POLITICS: Military disgusted with Rumsfeld

This liberal who has plenty of balls thank you very much can tell you why we don't like rumsfeld in 2 words...insufferable arrogance. In fact that, and the fact that have only have the interests of the corporate class in mind and the rest of us be damned, is the core reason why we dispise Bush so much.

"This isn't a war it's a racket. How do we benefit from the Iraq war? Have gas prices gone down? Hell no they use it as an excuse to raise it. I just want it to stop we aren't going to win it because there is nothing to win. Arabs aren't like us, Iraq will be in the hands of head choppin radical Muslems no matter what we do. I'm a realist. Oh and back to the topic at hand. "


"Have gas prices gone down" Only the liberals have ever believed that this war is about oil.

Of course it hasn't gone down. If we have gas at a buck 30 how could an ALTERNATIVE FORM of energy ever be introduced into our economy? ? ? ?


The only way we will benefit from this war is if we turn the Middle East into a non-nuclear armed region and enemies into allies. We must stop the Anti-western hate or at least tone it down a bit.


We don't deserve cheaper oil because we invaded a country, if that was the case we would be no better than the likes of the Romans who raped and pillaged whoever they defeated.

War is hard work, there was build up to this conflict to let the public know that it was going to take a while. Single Wars have lasted over a hundred years, you should of known this wasn'g going to be over in a month.


I know you are a realist but it is spelled Muslim not Muslem.

People like you have to remember to breathe before you think.
You, I am certain, was against the war from the beginning hence, the only background info you have of the war was given by Jon Stewart. Why don't you write to an American Soldier and ask him what's going on over there instead of relying on "the nation."


Arrogance is required when you got balls. Sir even though you might have balls, you obviously are no where near the kind of balls the Rummy has. When he walks he swaggers because of them. I know you don't swagger like Rummy!!!


[edit on 14-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

I have never watched Jon Stewert and while my spelling isn't the best i am very well read, far more than you give me credit for. As for asking the soldiers...

These excerpts are from an article posted on Alternet.org...

"Permission to Speak Freely, Sir" By Stephen Pizzo

I am sorry that high school and college kids no longer have to face a couple of years of mandatory military service. That may be a strange thing to say for a guy who protested the draft back in the '60s. Maybe it's the inevitable aging process. Or maybe it's the perspective you get from the higher altitude of experience.
What got me thinking about this were the extraordinary statements being made by recently retired U.S. generals. Those who have never served in the military don't understand how extraordinary it is for career military officers to say the things these guys are saying about their former civilian superiors.
I hit Marine Corps bootcamp on July 7, 1965, a wimpy kid from suburbia. The first thing we were told was that we were the lowest forms of life on earth -- and that meant lower than civilians. I was to learn as time went on that this was not just drill instructor blather. It was a genuine, deeply ingrained belief that permeated the highest ranks of the military for civilian control. We were repeatedly told that the lowest civilian we met on the street outranked the highest grade military officer. And that was not show. They believed it, not just as a principle, but a sacred trust.
Those who never served will likely see that as corny, empty rhetoric, window dressing, quaint -- at best. But those who did serve know of what I speak. We get it.
I just want to make the case that you pay close and respectful attention to the recent statements by retired top Pentagon brass. Because never in my life did I ever expect to hear these kinds of things coming out of the mouths of such men. Never. Here's a sampler:

* "[Donald Rumsfeld] has proved himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down."
--General Paul Eaton, who oversaw training of Iraqi army troops, 2003-2004

* "I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there."
--retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division.

* "I think we need a fresh start … We need leadership up there (the Pentagon) that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them."
--Maj. Gen. John Batiste, commander 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, 2004-2005

* We won't get fooled again … Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach should be replaced."
--Marines Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations of Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2000-2002

* "The problem is that we've wasted three years … absolutely, Rumsfeld should resign."
--Marines Gen. Anthony Zinni, former chief of U.S. Central Command

* "A lot of them [other generals] are hugely frustrated. Rumsfeld gave the impression that military advice was neither required nor desired" in the planning for the Iraq war.
--Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, former commander of Marines forces in the Pacific Theater

* "Everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out. [Rumsfeld and his advisers have] made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict."
--Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs

