cannabisnews.com: McCaffrey Stands By Decisions in Gulf War 





McCaffrey Stands By Decisions in Gulf War 
Posted by FoM on May 15, 2000 at 23:18:57 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: Washington Post
Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey and journalist Seymour Hersh clashed yesterday over charges that troops led by McCaffrey used unnecessary force in a battle with Iraqi troops after the Gulf War cease-fire.The actions of McCaffrey's troops are questioned by several of McCaffrey's former military colleagues in a report by Hersh in the May 22 New Yorker magazine.
Retired Lt. Gen. James H. Johnson Jr. is quoted as saying that "there was no need to be shooting at anybody" on March 2, 1991. "They couldn't surrender fast enough. The war was over.""They were a defeated army going home, and he attacked them," Hersh said on NBC's "Today" show."This is nonsense, this is revisionist history," said McCaffrey, now director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.McCaffrey said two of his company commanders reported they were under fire and "we obviously had to support our soldiers."The Army has investigated the allegations and concluded there was no evidence of war crimes or misconduct by McCaffrey or his troops. Hersh "is recycling charges that were investigated 10 years ago. It conclusively demonstrated there was no wrongdoing," said McCaffrey, who also appeared on other morning news programs.In a brief statement yesterday, the Army said "no new issues appear to have been raised in the story" and "there is no need to reopen the investigation." It added: "The Army has confidence in the conduct and integrity of the soldiers of the 24th Infantry Division."White House spokesman Joe Lockhart emphasized that McCaffrey has President Clinton's full support and called the article "false," labeling Hersh "a journalist who thinks if you throw enough stuff up against the wall, maybe something will stick." The magazine said its research found:* The officers assigned to McCaffrey's mobile headquarters disagreed about whether Iraqis had attacked U.S. forces. Patrick Lamar, the operations officer of McCaffrey's division, told the magazine that the skirmish that triggered McCaffrey's order to attack was "a giant hoax. The Iraqis were doing absolutely nothing. I told McCaffrey I was having trouble confirming the incoming" fire.* Retired Lt. Gen. John J. Yeosock said "what Barry ended up doing was fighting sand dunes and moving rapidly" and McCaffrey was "looking for a battle."* Maj. Gen. Ronald Griffith said McCaffrey "made it a battle when it was never one."The attack ordered by McCaffrey destroyed some 700 Iraqi tanks, armored cars and trucks, the New Yorker reported."Hersh says that the Iraqi forces at Rumaylah were in 'retreat,' " McCaffrey said in a response. "However, he wasn't the one watching a force spanning five miles, made up of hundreds of Iraqi tanks, trucks and armored personnel carriers, face him. The Iraqis fired on U.S. forces. The Army investigations unequivocally concluded that the use of force in response was justified."The magazine noted that there were occasional "bitter disputes" between McCaffrey and other generals over such things as the perceived hoarding of fuel by McCaffrey, whose division performed the famed "left hook" maneuver that blocked the retreat of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Published: Tuesday , May 16, 2000 ; A10 © 2000 The Washington Post Company CannabisNews Articles & Archives On Barry McCaffrey:Article Questions U.S. General http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread5733.shtmlDrug Director Criticizes Journalisthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread5444.shtmlhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/McCaffrey.shtmlhttp://lycos.com/srch/index.html?query=cannabisnews+mccaffrey 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by rainbow on May 16, 2000 at 08:51:19 PT
theory used on saddam
Yes I had the same notion. Actually the press/military used this theory to understand Saddam and possibly Quadafy during times of stress and consternation.I think though it is a mark of stress which quite possibly is a sign of not telling the exact truth and knowing it. He has the propaganda routine down pat but not the body language.He also dodged quite a few questions in the interview. The interviewers were not able to parrot his answers back to pin him down. So much for sound bites.Send the president a letter firing the little squirt. I wonder now what he did in Nam considering there was more opportunity to perform death and destruction by fiendish people like him. As I said before this man knows nothing more than the pleasure of inflicting pain and death. This is what he has been paid to do and rewarded for doing. It is what he realishes and the WOD is just another way to extend his way of life against humanity. He is evil.Peace,Rainbow
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by dddd on May 16, 2000 at 04:46:18 PT
article
An excellent article by Daniel Forbes can be found here;http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/05/15/hersh/index.html
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by dddd on May 16, 2000 at 00:45:45 PT
blinking
 I dont know if anyone has ever heard the theory,that when a person is lying,they tend to blink their eyes frequently.I am now convinced that this is a sound theory. This morning I just happened to stumble across the good morning show,or whatever it's called,on ABC,,just in time to see a live interview with barry,and Mr Hersh. Barry was the first one to be introduced,and I couldnt help but notice,that his eyes were blinkin' like a flustered southern belle.Not just a little bit,but nearing a slow self-strobe thing.He made all the same well rehearsed general denials that he made in the printed news..All this was not a suprize....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: