Article Questions U.S. General 

Article Questions U.S. General 
Posted by FoM on May 14, 2000 at 17:56:46 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: AccessWaco
Several former military colleagues of Gen. Barry McCaffrey questioned in a published report Sunday whether he used unnecessary force in a battle with Iraqi forces after the Gulf War ceasefire. One of the ex-colleagues, retired Lt. Gen. James H. Johnson Jr., is quoted in The New Yorker magazine 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.'' 
The Army has investigated the allegations that McCaffrey ordered an unnecessary attack and concluded there was no evidence of war crimes or misconduct by McCaffrey or his troops. The article by reporter Sy Hersh ``is nothing more than a revisionist history of the war,'' McCaffrey, now director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement. The Magazine Said That Its Research Found:  There was disagreement among officers assigned to McCaffrey's mobile headquarters about whether Iraqis had attacked American forces, prompting McCaffrey's strong response. Patrick Lamar, the operations officer of McCaffrey's division, told the magazine that the initial 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 tank and truck fuel by McCaffrey, whose division performed the famed ``left hook'' maneuver that blocked the retreat of Iraqi forces from the war zone in Kuwait. Web Posted: May 14, 2000Washington (AP)Copyright 2000, The Associated Press. CannabisNews Articles & Archives On Barry McCaffrey:Drug Director Criticizes Journalist
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #7 posted by dddd on May 16, 2000 at 04:49:28 PT
Check out this article by Daniel Forbes in todays' issue of Salon
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by dddd on May 16, 2000 at 04:20:09 PT
 Upon considering kaps suggestion of a Hoover/McCaffrey parallel,,and the 'havin' the goods',on each other theories; it opened a whole new appalling enlightenment for me. I do appreciate this disturbing edification....sincerely....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by LSN on May 16, 2000 at 01:43:47 PT
Hoover and McCaffrey
If US history keeps coming up with people like these, then I think there is something really wrong within US culture.How could these people possibly go up to high positions in the first place? Is there no democracy or justice?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on May 15, 2000 at 04:58:29 PT:
I beg to differ
In deferrence to Rainbow, I think it is more the other way around; It's Barry who has something on Slick Willy. Barry was a 4 star General. He was privy to all kinds of intelligence. *All* kinds, folks. Does anyone here honestly think the military and LEO intell types don't share data? If you could have stood outside the front doors of places like CIA and NSA, right after the SovUnion folded, you'd have seen a hell of a lot of LEOs from FBI, DEA, and whatnot, going in to confab with their new DrugWar 'allies'. The intell organs of this country are not monolithic; they have their own little cliques. Some of whom hate ol' Slick with a passion; I'd overheard some of them years ago muttering that since William Jefferson Clinton is so enamored of JFK, he might want to follow in the same footsteps... and to the same end. A lot of those spooks are very well aware of what was going on at Mena, Arkansas during the early to mid '80s. Planes leaving full of guns, and coming *back* full... of plastic bags.Oh, yes, I'm sure Barry has a handle on what was going on back then. He couldn't have been head of US Southern Command and *not* know that Ollie's White House-based spooks were playing at in his sandbox. I've accused the man of being nuts; after his comment that a turn in rehab will cure an HIV positive person, I couldn't help but come up with that conclusion. But there are 'nuts' nuts and there are *wily* nuts. Barry is the latter kind, which makes him even more dangerous. He's the same kind of nuts that J. Edgar Hoover was: the kind that has worms in the brain... and all the dirt on his enemies.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Rainbow on May 14, 2000 at 21:13:17 PT
A while back I suggested that barry is doing what he is told to do. Having no morals helps and being a killer allows him to be sensitized to harm and suffering.I suggested that Clinton has something on him and barry knows if he stops something might happen (Foster, The chief of staff).Barry has skeletons and they are starting to come out. Maybe this is a planned leak to help him get out from the Clinton administration. Abeit a little disgraced but out without much damage.I suggest you send barry a note of condolence and standup for the usage of your taxes. FIRE the guy. He is bad news for our children. People who don't smoke MJ kill!!! PeaceRainbow
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by dddd on May 14, 2000 at 19:36:59 PT
what a shocker!
What a shock! think that the czar would be accused of being a war crazed psycopath! I'm very pleased that the army stepped in to investigate,and found out that all his accusers were lying,,,they were probably on pot or something when they thought they saw barry doing something wrong. And if for some reason you have a problem believing the armys' investigation into the matter,then surely you would not question the czar himself,when he says;"The article by reporter Sy Hersh ``is nothing more than a revisionist history of the war,''..... It's stunning to realize how many people who have control over our lives,could have easily,in a slight turn of events,a subtle change of upbringing,or random seemingly insignificant twist of fate.a slight revision of ...perhaps....Drug czar Charles Mansonor,,to be fair;Drug Czar Willie NelsonI will spare you from going on....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by legalizeit on May 14, 2000 at 18:36:55 PT
doesn't surprise me
This "man" is a murderer, plain and simple! He enjoys inflicting suffering on the defeated, be the defeat by military assault or disease.As long as he is in charge of anything, he will do whatever inflicts the most damage to innocent people while lying about everything he does and saying he's doing it for the ccchhhiiiilllldddrrruuunnnnn!!
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment

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