The administration is trying to counter these devastating statements by noting that none of the generals voiced such reservations during the lead-up to the war. And, because so many Americans now lack any direct experience with the military, the tactic may just work. After all, it's easy to dismiss these retired generals just that easily. "So, where were your qualms when we really need them, general?"
I know the answer to that question -- and it's not the answer the Bushies want you to get.
When an officer has a particularly sticky problem with the actions or orders of a superior officer, s/he can "request permission to speak freely, sir."
Well, that was tried, by Army Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was promptly and unceremoniously "#-canned." (Another term my fellow vets may find familiar.)
The Pentagon's civilian leaders sent a clear message to the rest of the Pentagon brass: "Do what we want, or we'll find a junior officer who will."
With the "permission to speak freely" option off the table, the brass was left only with their prime directive: Civilians rule.
So, their silence leading up to war was not cowardice or careerism, as some have suggested. It was instead the manifestation of that deeply ingrained principle that civilians not only outrank them, but that the most dangerous thing that can happen in a democracy is for the military to start preempting civilian leadership.
We can quibble over that notion, of course. We can wave around the Nuremberg principle that "just following orders" is no defense for wrongdoing. I agree. But let me tell you, my experience in the military left me with a deep respect for the way the American military views its place in our democracy. They really do believe civilians rule. I would have it no other way. And neither should you.
Which is why we old vets understand better than most how gut-wrenching it must have been for these recently retired officers to go public. I am certain it was not the way they wanted to end their lifetimes of service to their country. Because, as far as these men are concerned, under normal circumstances, such behavior smacks of treason.
Retired two-star Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Big Red One (the Army's 1st Infantry Division) in Iraq until November, said Rumsfeld must go for ignoring and intimidating career officers. "You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense.
So, no one should take their statements lightly. This is serious business … especially at the very moment these same civilian leaders are grunting eagerly over satellite images of Iran.

(Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.)

I think I will listen to the generals before I listen to a one more right-wing apologist.

Originally posted by Seekerof


Or for those like you, DD:
I like Rummy and my answer is self-evident because...
*He gets things done.
*He takes no BS.
*He has cahones.
*He gives back what he is given: He hurls back insults given to him by reporters.
*He pisses off the media, democrats, and far-left liberals.
*The media wants him fired.
*The democrats want him fired.
*The far liberal left wants him fired.

Now that is one tough dude. Gotta like him. God Bless, Rummy.

Yeah right, rummy is a regular blood and guts kinda guy. His guts, some poor soldiers blood. The generals are PO'd because this corrupt piece trash is getting soldiers killed needlessly due to his incompetence. Unfortunately his boss is even more incompetent.

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by Seekerof


Or for those like you, DD:
I like Rummy and my answer is self-evident because...
*He gets things done.
*He takes no BS.
*He has cahones.
*He gives back what he is given: He hurls back insults given to him by reporters.
*He pisses off the media, democrats, and far-left liberals.
*The media wants him fired.
*The democrats want him fired.
*The far liberal left wants him fired.

Now that is one tough dude. Gotta like him. God Bless, Rummy.

Yeah right, rummy is a regular blood and guts kinda guy. His guts, some poor soldiers blood. The generals are PO'd because this corrupt piece trash is getting soldiers killed needlessly due to his incompetence. Unfortunately his boss is even more incompetent.

Why didn't those 6 generals address any of the problems when they were still in uniform?

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Why didn't those 6 generals address any of the problems when they were still in uniform?

All things iraq are classified, so you do not know what issues were addressed or not addressed by the generals. What we know for sure is what they are saying now.

Do you believe the generals are suddenly making up all this stuff after the fact and that they never voiced any criticism or concern to rummy until the present? Personally Id find that really hard to believe.

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Why didn't those 6 generals address any of the problems when they were still in uniform?

Questions like that can be answered once action has been taken to remove the overzealous and incompetent people we call “leaders” of this country…Not that it will ever happen…

Honestly, that’s beside the point though…I can answer that question for you now…

I grew up in a military family and spent 18 years of my life following my father around from base to base…Corruption and incompetence find their way into every viable job market – The government and military are certainly no exceptions…

However, the penalties for exposing the truth at your own risk while on the job vary depending upon the environment you work within….Enron whistleblower Sherron Watkins is a hero in the public eye….Conversely - These Generals who are standing against Rummy are seen as traitors by more than half of our country…

Now I’m not entirely sure what the retired soldier’s required commitment is to the sanctity of privileged information – I assume it’s the same as when they were active duty….But I believe I’m safe in saying that the severity of potential punishment (in light of possible failure) are far less with a good lawyer as a civilians than they would have had as Generals still within the employ of the US military!

