It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Military disgusted with Rumsfeld

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:
df1

posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Your continued bringing it to me is pointless, being I have been in combat, conflict, and war.

Oh brother!

The bush cabals handling of iraq is not defendable, so you now you wave the flag. I wondered how long it would be before you began using the favorite "faux patriot" obfuscation tactics. Your military service, whether true or not, lends nothing to the discussion. However my guess is that if you were in the military at all, your combat experience was limited to scrubbing a few latrines, otherwise you would not have such a cavalier attitude about our troops dying in iraq because of an incompetent white house.




posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
his arrogance, his personal incompetance


Far from incompetence and arrogance. He (And the other 3) knows exactly what the deal is. He does what he's told to do and they all just fall back on the old incompetence and mistake routine. None of this was a mistake or incompetence. They went into this knowing fully what they were going to do way before anyone else did. When Bush put that big ole banner up on that carrier that said "Mission Accomplished" oh so long ago. He was not sending that message to average American citizens, he was sending a message to all his buddies that they were good to go and that their mission was accomplished.



Pie


df1

posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Far from incompetence and arrogance.

PNAC certainly planned the take over of iraq long before bush took office, however by now they expected that control of the oil and the iraqi government would be complete and that incursions into iran would be well underway. However things didnt work out exactly as they planned and this where the incompetence and arrogance comes in. If the plan had worked as they expected we would not be having this discussion now and iraq would just be an occasional sound bite on the evening news. However due their arrogance and subsequent incompetence things havent worked out as planned, so we are left with major damage to the US economy, the dollar is at risk, a new breeding ground for anti-american terrorists and a never ending cycle of death for our soldiers & innocent iraqi civilians.

This will be the legacy of the kennebunkport cowboy.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I was told a few months ago, about some forward base in iraq was actually having to be supplied by airdrops as it was under that much fire from the iraq resistance, was only broken by a massive use of airpower over a few days.
Few weeks after it happened the same female ( daughter of a relative whos back from iraq) said she over heard a congressman and a general talking, the congressman suggested if Patton was alive today the Iraq war would all be over by now, the general replied " sir if patton was alive today he would be in washington and the united states army would be right behind him"



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Originally posted by whaaa
".... To think that retired generals sever all contact with active duty generals and don't discuss military stuff such as their discontent with Rumsfeld is just silly."

REPLY: It has been my experience that, although "old friends will stay in contact with old friends", being ex-military does not make them privy to current intelligence, actions/results, and is in fact a breach of security for serving military officers to discuss these things with retired military of any rank, and is actionable.

".... I think that the active duty brass are using the retired generals as their spokes persons as they are afraid to voice dissenting opinions while on active duty."

REPLY: Patently false. It is not false... it is illegal for active military officers to comment on things political. You have obviously not noticed, that during State of The Union speeches, the military in the front row do not applaud or stand during said speeches..... it does happen, but is a very rare occurence. I know first hand that 99% of the in-field officers and enlisted men are in agreement with the way things are being run. I get tired of those who say "there were no plans" .... things are not going according to expectations", etc, etc. No amount of planning can account for daily changes in-field, and it has been that way in every war. Where's our exit strategy for Kosovo??? Clinton said the troops would be home by Christmas, 1995.

".... My prediction is that Rumsfeld will be toast by memorial day; maybe sooner as Colin Powell is beginning to voice his disaffection with the way the war has been run. I wonder what took him so long?"

REPLY: History shows that during a war, the State Department doors should be chained shut, or bricked up, and their meals slid under the door. Colin Powell? HA HA HA HA ..... I remember very clearly that when he brought up his plans for the beginning of this war against Saddam (under the first Pres. Bush) he was laughed out of the room. Have you yet predicted the date on which you'll win the lottery?...... it will be as accurate as your current prediction, I'm sure.

Please don't comment on things military if you haven't "been there" or do not have access to daily intel or such information.



[edit on 16-4-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
ROTFLMAO...
"....Oh yeah I forgot that this president can declassify whatever he wants on a whim ala valerie plame."

