(guest blog by Taylor Marsh)
It began with the humiliation of General Shinseki.
"Rumsfeld has been contemptuous of the views of senior military officers since the day he walked in as secretary of defense. It’s about time they got sick and tired," Thomas E. White, the former Army secretary, said in a telephone interview on Thursday. Mr. White was forced out of his job by Mr. Rumsfeld in April of 2003. - More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld’s Resignation
Donald Rumsfeld deserves the heat he’s getting. That it’s coming from a line of retired generals means even more.
In the end, we found out that Colin Powell didn’t have what it took to lead, playing the "good soldier" to the end, hah. Today, however, it’s clear many in the military have simply had it with Rumsfeld’s weak and cowardly brand of "leadership," which has unfolded from a quick war win into a murderous civil war, with American honor and integrity one of the casualties. Of course, the commander in chief deserves most of the blame, if you’re a member of the Harry Truman club, where the buck stops with the boss. But the man who has been most responsible for implementing military policy in Iraq is none other than Donald "stuff happens" Rumsfeld.
Quite a few retired generals have had it and we may not have seen or heard the last of it.
The White House has dismissed the criticism, saying it merely reflects tensions over the war in Iraq. There was no indication that Mr. Rumsfeld was considering resigning.
"The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation’s history," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters on Thursday.
Among the retired generals who have called for Mr. Rumsfeld’s ouster, some have emphasized that they still believe it was right for the United States to invade Iraq. But a common thread in their complaints has been an assertion that Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides too often inserted themselves unnecessarily into military decisionmaking, often disregarding advice from military commanders.
The outcry also appears based in part on a coalescing of concern about the toll that the war is taking on American armed forces, with little sign, three years after the invasion, that United States troops will be able to withdraw in large numbers anytime soon.
Pentagon officials, while acknowledging that Mr. Rumsfeld’s forceful style has sometimes ruffled his military subordinates, played down the idea that he was overriding the advice of his military commanders or ignoring their views. (source)
Others would disagree.
There’s Lt. General Gregory Newbold, retired director of operations at the Pentagon’s military joint staff; Paul D. Eaton who served in Iraq and trained the Iraqi army; former general Anthony Zinni; and retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste; now Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack joins them.
That’s an impressive group, but you can’t forget the Fighting Dems either. Over 50 veterans of both the Iraq and Vietnam wars who are running as Democrats in 2006 because of the Iraq war.
Generals disapprove of the war, but the treatment of the military since Bush, Rummy and Deadeye have been in charge cannot be lost on the generals and other leaders in the U.S. military. There’s the body armor debacle. Over 30,000 soldiers, at last count, have come home with PTSD. But something rarely talked about, but very important, is the affect of the Bush administration’s policies on military families. Then to add insult to injury, there was the death of Pat Tillman, which had added grief on top of tragedy for a family already experiencing more than their share of pain.
Sure, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shares the blame with many in the Bush administration, especially the boss, all of whom have shown such abject incompetence on Iraq that it should have led to their ouster in 2004 on that issue alone. But it didn’t. We can only hope that Rumsfeld is getting the message and does the right thing for this country, because it’s long past time for him to go.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Bradley Graham, By His Own Rules: The Ambitions, Successes and Ultimate Failures of Donald Rumsfeld
- McChrystal: Detainee Abuse Initially Informed by Rumsfeld Memo
- Rumsfeld Blames General Counsel Jim Haynes for Torture Policy
- Will the Senate Ask McChrystal About Torture Under His Command?
- They laugh alike, they walk alike, At times they even talk alike





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Fitz!
Forrestal showed Rummy the honorable way out…
I wonder if the right thinks that the generals and the “fighting Dems” “hate America” and have a “vested interest” in losing the war. I’m sure Hugh “disease-ridden” Hewitt does.
rummy punch
James V. Forrestal September 17, 1947 – March 28, 1949 1st Secretary of Defense
http://www.defenselink.mil/spe…..restal.htm
I’m still don’t think we can put him on Death Watch quite yet. The man survived Abu Grahaib, after all. And nobody in this Administration really pays for their incompetence. The closest we’ve come is Mike Brown. Besides, I don’t think Bush wants to change Defense Secretaries right in the middle of the run-up to the Iran war.
I posted about this on the thread below, but just to make sure this isn’t lost, DHS has issued a very disturbing bulletin. Reading this I can’t help but think blogs like FDL are already or soon will be seen as a terrorist group.
Such radical extremist groups may use several tactics — each devastating in its own way — including:
- “organizing protests”
- “flyer distribution”
- “inundating computers with e-mails”
- “tying up phone lines to prevent legitimate calls.”
- “sending continuous faxes in order to drain the ink supply from company fax machines”
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000380.php
Beware the evil fax and email bombers!
