Edward J. Hum – 10/21/04

This page was last updated on October 21, 2004.

Bush’s post-war bust; Ed Hum; Beaver County Times; October 21, 2004.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“I saw Jan Lee Anderson, a reporter for one of the big city outfits, on TV.

[RWC] When trying to verify the content of Mr. Hum’s letter attributed to Jan Lee Anderson, I received no hits when I did a Google search for Jan Lee Anderson. I got some hits for Jan Anderson, but they were all for women and none were reporters. I also tried the “Andersen” spelling. Mr. Anderson may indeed exist, but it’s hard to believe a Google search wouldn’t find “a reporter for one of the big city outfits.”

“He has spent a lot of time in Iraq. Anderson was in Baghdad when the war started, survived the bombing and met the troops when they arrived.

“He was asked when the occupation started to fall apart.

“His reply: The Americans surrounded the oil ministry and took down Saddam’s statue.

“However, within 72 to 96 hours, the Iraqis realized the Americans didn’t have a clue to where anything else was.

“Warehouses and arsenals were looted of grenade launchers, ammunition, etc.

“Borders were unguarded and people could drive in from Iran, Syria or Jordan.

“The insurrection began slowly, and after 18 months, is what it is now.

“Some reputable people believe Iraq was the worst strategic blunder since Vietnam. The U.S. armed forces took care of the third-rate Iraqi army in a few weeks as expected.”

[RWC] Some reputable people felt World War II was a strategic blunder, until it was over. So what? There is never unanimous agreement on something as serious as war.

As expected? Talk about revisionist history! Most of the people who opposed action in Iraq predicted our troops would return in 10s of thousands of body bags. Here’s a partial list of what we heard.

· The oil fields would be set afire à la Kuwait in 1991.

· There would be a mass exodus of Iraqi refugees to surrounding countries causing a humanitarian and political crisis.6

· Israel would get drawn in, resulting in a Middle East meltdown.

· We didn’t have enough military manpower in-theater.

· When we launched air and ground assaults simultaneously, we were doomed because we weren’t “softening up” the Iraqi military as we did in 1991.

· Without a thrust from the north, we were doomed.

· When we started without the 4th Infantry Division, we were doomed.

· When we encountered sandstorms, we were doomed.

· When the temperatures climbed, our soldiers would be doomed because their chemical and biological warfare suits would “cook” them.

· Marines and soldiers were going without ammunition and food.

· When we advanced with incredible speed, our supply lines were too long.

· When we advanced with incredible speed, it was “too easy.”

· At every step of the way, the battle plan was failing and being re-evaluated.

· As we approached Baghdad, the “elite” Republican Guard would really put up a fight.

You get the idea.

“The tactical blunders since then have cost 9,000 dead and wounded so far.”

[RWC] Can Mr. Hum provide us with a list of these blunders? Also, can he provide us with a list of “non-trivial” military campaigns that went “perfectly?”

Oh, when Mr. Hum talks about “tactical blunders,” he is bashing our armed forces, not President Bush. Unless, of course, Mr. Hum wants us to believe President Bush is running day-to-day military operations from the Oval Office.

“Bush is a terrific campaigner who knows how to pose as strong leader and admit no mistakes. I believe my Republican Party’s nominee will win.”

[RWC] You have to admire the anti-Bush crowd’s dogged effort to get an “I was wrong” sound bite from President Bush. It’s a no win situation for President Bush. If he admitted mistakes, liberals would bash him. When he refuses to provide the sound bite, liberals bash President Bush for not recognizing he made mistakes. It’s a variation of the classic question, “When did you stop beating your wife?”

“Being wrong is not an impeachable offense.

“But you know what? We will survive four more years of those incompetent nincompoops.”

[RWC] As I asked in my last critique of a Hum letter, does anyone believe Mr. Hum is a real Republican? This is Mr. Hum’s third anti-Bush letter since late July.