REPLY: Again you speak of that which you do not know. Nothing in what the president released mentions Plame (again, her name was not leaked... she was not in a classified position for over 6 years; Russia "outed her back in 1996; one of the people who WROTE the law protecting agents said no law was broken, hence no charges have been or will be filed against anyone; Plame outed herself back during the Algore election; her husband outed her at numerous social parties by introducing her as his "CIA wife").

Indeed, it is the president who has the ultimate authority to de-classify anything he wishes. Considering the massive amounts of mis-information in the media, he released info that might bring a bit of truth to light. Every president has done it since the 1920's. By the way, it was the president who made sure that the tons of caprured documents and tapes were made available to the public..... you know.... those damning documents and tapes that prove the WMD's and nuclear program.....

"....Please continue nitpicking, it shows your desperation."

REPLY: Ummmmm, Seekerof gives you links to detailed information and facts (which you did not read through, or possibly did not comprehend), yet you refuse to acknowledge any of it because it differs with your "opinion." That only shows YOUR desperation. I know.... I know .... the facts don't matter. Sorry.

Ignore. Bye.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
The bush cabals handling of iraq is not defendable,

Oh wait.....
, so says you and some 6 Clinton-era ex-generals with personal axes to grind?!

Apparently, such handling of Iraq IS being defended, not only by me, but by other retired and active top generals. Go back one page, remove your blinders, rub your eyes, and re-read?

6 retired general "Voices of Dissent" blowing against the wind, 10 Rummy supporting retired and active service generals voices being ignored, and political agendas being denied. How ironic, huh? As with Vietnam, so as with Iraq: the military situation did not screw things up, it was and is the political situation. Accordingly, this Rumsfeld-Iraq situation is no different. You have 6 retired and ex-generals running their political agenda mouths, when they should have been doing so in while still serving, thus keeping it a military situation and agenda.

The paradox here is that all 6 of these retired and ex-generals are leftovers from the Clinton era--yet there is no agenda being served here? You know, df1, like you profess no agenda here but the concern of troops dying in a conflict or war under this administration? Correct me if I am wrong here, but apparently you had no problem in the past when troops were dying under other administrations though, just this particular one, huh?

Newsflash: Rumsfeld inherited an Armed Forces wrought by Clinton era thinking, a drastically reduced Armed Forces and Budget, which was still preparing to fight the Soviet Union in Europe. Rumsfeld took over and had to restructure our Armed Forces while some "generals," these 6 retired and ex-generals included, have gone kicking and screaming the whole way because they still wanted to fight the Russians. Furthermore, the US Armed Forces under Rumsfeld have done what the Roman Empire failed to do, the British Empire failed to do, and what the Soviet Union had failed to do, and did it with an insignificant amount of total casualties in comparison. You do read history books, df1, hello?!

These 6 retired ex-generals equate to less then one tenth or one percent of the total number of retired and active generals, but OMG, these 6 "Voices of Dissent," this "Chorus and Onslaught" of the retired generals, are the ONLY ones that should matter? Why? Because they get air-time on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and the Today Show? No, because they suit your own self-serving political agendas and condemnations of this particular administration? Be truthful for once instead of playing your continued game of belittlement styled 'duck-n-cover.'




Your military service, whether true or not, lends nothing to the discussion.

My military service has about as much relevance in this topic as those retired democrat, Clinton ex-generals military service, huh, libertarian armchair general?




However my guess is that if you were in the military at all, your combat experience was limited to scrubbing a few latrines, otherwise you would not have such a cavalier attitude about our troops dying in iraq because of an incompetent white house.

"scrubbing latrines"

Oh the days of basic training....anyhow: Coming from one such as you, libertarian armchair general, is that meant as a compliment or condemnation?

Anytime you want a copy of my DD-214s, send me a u2u and your address, mate. I would be glad to personally bring them to you, again, anytime. Bet. Otherwise, spare me the 'a typical' armchair rhetoric, df1.






seekerof

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   


These 6 retired ex-generals equate to less then one tenth or one percent of the total number of retired and active generals, but OMG, these 6 "Voices of Dissent," this "Chorus and Onslaught" of the retired generals, are the ONLY ones that should matter? Why?