If you Ever Wanted To End a War…
Sir! No Sir!
http://www.sirnosir.com/home_filmtrailers.html
During Wilkerson’s q & a after a particularly good speech at the MEI this week, he said that Rummy had unprecented power and that we do in fact have two secdefs– one at the Pentagon and one in the WH– none other than former secdef VP Cheney.
So Frank Probst, we will still have a secdef even if rummy is forced out… I wish the generals would call for the ouster of the commander in chief. Now, that would be something…
MSNBC Question of the Day (Torturously worded)
Will comments by retired Generals adversely affect troop morale?
Yes 28%
No 72%
* 2780 responses
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/#anc_QOD041406
Another thought: They really can’t axe him. That would be an admission of failure, or at the very least, an admission of a mistake. That’s not Bush’s forte. Why do all these former generals hate America?
I don’t think there’s any doubt Bush doesn’t want to get rid of Rummy, Frank. And there may be no “death watch” yet, but if any man deserves to lose his job — since we failed to get rid of Bush and Cheney in 2004 — it’s Rumsfeld.
I’m all confused now. Dear Leader says Rummy is doing a great job. ????
Where were all these generals 3 years ago? Why don’t they SCREAM bloody murder about gitmo and abu graib?
I suspect they are more humiliated by the coming defeat of the american forces yet again and trying to blame the tactics, the strategy, the civilian leadership and so forth.
The problem is:
The military itself is wrong. It is bloated and cross linked to defense industries and they both are feeding each other.
The US military does not defend our nation. Rather it cleans a path for the corportations to exploit the rest of the world.
We need to seriously downsize the entire military establishment. It is draining out resources from productive useful things needed WITHIN our shores.
But when you let corporations have their way… you will get what you have in this DOD or DOW.
America is broke. it’s not the fault of Rummy. They just have been master players at the game. And these genereals know that if we keep losing the gig is up for them. We can’t afford this military.
Ford wants Rumsfeld to quit
Senate hopeful stops in Clarksville, demands DoD chief’s resignation
By CHANTAL ESCOTO
The Leaf-Chronicle
U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr., D-Tenn., called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation and urged President Bush to replace him with former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell.
Ford said if he were President Bush, “I would do whatever I could to persuade Powell to take the (position).”
John Casper.
Thank you very much for the Forrestal link. I really didn’t know about that/him — it is always great to add to the knowledge base.
Thanks
And…Retired Army Major Gen. John Riggs
Are you saying that we should have won this war and could have done with a smarter SecDef?
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUGHT… or rather attacked a defenseless sovereign nation. This is FIRST a policy failure.
Can we drop bombs like there is no tomorrow? Sure we can. And that demonstrates what?
Where were all these generals 3 years ago?
DefJef
Active duty military are prohibited from publicly speaking out about the commander in chief or their civilian leadership. To do so would end their careers, and possibly bring charges.They depend on their recent retirees to let the public know what’s going on.
I had dinner last night with a just-returned Army National Guard enlisted guy. He’s been in Kandahar Afghanistan for the last year, and worried that his unit will be sent back again a year from now.
His summary: everything is totally FUBAR. Enlistment standards have been dropped so far that one new guy assigned to refueling choppers was ostracized and kept off the flight line because he just couldn’t learn the safety procedures involved in fueling. His enlistment sargeant took the GED and Army tests for him – guy had only a 9th grade education.
He said that National Guard battalions are attached to Regular Army brigades and treated like dirt. He, and others, are scrambling to change to other units in the Air Force Guard or Reserve rather than the Army Nat. Guard. Apparently guys leaving both Iraq and Afghanistan are getting orders to return in a year when they depart for the US.
Rumsfeld and Co have deeply hurt our military morale and readiness. They have broken the best and made them into shattered vessels.
Look for a bill to be introduced allowing reduction in rank post-retirement. That would mean a commensurate reduction in pension. I see a lot of generals busted back to private in the future.
Taylor, btw, you were great on CSPAN. I hope Tweety or Keith will pick you up as a Democratic commentator.
These Generals are a mixed bag when it comes to the Iraq war – some opposed it, while others think it was the right thing to do but BushCo blew the execution of it. Either way, they are united in their judgment of the failures of Rumsfeld, and the danger it has placed the US military in (not just now, but as it faces future potential conflicts).
What I’d *love* to hear is how this is playing among the generals and colonels still inside the Pentagon. Any lurkers with no right angled corners in their offices want to offer any insights?
Rumsfeld deserves more than just the heat he’s getting, he deserves to be tried as a war criminal, as do Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and the rest of the civilian neocon warmongers.
Until they get marched into the Hague, there is no justice.
here, here Jay!!
Those bad ol’ generals are not supporting the troops (bandwagon). They gettin’ troops killed (projection). They are hurting troop morale (demonizing). Seems like most folks are NOT getting suckered by that MSNBC poll loaded question and that is a good thing to be thankful for this Easter Egg & Bunny (fertility symbols)weekend. Go Mother Earth! Go Pagans!
