, if this was about "WMD" then why not go after North Korea? To scared..? :)