The truth always begins as a small voice. There is no other way.
You are unable to handle sacrilege against your beloved Bush. I'd wager you've declined to even read what the "retired" Generals are concerned about. If you have served your country in a war I empathise with the way you react to this news but you should consider if there's anything that will challenge your opinion. Write it down. Eventually evil declares itself. To most of the world Bush and co already have, many times. Do you think its even possible you've been mislead? If not why not? If someone threatens to kill a generation of youth in a faraway land that poses no immediate threat it (as Bush himself has declared) it makes little sense not to analyse and consider alternatives.




[edit on 16-4-2006 by Romeo]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Romeo
The truth always begins as a small voice. There is no other way.

Example or examples?




You are unable to handle sacrilege against your beloved Bush. I'd wager you've declined to even read what the "retired" Generals are concerned about.

Hope you did not bet anyone, you would lose that wager.





If you have served your country in a war I empathise with the way you react to this news but you should consider if there's anything that will challenge your opinion.

There are a mulitude of things that challenge my opinion. My opinion is simply that: an opinion, neither always right nor always wrong. I am human, I do make mistakes, and accordingly, have admitted those mistakes a number of times within this very opinion-based board. The key to my opinion is that I back it, when applicable, and fiercely defend it.





Write it down. Eventually evil declares itself.

True enough.





To most of the world Bush and co already have, many times.

I would beg to disagree. "Most" is undefined and open to variation, as well as interpretation.




Do you think its even possible you've been mislead? If not why not?

"Misled" on what, specifically?





If someone threatens to kill a generation of youth in a faraway land that poses no immediate threat it (as Bush himself has declared) it makes little sense not to analyse and consider alternatives.

The key word in your whole argument is "if."
There is a difference between 'what is' and 'what if'?






seekerof



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 03:51 AM
link   
see the way you deconstruct peoples words and answer a few short sentences. Try that on some of your own posts. What can it hurt. I am only trying to help you.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I've been a poster for for a month, give or take. I've decided that I'm going to do my best not to get in ANY debates with seekerof. He'll win almost all of them. I can't stand his posts... but it's because he gets under my skin by cleverly and intelligently discussing the issues, not name-calling or insults.

You piss me off sometimes, seeker, but you know your stuff. Mostly. ;-)



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Why Ex-Generals Want Rumsfeld's Head?

Before the Iraq invasion, the senior military did not force a discussion of what to do after the war was won. Rumsfeld was obsessed with the plan of attack, but not the aftermath. The consequences are by now a familiar litany: Rumsfeld demanded a swift, lean force that worked superbly to depose Saddam Hussein—but was woefully inadequate to take over the more onerous task of securing and rebuilding Iraq.

The real responsibility for Iraq, of course, lies with President Bush. Together with Vice President Dick Cheney (draft-deferred in Vietnam) and Rumsfeld (Navy jet pilot who did not see combat), Bush (Texas National Guard pilot) seemed determined to brush past or roll over the cautious national-security bureaucracy. Bush made little or no effort to prod his national-security staff to ask tough questions, such as how the Sunnis and Shiites would bury centuries of resentment when Saddam was gone. (Bush has said he listens to the generals, but it does not appear he heard any words of caution.)

Well it's pretty much clear, ain't it?

First of all, we have 3 People - Dick, George and Donald - who actually NEVER saw any Real Live combat or any war up close, since their powerful Dad's pull the strings and they never did actually do any REAL military duty.

And those 3 People have so much PRO-WAR words to share with us.

We all know that Dick and Donald were OBSESSED with Iraq and Saddam and the War in Iraq and they wanted what they wished for.

Now the people who actually have to Fight this one out, are the actually SOLDIERS who actually serve their country. Like the Privates and Sargeants and Majors and Captains - and ofcourse Generals.

They are on the Battleground, they are watching their Brothers and Sisters Die on daily basis, they are being attacked and bombed somewhere in the deserts of Middle East.

Not Rumsfeld.

Not Cheney.