Bush can’t fire Rumsfeld; Rummy probably has the evidence of Bushies AWOL shennanigans.
From the EPU:
Thanks, Taylor for a wonderful post to start off the best thread I ever read.
The graphic blend of Maxfield Parrish and Bucky Fuller calls to mind this poem by Richard Brautigan.
All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace
I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.
I like to think
(right now please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.
I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.
1967
orangejumpsuit gets it.
No American will ever be marched to the Hague. Not that I wouldn’t like to see it.
The US (Reagan) withdrew from world court after losing a case to Nicaragua for US involvement in the Sandinista/contra conflict.
In an earlier thread, someone pointed out the the Air Force and Navy’s retired flag officers seem to be sitting this one out. I agree, but I would also point out that neither branch really has a dog in this hunt.
The only Navy personnel involved on the ground in Iraq are the ones attached to Marine units (Corpsmen, physicians, clergy, I’m not sure what else) and probably some SEAL teams. The Air Force has even fewer people on the ground. Basically, their guys aren’t being chewed up in the Iraqi gristmill.
Flag officers coming out against administration policies is unprecedented in my life and my reading of US history. Sure, after Pearl Harbor, Kimmel and the CG of the Hawaiian Department (Maj Gen Short?) were very critical of being hung out to dry. But they weren’t after the Administration about the War. And there is some criticism in memoirs from the aftermath Plains Indian war. But this is unprecedented, and I don’t quite know what to make of it.
The only thing I’m pretty sure of about it all is this. There are some extremely pissed off generals.
BC
I posted a longish comment about this topic last night on the Gingrich/ Won’t get fooled again thread — #82.
The upshot was — this is an historically unique amount of criticism from the military and may be a lead-in to an historically unique reaction to civilian rule.
Interviewed on Fresh Air 4/12/06, Sy Hersh said there was no way Bush would fire Rumsfeld. He might resign, but he will never be pushed out. Bush and Cheney can’t afford to antagonize Rummy, since these three are the co-conspirators in the biggest organized crime syndicate in American history.
“Among the retired generals who have called for Mr. Rumsfeld’s ouster, some have emphasized that they still believe it was right for the United States to invade Iraq.”
My point – With the growing number of officers saying he should be fired but his bosses were “right” in thier decisions to invade, Surley some officer some where thinks they weren’t “right” to invade a country for no reason.
If Rumsfeld had been in Tommy Franks’ uniform commanding the invasion and had pushed through his understaffed invasion plan, and asuming that the USA had a fact-based government in power, he very likely would have been brought up on charges of derelection of duty. One of the oldest principles of military engagement is that everything else being equal, the guy who has the overpowering numerical advantage not only wins, but minimizes his side’s casualties in the process. There have been a few exceptions to the rule (Agincourt comes to mind) but not many. To have not staffed the Iraq operation sufficiently is flat out derelection in view of how things played out.
I think that invading Iraq was a poor strategic choice. However, although it was high-risk, it could have worked to our advantage, at least in the short run. But for that to have happened we needed to have both overwhelming numbers on the ground to keep the peace, and yet at the same time have them there with a soft foot print. When anarchy broke out and we couldn’t begin to control it, the likelihood of a positive outcome slipped through our hands then and there.
Even if it had gone our way, I believe the long-term prognosis would not have been good. Although many Iraqis themselves would have been glad to be out from under Saddam’s thumb, eventually they would have got tired of seeing a big cut of their oil profits going to Exxon and Chevron. Their question then would become the Arabic version of “What have you done for me lately?” Also, the whole affair would have been another addition to the sense of impotence that seems to pervade the streets of the Arab world, and thus would have done nothing to stem the recruitment of terrorists by al Qaeda and their ilk.
Who served?
Republicans
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
House Whiip Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. “Bad knee.” The man who attacked Max Cleland’s patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon Kyl: did not serve.
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as aviator and flight instructor
George W. Bush: six-year Nat’l Guard commitment (incomplete).
Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
Gerald Ford: Navy, WWII
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Bob Dole: an honorable veteran.
Chuck Hagel: two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star,Vietnam.
Jeff Sessions: Army Reserves, 1973-1986
JC Watts: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
G.H.W. Bush: Pilot in WWII. Shot down by the Japanese.
TomRidge: Bronze Star for Valor inVietnam.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
Clarence Thomas: did not serve
So Rumsfeld served as a flight instructor, and hasn’t fought in a war?
The list for the Dems is the exact opposite of this Repub list, most Dems have served.
Slightly OT, but someone said that the reason Rummy stands at his desk is because he has a permanent hard on.
Gives a whole new meaning to peckerwood.
Why can’t active duty military speak their mind? That is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
Where is the notion of conscientious objection in that?
ck
How true.
