Glenn Greenwald: Gen. Odom Counters Hugh Hewitt's Pro-War Smears (MUST-READ)

[Hissyspit]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/18/odom/

Sunday February 18, 2007 06:41 EST
Gen. Odom explains basic reality to Hugh Hewitt and the "Victory Caucus"
(updated below - updated again)

Lt. Gen. William Odom is the former director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan and head of Army intelligence. Last week, he authored a widely discussed and truly excellent Op-Ed in The Washington Post -- headlined: "Victory is Not an Option" -- which unapologetically called for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, rebutted every myth propagated to "justify" our continued occupation, and documented what he called "the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war."

- snip -

Last week, Gen. Odom was interviewed by Hewitt on Hewitt's radio show and it is a truly extraordinary interview. Needless to say, the Warrior Hewitt meekly suppressed all of his "surrender" and "white flag" accusatory smears when confronted by the anti-war General, and Odom provided a clinic for how the warmonger mentality of Hewitt and the Bush administration can and should be scornfully dismissed.

EXCERPTS:

WO: And following -- let me ask you. Are you enthusiastic enough to put on a uniform and go?

HH: No. I'm a civilian.

WO: Okay, but we can recruit you.

HH: I'm 51, General.

WO: And I don't see all these war hawks that want to -- none of them have been in a war, and they don't want to go.

AND

HH: All right. Next in your article, you wrote, "We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq." That's one of the arguments you attribute to proponents of staying. And I do believe that's a very important issue. Do you believe that Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons?

WO: Sure. They're going to get them.

HH: And should we do anything to stop that?

WO: No.

HH: Why not?

WO: Because we can't. We've already squandered what forces we have, and we're going to have more countries proliferate. If somebody told us not to proliferate, and that if we wanted to do it and we started, that they were going to change our regime, you damn well bet we'd get nuclear weapons. Well, that's the approach we've taken. We could not have increased Iranian incentives for getting nuclear weapons faster, or more effectively, than the policy we've used to keep to prevent them from getting them. . . .

MORE

[MikeNearMcChord]

1. I love it when the reality of someone who wore the uniform

and knows what war and combat are truly like(Sorry Hugh, it isn't like John Wayne or Rambo)confronts the macho chickenhawk, the macho hawk begins to shrink, kind've like a reverse viagra.

[AX10]

2. Hugh Hewitt: Just another Republic draft dodging Chickenhawk!

[napi21]

3. Here's a link to the Odem article from the WP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917.html

[NewJeffCT]

4. thanks for the link

responding now so i can find it when I get home tonight.

[gratefultobelib]

6. Good God! We just keep reading and hearing this stuff!!! HOW can the republicans ignore the truth?

[Cerridwen]

5. Well that was an interesting wrestling match.

Thanks for the link.

hewitt has a rather interesting sentence structure for some of his questions - you quoted one above - he puts words in the General's mouth then follows with stating the General was discussing what others said making it appear at first that it was what the General had said. He used that several times throughout the 'interview.' Very weird phrasing. Anyone recognize that rhetorical tool?

It was almost painful the way hewitt tried to lead the General into changing his words to fit hewitt's mantra - It'll be worse after we leave - It'll be worse after we leave - rinse, repeat.

And an 'oooooooo' moment at the end after discussing the dilemma faced by a uniformed officer (General David Petraeus) testifying in front of Congress with his "civilian master" (yep, that's what General Odom said) right next to him.

WO: Yeah, the officer has a real dilemma here. He can do one of two things, and I used to discuss this with General Goodpastor who worked six years for Eisenhower in the White House. Should an officer, when he really disagrees, resign? Or should he knuckle down and do the best he can to get on inside? You can argue that both ways. When a lot of officers, my contemporaries, saw no senior officers resign in Vietnam, and we were unhappy about that, and you saw this young officer now, who was a colonel in the Army, H.R. McMaster. McMaster wrote Dereliction of Duty, damning the joint chiefs for not standing up to McNamara during the Vietnam War. I’m sure somebody’s going to do this on some of the senior officers today. The officers who’ve tried to stand up to it within have…were destroyed by Rumsfeld.

HH: Who would that be?

WO: Pardon?

HH: Who? Who?

WO: Well, Shinseki was probably the first one. (sounds like he knows of more? Oh, and I added the emphasis)

Thank you again for the link to the article. Very, very interesting.


edit: completed an incomplete thought, I think.

[bonito]

7. He couldn't have said it any more plainly. nm

[Hamlette]

8. read the full interview

it's remarkable.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=d7f52e21-cf46-4115-b397-ed1dc70fcdab

HH: I’m actually just trying to figure out what you think Iraq would look like if after four months hence, we leave, what it would look like in a year?

WO: It’s going to look worse if we stay.

HH: I know that, but what do you think it will look like? I know you believe that…

WO: I don’t know. I don’t know. You don’t know, and it’s just a guess. And I don’t see killing more Americans based on your guess.