Is it worth losing the retirement they accumulated to expose the man while still active duty – Loosing their jobs, placing their own and their family’s lives in peril - Or would they rather get what they earned, retire in a respectful manner, and then come forward?? I don’t think it takes much to answer that question….Family usually comes first for the average hard-working military man….

And the persona civilians seem to have of military generals is far more obtuse than the real world….These men still had to report to someone, and you don’t typically gripe down…You gripe up…

This whole “Army of One” rubbish is brainwashing people into thinking that teamwork and problem-solving is the single strength of our defenses…I wish I could say that were true, but it’s typically the pure GRIT of each individual…

In truth, when an inferior officer attempts to “address issues” with their superior, you’ll often know what’s going on if you’re at the far end of the building b/c you can hear the yelling from there….As you can guess, not much gets accomplished…

This is simply the inside perspective I have, and maybe it doesn’t apply here entirely – But it is undoubtedly an element of the military mentality these men share…And clearly something they’re respectfully attempting to shake by coming forward together after retirement…

You can't run the military or a war like you would run a corporation. That is how the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Halliburton/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz cabal has tried to run the world. These brainless worms are ruining our country and need to be run out of office.

"Questions like that can be answered once action has been taken to remove the overzealous and incompetent people we call “leaders” of this country…Not that it will ever happen…

Honestly, that’s beside the point though…I can answer that question for you now… "

Ahh, I don't think so, I think everyone else (thats important to the admin. is in it for the long haul.

Answer each of the generals have a book deal.

Originally posted by highhorse313
You can't run the military or a war like you would run a corporation. That is how the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Halliburton/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz cabal has tried to run the world. These brainless worms are ruining our country and need to be run out of office.

They haven't ruined anything unless you are a gay couple trying to get married.

Originally posted by Low Orbit

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by Seekerof


Or for those like you, DD:
I like Rummy and my answer is self-evident because...
*He gets things done.
*He takes no BS.
*He has cahones.
*He gives back what he is given: He hurls back insults given to him by reporters.
*He pisses off the media, democrats, and far-left liberals.
*The media wants him fired.
*The democrats want him fired.
*The far liberal left wants him fired.

Now that is one tough dude. Gotta like him. God Bless, Rummy.

Yeah right, rummy is a regular blood and guts kinda guy. His guts, some poor soldiers blood. The generals are PO'd because this corrupt piece trash is getting soldiers killed needlessly due to his incompetence. Unfortunately his boss is even more incompetent.

Why didn't those 6 generals address any of the problems when they were still in uniform?

From my understanding these Officers did voice concerns along with many other lesser ranks as well and have been forced by the administration to either heed or leave. Its the Rummy micromanage corporate raiding scheme that is not really working. You cant tell a Know it all that they are wrong(Rumms). It's unacceptable to them. Right. Unfortunately decorated heroes are being slandered by the Bush agendaists again. And I am not a Democrat either. I was a Republican until recently(Iraq War).

If you don't speak up and tell them your honest opinion who is doing the misservice to our country. If those generals didn't tell Rummy what they were thinking that is there fault, regardless of Rummy told them.

If those generals told Rummy what was wrong and Rummy for one reason or another didn't address it, that MIGHT be another story.

Originally posted by df1
Yeah right, rummy is a regular blood and guts kinda guy. His guts, some poor soldiers blood. The generals are PO'd because this corrupt piece trash is getting soldiers killed needlessly due to his incompetence. Unfortunately his boss is even more incompetent.

The more you talk, df1, the more you show your biased ignorance, making any self-righteous claim and assertion your make quite insignificant.