They don’t want him writing books till they are gone.
PS – What do they have on Tenet?
sans-culotte –
Sounds like DHS tore a page out of the 2002 Republican Campaign Operative’s playbook (paraphrased from AP):
Bush campaign operative and Republicans’ New England regional director, James Tobin was recently convicted in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from getting rides to the polls.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..ne_jamming
Remember hearing about disinformation distributed in flyers to Democratic voting districts in 2000 and 2004?
They’re grasping for a way to deal with patriots who disagree with them – what better way than to call them terrorists?
If only the military establishment in this nation were to crumble… and we could build a rational defense system and get away from the notion that the world is a bunch of battlefield theatres and targets.
Active duty can’t speak.
Recent retirees can.
Now Rummy/Pace and all the milpundits on the teevee are saying they should have spoken up while still in uniform and that they did not hear any of these complaints… and it is hurting our troop morale.
Total BS.
General Odom said that the Iraq War IS the greatest military blunder in the history of America.
-GSD
More who served:
Pundits and Preachers
Sean Hannity: did not serve.
Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a ‘pilonidal cyst.’)
Bill O’Reilly: did not serve.
Michael Savage: did not serve.
George Will: did not serve.
Chris Matthews: did not serve.
Paul Gigot: did not serve.
Bill Bennett: did not serve.
Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
Bill Kristol: did not serve.
Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
Michael Medved: did not serve.
Don’t look at the picture!!!! He’s putting a spell over us!!! Help!!!!!
Minnesotachuck #34:
All well and good — but it completely ignores the fact that we had absolutely zero right to invade them at all. They did not threaten us, nor attack us, nor in any way pose such a threat that we were justified in killing all those people.
How well the thing was exeuted is completely beside the point. The point is that we engaged in (and are engaging in) mass murder. Whether we did it well or not means nothing to me.
Where were all these generals 3 years ago?
Probably being briefed by their JAGs on Article 88, UCMJ:
Contempt toward officials
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.â€
Truth is not a defense to a charge under Article 88.
The maximum punishment is dismissal from the service (the equivalent, for an officer, of a dishonorable discharge, a dismissal cuts off pension and medical benefits, even those accrued prior to the offense), forfeiture of all pay and allowances as they accrue, and confinement for one year.
That said — at some point, these generals should have realized that whatever they hoped to gain by remaining on active duty and trying to make the administration’s war policies work was a fool’s errand. And at that point, they should have retired and spoken out at once.
This is america. Anyone can speak… Even these so called non disclosure agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.
Anyone who speaks the truth should not suffer any consequences.
Rum on da rocks;
http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/14/rummy/
Congress could set up a war crimes court.
Speaking of military backlash, the statement by this group stunned me.
http://www.westpointgradsagain…..pose_2.htm
Thanks for the great post, Taylor, but I’m sure many of us feel the whole fucking lot of ‘em should get fired, not just Rumsfeld. Here’s a question: given that these retired generals are saying what they’re saying, does the active military top brass feel the same way (and can’t speak up because they’re still active)? And if so, what does that mean for future war planning (Iran) by the Administration?
(kinda) OT
My musical hero, Neil Young has a new album recorded that includes a song with the lyrics “impeach the President.”
http://downwithtyranny.blogspo…..-wont.html
“The new album is called LIFE IN WAR.
One of Neil’s collaborators, filmmaker, Jonathan Demme, describes it as “a brilliant electric assault on Bush and the war in Iraq.†The linchpin track, “Impeach the President,” features an edited-together Bush rap set to a 100-voice chorus chanting “flip/flop.” The album, with Young on Old Black, Rick Rosas on bass and Chad Cromwell on drums, took three days to finish. Yep; that’s Neil. No release date is set yet but… hopefully it’ll be before November.”
Our generation’s “Ohio”?
For The Holiday…
An Easter Story Diary At Kos
Enjoy!
Screw military law.. I say… They have WAY WAY WAY too much power and independence in our country.
The military must be subject to civil law. Change it!
What do they have on Tenet?
Well, a US Consulate in Saudi Arabia denied visas to several 9/11 hijackers, but the CIA overrode the decision and issued the visas. Professional courtesy for Saudi Intel is my guess.
Several 9/11 hijackers (including the ring leader) learned to fly at a CIA connected flight school in Florida — see madcowprod.com for the details.
Every spook service on the planet knew the 9/11 attacks were coming, and many of them gave the CIA explicit warnings. The Mossad even had agents who were arrested in New Jersey after videotaping the attack on the WTC. To his credit, Tenet personally warned the preznit more than 50 times that the attacks were coming, but he was ignored — just like the 8/6/01 PDB was ignored.
Whether these or other facts are the cause, BushCo definitely had Tenet by the short hairs.
