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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
Lmao. If we could for a moment return to reality...

The importance of what these:

Retired Generals
Ex-Military Officers
Former Commanders

said and did simply indicates what some here are failing to grasp, that Iraq itself is increasingly having internal strife, conflict, and problems. That is to me, the significance of what these:

Retired Generals
Ex-Military Officers
Former Commanders

were trying to convey.

Hey sport, you forgot to add Active Generals to that list of Retired Generals, Ex-Military Officers, and Former Commanders, especially in the case of those defending Rumsfeld. Thus making your use of my mentions in another thread relevant ( the above underlined) in this thread, irrelevant. And "reality" is relative to the one living it.





seekerof

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Seekerof]




posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Practice what you preach, maybe?


There was nothing in Launchpad's post that was partisan. You brought up partisan politics in a prior post.


Originally posted by Seekerof
You did not have a problem when the "moron" Clinton downsized the military a few hundred thousand, huh?


No problem though, you were probably having one of those Pot calling the kettle black moments.




[edit on 20-4-2006 by rizla]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
There was nothing in Launchpad's post that was partisan. You brought up partisan politics in a prior post.

Cite where I brought up partisan politics, and when you do, then cite where Launchpad did not bring up his career officer democrat approach partisan politics.




No problem though, you were probably having one of those Pot calling the kettle black moments.


Original thought must be an elusive matter for you, eh?






seekerof

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Seekerof]


df1

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Elements within the CIA are critical of the administration according to the following article, so this is not limited to the military, though the article also expands on the military criticisms when it recalls that the naval war college was making complaints about rummy since june of 2004 and the revolt within the judge adovate generals office in the spring of 2004. The generals have just added thier voices to a litany of criticism.


Harpers Magazine: CIA Unhappy With Bush
With the war in Iraq an utter debacle and public opinion turned against the White House, anger within the armed forces towards Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Administration is growing, and the Pentagon is fighting back (see “Pentagon Memo Aims to Counter Rumsfeld Critics” in the April 16 New York Times). But what's been little noted thus far is what looks to be a similar revolt brewing at the CIA. An ex-senior agency officer who keeps in contact with his former peers told me that there is a “a big swing” in anti-Bush sentiment at Langley. “I've been stunned by what I'm hearing,” he said. “There are people who fear that indictments and subpoenas could be coming down, and they don't want to get caught up in it.”


I hear the CIA is bringing the tar and feathers...
.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
you forgot to add Active Generals [to that list] Thus making your [argument] irrelevant.


You're logic is flawed. Adding Active Generals (and we can now add Elements within the CIA) to that list, rather than repudiate, reinforces the argument that Iraq itself is increasingly having internal strife, conflict, and problems.


Originally posted by Seekerof
And "reality" is relative to the one living it.


As Neocons argue, and again incorrect. Reality is the version we collectively agree on, not the version we individually wish it to be.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Cite where I brought up partisan politics


Did you read my post?

[edit on 21-4-2006 by rizla]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
I hear the CIA is bringing the tar and feathers...

You mean those that still remain after Bill Clinton Decimated the CIA?


You mean the same CIA that has it out for Bush?

Why am I not surprised to see the CIA squawking on Bush and Iraq once again? No CIA political agendas to be seen or had...nope, nada....






seekerof



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
You're logic is flawed. Adding Active Generals to that list, rather than repudiate, reinforces the argument that Iraq itself is increasingly having internal strife, conflict, and problems.

Wrong answer. Go back a few pages. I cited and linked most of the active duty generals that are defending Rumsfeld. You can either take what they say about Iraq or you can simply stick with your partisan view.





As Neocons argue, and again incorrect. Reality is the version we collectively agree on, not the version we individually wish it to be.

I am far from a "neocon," and I would dare say that you probably have no "reality"-based clue what one really is.





Did you read my post?

Did you read mine?







seekerof

[edit on 21-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by rizla
There was nothing in Launchpad's post that was partisan. You brought up partisan politics in a prior post.

Cite where I brought up partisan politics, and when you do, then cite where Launchpad did not bring up his career officer democrat approach partisan politics.




No problem though, you were probably having one of those Pot calling the kettle black moments.


Original thought must be an elusive matter for you, eh?






seekerof

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Seekerof]


Woa, buddy, cite where I did not go into partisan politics? How is it possible to cite something that does not exist??? (Were you discharged for mental reasons??)

Where did I mention ANYTHING to do with Clinton? What makes you think I would ever vote demon-crate?

Better yet WHY would you think I had no problems with draw downs under Mr. "intern blow me" guy? Those things only come up in you delusions.

I actually believe BOTH parties and their hard-line followers are complete wastes of human flesh- incapable of rational thought or doing anything good for this country as a whole. That we are stuck with basically just two parties is a down side of this wonderful country. But if you want to go on with the delusion that I might be one of those Demon-crates go right a..