The "corrupt piece [of] trash," in which only 6 ex-generals have spoken out against, is being backed more and more by the military establishment and those generals within and outside of it. The below concerns ex- generals who support the "corrupt piece [of] trash":
Generals Defend Rumsfeld
Retired Generals Defend Rumsfeld

And here are a list of some active, non-retired generals backing Rumsfeld, whom are quite satisfied with the progress in Iraq, which is contrary to the claims and assertions of the 6 generals that have come out criticizing Rumsfeld on Iraq:
Brig. Gen. Rebecca Halstead
Maj. Gen. Stephen T. Johnson
Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey
Gen. John Abizaid
Lt. Gen. John Vines
General George W. Casey, Jr.
Maj. Gen. Thomas R. Turner, II
General Tommy Franks, which has already been established in this topic.
JCS General Peter Pace and General Myers.

More can be named, df1.
Need more, you let me know.

Of further interest, the 6 that have come out against Rumsfeld, are themselves increasing coming under scrutiny, as are their claims and assertions:
The Hidden History of the Iraq War Critics
What do anti-war generals have in common?

Your rhetoric is nothing but liberal hate rhetoric, df1; nothing more, nothing less, not even substance worthy.





seekerof

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by df1
All things iraq are classified,

Umm, no they are not.
You are misinformed and incorrect in your absolute assertion.

so you do not know what issues were addressed or not addressed by the generals. What we know for sure is what they are saying now.

Simple hogwash from the uninformed.

Do you believe the generals are suddenly making up all this stuff after the fact and that they never voiced any criticism or concern to rummy until the present? Personally Id find that really hard to believe.

Of course you would find it hard to believe, for your belief is faus patriotically skewed and uninformed.

These ex-generals are voicing their sour graped liberal opinions, something that this group-of-6 had no backbone to do while they were in.
Those 6, as with you and some others, are 'refuted by the facts which they and their media allies refuse to acknowledge.'







seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by df1
All things iraq are classified,

Umm, no they are not.
You are misinformed and incorrect in your absolute assertion.

ROTFLMAO...

Oh yeah I forgot that this president can declassify whatever he wants on a whim ala valerie plame. However I suspect that we wont be seeing him declassifying the criticisms presented by these generals while they were on duty.

Please continue nitpicking, it shows your desperation.

I STRENUOUSLY OBJECT TO SEEKEROFF WEARING HIS BADGE OF WAY ABOVE 2003.....it implies intelligence and many youngsters here might be too fresh to know an ignoramus when they see one.



[edit on 15-4-2006 by Romeo]

Originally posted by df1
Oh yeah I forgot that this president can declassify whatever he wants on a whim ala valerie plame.

Yep, he sure can.
One as informed as you would have known that, huh?

Please continue nitpicking, it shows your desperation.

Pot calling the kettle black. How ironic, huh?





seekerof

Originally posted by Romeo
I STRENUOUSLY OBJECT TO SEEKEROFF WEARING HIS BADGE OF WAY ABOVE 2003.....it implies intelligence and many youngsters here might be too fresh to know an ignoramus when they see one.

Your getting away with saying what you have only reinforces the liberal moderating policies of this board, as well as your lack of comprehending the Terms and Conditions of this site.

Want the badge removed, use your local Suggestion box, "ignoramus."






seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
One as informed as you would have known that, huh?

You keep trying to make this thread about me, liberals, grammar, poor spelling or anything except the topic at hand, which is that numerous high ranking military officers believe that the white house is handling iraq in an incompetent manner and that soldier are dying because of how iraq is being handled.

People dying is not a liberal versus conservative issue, but it is an issue that is not going to go away.
Coming soon to an ATSNN thread near you:
Donald Rumsfeld more involved in Abu Graib prison abuse then previously thought

It kind of makes me pine for the good old Nixon years.
.

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by Seekerof
One as informed as you would have known that, huh?

You keep trying to make this thread about me, liberals, grammar, poor spelling or anything except the topic at hand, which is that numerous high ranking military officers believe that the white house is handling iraq in an incompetent manner and that soldier are dying because of how iraq is being handled.

How about answer the question instead of evading it, among others that I have asked, like the good democrat that you portray, k?
Your insults only confirm what many of us already now about your type: if you can not answer the questions asked, the democrat tool of choice is to insult and evade.

People dying is not a liberal versus conservative issue, but it is an issue that is not going to go away.

No, it sure is not.
People die because its called war and conflict.
Deal with it or grab a tissue.
Your continued bringing it to me is pointless, being I have been in combat, conflict, and war.

It kind of makes me pine for the good old Nixon years.

Only in your fondest dream.





seekerof