By the way, does anyone realize the bitter irony for Bush. In the Rove playbook, the plan is to attack the STRENGTH of you adversary.
Thanks to these generals, the heavy lifting is now being ddone. Bush has had every leg of support kicked out from under him and the only thing he had left was his “war president” meme.
Well, that is being attacked through his proxy Crumbsfeld.
We may begin to see the polling threshhold break below 30% if this snowball keeps heading down the hill.
-GSD
DefJam #47:
You’ve never broken a nondisclosure agreement, have you? You may disagree about whether they should be meaningful or not, but in our system, they are legally very powerful. In signing one, you are voluntarily giving up a limited piece of your right to free speech. You don’t have to sign it.
DefJef,
Active duty military are under orders. One of the standing regs is that they avoid partisan political activity.
The only military personnel who have a limited license to speak publicly are flag officers (generals and admirals) confirmed in their appointment by Congress. Congress used to expect these officers to come tell them what was what. What the Rubber-stamp-republicans expect of them is not clear.
The other thing to remember about military personnel is that they are products of an extremely hierarchical culture. Following orders and knowing who the boss is is second nature to them. Taking the boss to task publicly is foreign to them.
BC
Fighting Dems: Band of Brothers
There are 50 Veterans Running as Dems in 06
http://www.zippyvideos.com/153…..g_version/
Very powerful commercial
How many vets are running as Repugs? Anyone know? I think it’s something like 1
A Baghdad blogger’s video featured the other night on Newsnight here in the UK. I didn’t really get the impression that hearts & minds have been won, or that any progress at all has been made really. Can be watched here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/pro…..efault.stm
Near the bottom: “Watch Salam Pax’s film”
DefJef, 37 &47: IIRC, it’s a violation of the UCMJ for a person on active duty in the full-time military to be involved in partisan politics. It’s somewhat grayer for Reserve and NG folks, but I believe it still holds when they’ve been called up. While it may be frustrating at times like this, we should remember that we are fortunate to have a deeply embedded tradition of civilian control. It’s a case of ‘be careful what you wish for’.
Since the Vietnam War career people in the military have voted predominantly Republican. However earlier in the 20th century a lot of officers, though not all, did not even vote in deference to the principle of civilian control. George Marshall was one of these.
Does anyone think that the Generals who chose not to speak were in anyway cowed, threatened, bullied?
I mean, look at the warm and wonderful treatment that Ambassador Joe Wilson recieved from the Bush Whitehouse after speaking his conscience?
Wilson was the canary in the coalmine and Bush and Rove and Cheney were the hands that snapped the birds neck.
Just like mobsters of old: “Anyone have any problems, we’ll do this to you too. That goes for yous guys in uniform too.”
-GSD
seepeesate #45
I don’t disagree with you. In fact that’s the main reason I believe it was a poor strategic choice. However, I was trying to make the point that invading Iraq was not a good idea even on the terms in which Bush-Cheney is presumably thinking about it (to use the term loosely).
IIRC, all the generals so far are either Marine or Army. IMO next step is to get at least one from the Navy and one from the Air Force.
OT (way behind as usual).
RH at 10:15 a.m.
“But we learn that Libby had a primer document on exactly what to say. And that mystery in and of itself is worth the price of admission in this reading.”
So just what was that document he pulled out of his pocket at breakfast with JudyJudyJudy?
hmmmm.
This paraphrased an email I sent to our leaker in chief today:
Please keep Sec. Rumsfeld at his job. Also hire Tom Delay. See if you can get more public appearances for the VP. Critics then won’t be able to just focus on your job performance.
holey moley that was from yesterday. I AM behind. ooops. lunch is over. back to work.
I have not previewed the about posts, sorry if already brought up. If then, consider this an “echo”.
Removing Rumsfeld will not change the policy, which is alleged to come from Bush (more likely, Cheney).
To change the policy, remove those making policy, Bush/Cheney.
Rumsfeld is simply doing what he thinks best to conform to “policy”. Only if one is criticising how he conforms to policy would the retirees comments make sense.
I’d love to ask the retirees to clarify their comments.
We can only hope that Rumsfeld is getting the message and does the right thing for this country, because it’s long past time for him to go.
you can’t be serious, there is no person in the white house that will do the “right thing for the country”.
they are only interested in moving forward the agenda of their sick fraternity, the PNAC and the country be damned to these sickos
What if Rummy steps down, and Cheney replaces him? No discontinuity, and the Whitehouse gets to choose who will carry the torch–Condi as VP perhaps? Or do you think Condi would take defense–she wanted it in ‘04…..
Ot,But for all of the Plamegaters here;
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0413.html
Well, here you go:
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was “personally involved” in the interrogation of an al-Qaeda detainee that turned “harsh,” according to an explosive report at Salon.com based on an Army inspector general’s report released through an FOIA request.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0414.html
When will the media notice how the Bush administration policies are pushing the military into the arms of the Democratic party? I guess they’re too busy typing stories about how Democrats have no ideas.