Also, if you cannot take some well reasoned criticism of anyone one your political parties “dream team” just stay the freak out of the conversations- not like I could ever sway you anyway. Geesh.


Your attitude is . . .well . . .very typical of someone that thinks he's a hot shot and not too bright so must compensate in other means. PJ huh- with your attitude? Yeah riiiiiight- if you really EVER were- they escorted you right out the gate- possible after a bit of confinement. I was in Combat Control for a very short time during the "great" first Gulf War myself- hmmm I probably know you then seeing as PJs train right along side. Blah, so what- lots of folks are then go on to do other things- turns out I do not have great swimming abilities and was not picking them up as fast as they would have liked, but I could out run the seasoned guys all day long. Hundreds tried out in basic training and I think the average was 7 for each group that made initial cuts- Blah some more, soooo what. I was part of the Philippines evac as well- blah so what. Been to the North Pole for 13 months too- more so what.

What really does what either of us have done to do with Mr. Rumsfield being a poor person for the job?

I think you might just be a mid 30’s sniveling little kid that never grew up and could not hack it.

Whiner ?

You know what- I have told more than one full bird and even a particular star that I did not think we were going down the right path- they were real men and could handle the critique and I earned their respect because of it. Likewise they earned more of mine because they trusted someone closer to the issue- as a real leader should. Mr. Rumsfield is not like them-Power has gone to his .. He has not taken the advice of those seasoned and in the know- besides those closer to their men and those actuallyexperienced in combat. Those that were not simply appointed but earned their way to the top one rank at a time. This is something you obviously do not get because you have never LEAD men. I have been on both sides and earned many medals along the way doing just that LEADING men. I have an outstanding record and from one in the trenches- “the boss needs to step aside- he is harming the military as a whole” – just as the “ex-“generals were saying.

Blah, you are not worth the time.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Did you read mine?


You have made a mistake. Please go back and read my post. You introduce a partisan element in the exchange by criticising Clinton. Launchpad's initial criticism of the current administration's handling of Iraq is not by definition partisan. You, not Launchpad, introduce a partisan element.



Originally posted by Seekerof
You can either take what they say about Iraq or you can simply stick with your partisan view.


Your doing it again. 'Criticising the handling of Iraq is partisan' is a Non Sequitur.




I am far from a "neocon," and I would dare say that you probably have no "reality"-based clue what one really is.


I never said you were a neocon. Please read my post carefully.
The idea that the Neocon approach involves redefining reality, whether you accept it or not, has been documented. Your knowledge of the subject appears incomplete. I suggest you read up before criticizing mine.


Regarding your assertion that my initial statement was irrelevant, you're logic continues to be flawed.

Here is the statement (with updates):

The importance of what these:

Retired Generals
Ex-Military Officers
Former Commanders
Active Generals (especially in the case of those defending Rumsfeld)
Elements of the CIA


said and did simply indicates what some here are failing to grasp, that Iraq itself is increasingly having internal strife, conflict, and problems.


I include 'especially in the case of...' only for completeness. It is an inessential emphatic clause and its removal leaves the basic meaning intact, thus refuting your argument.


[edit on 21-4-2006 by rizla]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Seekerof, I'm glad you haven't changed.


You give me yet ANOTHER thing to laugh at on ATS.
How come you didn't have to tell me that you like Rumsfeld?

The same guy who said he NEVER said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The same guy who "couldn't recall" McKinney's questions when she was grilling him on CSPAN (I heard everything she said quite clearly, and I wasn't even there). The same guy who lied and said Dyncorp was put in the "penalty box" for involvement in the sex slave trade.

I LOVE it, though, because it ain't just you defending these maggots, these pus sacks, these buckets of human detritus. At the same time people say "support the troops," they defend the people making them pay for damaged body armor, restricting their use of certain armor, making them buy their own plane tickets home from Rammstein, making them buy basic supplies, giving them dirty water, etc.

The same people who cheer the Iraq effort while ignoring Powell et al. who said we needed more troops from the jump. And, yes, oil IS a big reason for the WOT, but not like some think it is. It's no accident that LESS oil is flowing out of Iraq now. You people say "if it was about oil, how come my gas is so high?"

You didn't actually think YOU were going to benefit, did you? While the pieces of shot you support are already raping the hell out of you? Wait, you DID think they were getting that oil for you? You DO realize that gas wouldn't be so expensive if it was flowing like Saddam had it? How else would the oil companies set records and execs get fat ass retirement packages?

And look, miraculously, Iran, with their super jihadi nukes that are already destroying Israel before they've been made
, is causing oil prices to go up. What a coincidence! They're foaming at the mouth with nukes and EMP bombs waiting to get us! Oh, no, we gotta get them, and that "strategic region that will help deter terrorists" needs to be secured; it's just a coincidence that that's the place where a good chunk of Iran's finest (oil, that is) happens to be...



df1

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Cheney Boo'd At RFK Stadium....