Not Bush.

So - who do we Belive?

A goverment that has LIED to their own people and the people of the World SEVERAL times - and I am sure they Will lie in the future.

Or the Few Generals that said: "I have had Enough!"

Well the response by Thomas Donnelly, the editor of Armed Forces Journal is very enlightning:

"No president is going to be bullied by a bunch of retired general officers into firing a secretary of Defense!"

And who can?


Related ATS Threads:
Third Retired General Wants Rumsfeld Out



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   
General Myers supports Rusmfeld:


Key officer dismisses criticism of Rumsfeld
By Christine Hauser The New York Times

MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2006

Richard Myers, a prominent former air force general who served as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the invasion of Iraq, defended Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday, saying that the secretary of defense had given military leaders "tremendous access" for presenting their views, as the chorus of debate continued over Rumsfeld's handling of the conflict in Iraq.
International Herald Tribune


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Bush likes to hand out jobs to friends and family, and the family of friends.


Immigration Nominee's Credentials Questioned

By Dan Eggen and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 20, 2005; Page A01

The Bush administration is seeking to appoint a lawyer with little immigration or customs experience to head the troubled law enforcement agency that handles those issues, prompting sharp criticism from some employee groups, immigration advocates and homeland security experts.

The push to appoint Julie Myers to head the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, comes in the midst of intense debate over the qualifications of department political appointees involved in the sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina.

Concerns over Myers, 36, were acute enough at a Senate hearing last week that lawmakers asked the nominee to detail during her testimony her postings and to account for her management experience. Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) went so far as to tell Myers that her résumé indicates she is not qualified for the job.

***

Her uncle is Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She married Chertoff's current chief of staff, John F. Wood, on Saturday.
Washington Post


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Post Script
She got the job. *^^*



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The key to my opinion is that I back it, when applicable, and fiercely defend it.


You have voted Seekerof for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

First guy I ever disagreed with and still voted for. Its people like Seeker that keep this board a place I will visit. He is shaking the op like Barry Sanders. No matter how wrong we think you are, you are more than intelligent and concise in the defence of your position.

Carry on.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Well it's pretty much clear, ain't it?



What is clear? The media bias? yea sure is, but what you are failing to see in the print media is the fact that an equal number of retired generals have spoken out in his favor. CNN and MSNBC have both aired stories saying the same thing but that is just on TV which you do not see.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
What is clear? The media bias? yea sure is, but what you are failing to see in the print media is the fact that an equal number of retired generals have spoken out in his favor. CNN and MSNBC have both aired stories saying the same thing but that is just on TV which you do not see.

Blaming Media for this is simply silly.

Do you agree that Iraq is in Crisis and not Very Free and Liberated and Safe?

Do you agree that Middle East has become MORE instabile then before the "War on Terrorism"?

Do you agree that it is Easy for people like Rumsfeld and Cheney to want War? - since for them it means business - but for Soldiers and Generals it means something else; a Thin Red Line between Life and Death.

Apparently Some Generals have become aware of that.

But - where are these Generals who speak in his favor?

I bet there is Alot of them, since without them Wars could not be waged at all. After all, if you are not With US - you are against US, right?



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Blaming Media for this is simply silly.


No it is not, just because you choose not to believe it is not my problem.



But - where are these Generals who speak in his favor?



Right here







[edit on 4/17/2006 by shots]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
No it is not, I was telling the truth, just because you choose not to believe it is not my problem.

Truth is Relative.

Just because you choose to say it is True - it does not make it so.



Right here

Did they Receive a Medal?




Today's Best Cartoons

Cartoon
Daryl Cagle for MSNBC



Mod edit to remove cartoon image.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by parrhesia]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Did they Receive a Medal?



Nope.

But I did have the pleasure of denying your ignorance on the subject.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
But I did have the pleasure of denying your ignorance on the subject.

Naaah - It was my Pleasure.


This one is just for You:


Best Cartoons of the Day - Page 3

cagle.msnbc.com...
Steve Sack, Minnesota, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune



mod edit, to remove cartoon image

[edit on 17-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join