That said — at some point, these generals should have realized that whatever they hoped to gain by remaining on active duty and trying to make the administration’s war policies work was a fool’s errand. And at that point, they should have retired and spoken out at once.
I wonder how many remained because they knew if they left they’d be replaced by someone chosen solely for their loyalty to Rumsfeld and Bush, who would wouldn’t question. That is, staying not so much to try to make the insane policies work, but to slow them down as much as possible. Considering how little effect the resignations on principle and criticism from retired officers have had so far, I can’t fault them if they decided to stay in for that reason.
John Casper, #63:
The retired vice admiral who’s running for Congress against Curt Weldon of PA probably counts. Don’t recall his name, however, and I’m not sure how explicit he’s been in taking on Rummy.
DefJef, What MinnesotaChuck says (#60). Nobody wants a military making its own decisions, without input from the citizens (the voters, the people who elect the president). How would you like it if the generals decided by themselves to invade France? Or decided by themselves to refuse to defend the country against a real military attack? The military is all about a bunch of people who give up a lot of their rights to become an instrument for the protection of the Constitutional government and our national safety. The generals haven’t done a thing wrong here, and this policy isn’t what needs to change. What needs to change is the group of elected officials that misuses the power of our military.
Heckuvajob Rummie can’t be pushed off the carrier deck. Just like all the other BushCo criminals, he has too much dirt on his partners in crime.
CNN is reporting that a fifth retired general is calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation.
“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,†said retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division.
Actually, this may be the sixth general. Generals Newbold, Eaton, Zinni, and Batiste have gained prominent attention in calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation. But another less-noticed general, Ret. Army Gen. John Riggs, told the Washington Post recently:
[Riggs] believes that his peer group is “a pretty closemouthed bunch†but that, even so, his sense is “everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out.â€
Given the inability of Bush to do what needs to be done, it’s time to revisit one of “Rumsfeld’s Rules†pertaining to presidential staff:
Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the President and do wonders for your performance.
UPDATE: Reuters has another quote from Gen. Riggs:
Retired Major Gen. John Riggs told National Public Radio that Rumsfeld had helped create an atmosphere of “arrogance†among the Pentagon’s top civilian leadership. “They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that’s a mistake, and that’s why I think he should resign,†Riggs said.
Filed under: Military
Posted by Faiz April 13, 2006 4:35 p
From Raw Story also.
Where are the active-duty generals? Why are they not speaking up? Why are they not resigning in protest?
TEHRAN, Iran (MSNBC) – Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a “rotten, dried tree” that will be annihilated by “one storm.”
“Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation,” Ahmadinejad told a conference for supporting the Palestinians that opened in the Iranian capital on Friday, days after declaring his country had become a nuclear power by enriching uranium…
—-
Are Bush’s speechwriters writing this dude’s pronouncements? Ahmadinejad and Bush, two peas in a pod, with an aggregate IQ that starts with a decimal point.
Unstable Isotope #73L
I wouldn’t hold my breath, considering how the Christian fundies have infiltrated the ranks in the last two decades. If fact, as the Vietnam-bred generation of senior officers retires and these folks take their places, there could be threats down the road to civilian control.
HuffPo provides a site pass to the whole disgusting Rummy torture article in Salon:
http://www.salon.com/news/feat…..index.html
Sole mia 78
OK but attacking IrAQ we were not protecting the united states. That umbrella aint gonna cover them from every shower. Attacking Grenada?
DefJef, The point is, it’s not the generals who decide whether attacking or not attacking is a good thing, it’s the President. That’s because we supposedly have a voice in who the President is and what he decides. I don’t get why you want the generals to get together to run the country – that’s happened in lots of places in world history and it’s not a good thing. I’d rather vote for my leader. Unfortunately we have a country full of people who voted for a criminal.
Let’s get the PNAC agreement out in public in a way most Americans can understand. Then publish the list of original signers, Rumsfeld is one as are several others employed or formerly employed by Bush. Rumsfeld is on a mission and a few generals are not going to stop him.
Better poll: should Rummy resign?
So Frank Probst, we will still have a secdef even if rummy is forced out… I wish the generals would call for the ouster of the commander in chief. Now, that would be something…
I would hope that it would come if Bush pushes for nuking Iran. If we manage to NOT go after Iran (with nukes or not) I certainly hope that the would do this if BushCo were to actually try to declare martial law in response to a terrorist attack (and cancel/postpone elections, particularly in ‘08). They need to think very long and hard about their oath. It is not to the President. It is not to a party. It is not to the USA. It is to the Constitution. Period. Nothing else matters and the ultimate requirements of that oath are not necessarily in accord with what may be required of them by BushCo.
That is not what I want Sola Mia.