What are the "faux patriots" going to say about the warm greeting given to the vp? Wait I know what these jokers going to say... It was democratic national committee day at the ballpark. It seems that a military rank is unnecessary as everyone knows that this administration has been a disaster for america except for the white house and their lap dogs.

My major gripe at the moment is that congress, republicans and democrats alike, are sitting on their hands rather than doing their duty and taking the actions necessary to remove this corrupt cabal that has infected the white house.
.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Seekerof's sudden silence speaks volumes.


df1

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
And the hits just keep on rolling as Prominent US Physicists Send Letter to Bush warning of the horrific consquences of nuking iran. All of the nuclear chest beating from the white house is making people nervous.

SeekerOf better get use to this type stuff, as I suspect that it will continue for the remainder of the bush administration. Whether he believes it or not, I really hope that he able to refute at least some of this anti-bush stuff.

[edit on 21-4-2006 by df1]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Now it hasn't been all bad, I'm sure there are plenty of Generals who support Rumsfeld, when they are on camera and Rummy is standing right behind them with a pistol pointed at the back of their . incase they decide to tell the truth.

But yes, at least democrats only have to defend players, JFK and JFK II, or CLinton. But republicans? They have to defend the pedophiles, IE Conspiracy of Silence, the racists, IE Strummy and Bill Frist, the Sith Lord of Politics Cheney, Gay Prostitutes planted by Bush&Co, exposing undercover CIA agents, laughing about Katrina, on video, but deny you knew what would happen, lying about WMDs in Iraq, ignoring Germany and Israel about Osama and airplanes... You get the point. Oh and Rush Limbaugh being a druggy, and Bush being a druggy, and Bill O-Reilly being a pervert, and Jack Abramoff, and... I'll stop there.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Ground Control to Major Tom...


Originally posted by rizla
Seekerof's sudden silence speaks volumes.

For you it might.
For me, it's simple and it's along the lines of "give you enough rope...."






seekerof

[edit on 21-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Ground Control to Major Tom...


Why be rude?


Originally posted by Seekerof
For you it might.
For me, it's simple and it's along the lines of "give you enough rope...."



This is not a counter to my post, and again, speaks volumes.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by rizla]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Let it speak volumes then, rizla.
Remember, countering and responding are options, not required, thus if you see the lack of a response as "speaking volumes," then pat yourself on the back, but "speaking volumes" remains ambiguous and irrelevant, simply only mattering to the one looking for a response. Sorry to disappoint you. I will endeavor to do better in the future, if I opt to take that option.

Btw, I still see that Rummy has not been fired, Iraq continues to progress, and those 7 ex-generals have faded into obscureness.




seekerof



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Remember, countering and responding are options, not required,


They are obligatory in debate and I have challenged you. You refuse to debate.


Originally posted by Seekerof
"silence speaking volumes" remains ambiguous and irrelevant


"Silence speaking volumes" is not ambiguos, it is crystal clear. i.e. That your refusal to debate demonstrates that you were wrong.
Neither is it irrelevant. Your refusal to debate adds weight to my arguments, namely:

1. that you wrongly accused Luanchpad of introducing a partisan element to your exchange. In actual fact, it was you ('You did not have a problem when the "moron" Clinton etc').

2. That my the statement (paraphrased) "The importance of what these Retired Generals, etc said and did simply indicates that Iraq itself is increasingly having internal strife, conflict, and problems. is true.



Originally posted by Seekerof
Iraq continues to progress, and those 7 ex-generals have faded into obscureness.


Garbage.


[edit on 23-4-2006 by rizla]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
They are obligatory in debate and I have challenged you. You refuse to debate.

You can call it "refuse," I simply call it 'option.'
Hows the length of that rope your utilizing, btw?





"Silence speaking volumes" is not ambiguos, it is crystal clear. i.e. That your refusal to debate demonstrates that you were wrong.

Since your so into dictionary usages, you had better look up 'ambiguous,' because it is open to two or more interpretations: yours and mine.




Neither is it irrelevant. Your refusal to debate adds weight to my arguments.

I am showing you how irrelevant this is, by not engaging in your so-deemed call to debate. My refusal in engaging this further is simply your take, bearing relevance to you, not me.




1. that you wrongly accused Luanchpad of introducing a partisan element to your exchange. In actual fact, it was you ('You did not have a problem when the "moron" Clinton etc').

Thats "Launchpad" there sport, and further, wrong or right is relative.




2. That my the statement (paraphrased) "The importance of what these Retired Generals, etc said and did simply indicates that Iraq itself is increasingly having internal strife, conflict, and problems. is true.

It is false.


ambiguous


Further, this little go-round between you and I is better served elsewhere for it is simply derailing this topic, but please, in your crusade to carry this further, derail away. I will continue to adhere to "option."





seekerof



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Do not forget that the Generals that are speeking up are Bill Clinton era Generals
If you care to read about the truth of the matter and not the media spin then go to the web site PatriotPost.com.




top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join