I hold them ALL equally responsible. Presnit, Cheney, Rummy, Cambone… and the little generals… they are all war criminals.
Mr. Rummy is a tired, oxygen deprived victim of a series of poor life choices. Only a moronic administration would hire him in an attempt to harken back to the good old days.
It will be fun to see him try to wiggle out of war crimes trials. I would feel very badly if anyone in this country protected him from action at the Hague. He will probably just die before he can attend his own trial for crimes against humanity.
He and Milosevic are shining examples of two peas in a pod.
Are you people freaking crazy…don’t you realize there’s been a BEAR ATTACK and the bear is still at large?
Turn on your TV, Round up the wimmim and chillens,lock your doors, and for God’s sake stop talking about unimportant shit like Rumsfeld and the war.
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!
Leisure Guy
It is my understanding that active military cannot voice opinions of dissention. I saw it written out somewhere. I think sans coulette put it up on another blog.
When Reagan and Bush bargained with the hostage-takers in 1980 to ensure Carter’s defeat, they empowered the hard-line faction of he revolution, including ahmadinejad—-in fact, he is purportedly one of the hijackers.
It is a little-known fact that Khomeini was actually backed by the oil companies, the reason being that the Shah was planning to keep a higher cut of the oil profits for Iran.
Is Ahmadinejad our main in Teheran? I wouldn’t rule it out, but its more likely that the Bush administration was angling toward getting a crazy hardliner in power in Teheran.
“The Knives Are Out For Rummy”
“David Ignatius joins the chorus of folks calling for the head of Secretary Don Rumsfeld in today’s Washington Post. Ignatius calls Rumsfeld a “spent force” and says that he’s lost nearly all support from the officers’ corps:
‘When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low….’”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realcl…..hdA–
aquarius2 says:
April 14th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Leisure Guy
It is my understanding that active military cannot voice opinions of dissention.
–
I think that’s correct.
oops, read “hostage-takers” for “hijackers”
Is it possible to disable the previewing function? I think that would speed up comments.
On CNN….
Bush: “Rumsfeld has my full support”
There ya go.
Thanks Flamethrower in 85:
New, better worded MSNBC Poll:
“Should Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
resign?”
Yes 92%
No 8.1%
* 19960 responses
Sorry if already posted – CNN says:
Bush put out a statement, from camp david, in support of rummy:
“has my full support”
“leadership energetic and steady”
“Rumsfeld is exactly what is needed at this critical period”
Oh, HERE’S a fucking great solution:
U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr., D-Tenn., called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation and urged President Bush to replace him with former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell.
Ford said if he were President Bush, “I would do whatever I could to persuade Powell to take the (position).”…
Bush simply cannot replace Rumsfeld, unless its with another war criminal. A serious repleacement for Rumsfeld would properly investigate torture, rape, murder, and disappearance of detainees.
I don’t see who he could chose. Negroponte? maybe.
Am I cynical or what! I don’t think Rummy getting fired or taking a walk will make one bit of difference. He’ll be replaced with another NeoCon warmonger. Do you think Joe Leiberman is any less committed to remaking the Middle East, including regime change in Iran?
Heckuvab Rummie has BushBoy’s “full support.”
LMAO.
Rummie has too much dirt on the Goober in Chief.
LeisureGuy 78-
Some of the retired Generals have said that part of the difficulty in protesting and then resigning is that they leave their troops behind. There is a huge sense of commradery that builds up between them. I think it’s somewhat analagous to being a parent, or even a pet owner. Loyalty is crucial. Protesting, resigning and leaving them to fend for themselves against another commander might be even worse for them. I would guess it comes down to the better of two evils.
“Heckuvab” = Heckuvajob, sorry. My notebook PC keypad sucketh.
OT … Joe Klein, our favorite liberal columnist, has posted “The Crucial Difference Between Liberals and Leftists” at the HuffPost. Thought folks might like to go say hi …
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ jo…be_b_19124.html
I guess Bushieboy has but one option: Fire Rummy and install Tom DeLay as Secretary of Defense. After all, the Hammer does like to carry a concealed pistol.
What general with a brain in his head would support what we did to Iraq?
I’ll tell you who… the ones who were itching to do Shock and Awe and the ones who want to try out all their new expensive weapons and toys. I would say that describes most of the military brass.
marky,
Ahmadinejad as CIA/BushCo plant has been running through my mind since he arrived on the world stage and the U.S. media promptly started blanket coverage of his outrageous and inflammatory statements on the U.S., Israel, nukes and such. Taken in the context of the roles that many of the prominent neocons played in the Carter, Reagan years with regard to Iranian politics, does it seem that far fetched? Everything the neocon warmongers have done since thieving their way to power in Iraq up to the current drumbeat on Iran, moves notions such as this further from the realm of conspiracy, which is surely what many will call it.
Check out Mr. and Mrs. Cheney’s tax return!
Office of the Vice President
For Immediate Release April 14, 2006
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY AND MRS. CHENEY RELEASE 2005 INCOME TAX RETURN
Vice President and Mrs. Cheney released their 2005 federal income tax return today. The return shows that the Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2005 of $529,636 on taxable income of $1,961,157. The Cheneys’ adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006 which was largely the result of the exercise by an independent gift administrator of stock options that had been irrevocably set aside in 2001 for charity. The Cheneys donated $6,869,655 to charity in 2005 from the exercise of these stock options under the terms of the Gift Administration Agreement and from Mrs. Cheney’s book royalties from Simon & Schuster on her books America: A Patriotic Primer, A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing American Woman, and When Washington Crossed the Delaware: A Wintertime Story for Young Patriots. As provided in the Gift Administration Agreement, gifts were made to three designated charities named in that Agreement. The Cheneys’ return was filed on March 20, 2006.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0414.html
One thing that bothers me about the retired generals calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation is that deliberately or not, they are providing cover for Bush/Cheney. By blaming Rumsfeld for mistakes in executing the war in Iraq without also criticizing Bush/Cheney, they are implicitly saying that the rational for attacking Iraq is fine, we just screwed up on execution.
Of the retired generals, Zinni is the one who attacked the rational for the war itself. He is the one who put the accountability on Bush’s desk. (So did Wes Clark but he was shouted down a long time ago.) These other generals are not doing that. So either they really believed in war on Iraq, or they are reluctant to criticize Bush. Either way, They are covering for Bush and Cheney.
marky and Jay, You’re definitely onto something.
Uhhh…today is “Good Friday,” right? (wasn’t paying attention) Is that the day they killed Jesus? And then, on the 3rd day — Easter Sunday? — He arose from the dead, came outa the cave into the sunlight, right? And if He sees His shadow, we got 6 more weeks of winter?
I get confused.
That should have read: “since thieving their way to power, Iraq up to….
Dahr Jamail’s latest is here – tracking Iraqi civilian casualties:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/
and do not miss this week’s Rolling Stone piece on how we train US soldiers to kill by Jeff Tietz – it perhaps explains a lot about where those civilian casualties and the incidents at Abu Ghraib come from. It should be up on their site in a few days.
Def Jef I don’t want to hurt your feelings but you need a history book or two. I suggest starting with Alexander the Great {Talk about a good PR Guy}. The historical problem is called “The Man on the Horse”. Our army runs directly back to the conduct of Washington. Example:
When he finished his second term and went back to Mt. Veron, King George the III was told of this and said, “If he does that, he’s the greatest man in the world.” Despots had come to power on a horse in front of an army up until Washington. That set the example for our army.
When it comes to torture, again Washington set the example for our army. We fought the British under what was called the “The Right of Quarter”. If you captured people you could do what ever you wanted to them. Go to the G.W. bridge in New York. On the Jersy side is where Washington stood and watched captured Americans on the New York side executed by the British. Washington gave instructions there and then that our army would abandon the “Right of Quarter”. That set the example for our army until George Bush shit on Washington’s army.
Answering DefJef at 37#
Active duty military, and coincidently, many DOJ employees (including Fitz) are cover by the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act (in the good old days when it applied to me) was a very strict rule that reuired covered emplyeed to pretty much confine their political expression to yelling at the TV, debate at the family dinner table, and voting.
The enabling rules under the act were loosened up quite a bit during the Clinton administration. I did not approve.
The purpose of the Hatch Act is to make federal service a hostile environment for politcal cronies and hacks. Believe me, A presidential candidate that says he/she will go back to the old rules implementing the Hatch Act would probably have my vote for that alone.
So many of the current problems stem from politicizing public service and the public servants. Fitz was so prescient to register as a “blank” party voter.
An alternate paradigm:
If as many suddenly retired vice-presidents of a hypothetical multinational corporation criticized a long-serving CEO for their feckless job performance, while the stockholder perception of said corporation’s activities was laboring under a negative downturn due to high profile missteps and overall sluggish performance…
How long would that CEO last before being forced to walk the plank?
Why are we compiling chicken-hawk lists made up only of men? How about the war-lovers and drum-beaters of the feminine gender who did not serve, even though they were able to by virtue of age and good health?
Ann Coulter?
Karen Hughes?
Michelle Malkin?
What’s-her-face Schmidt?
Kathleen Harris?
Kate O’Beirne?
And so on, and so on….I’m sure others can add to this list.
Aren’t Karen Hughes kids college age now? http://goarmy.com
OT, for those needing more Plamegate:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014510.html
Bush: Rumsfeld ‘exactly what is needed’
Statement of support follows chorus of criticism from generals
Friday, April 14, 2006; Posted: 1:43 p.m. EDT (17:43 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush said Friday that his embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has his “full support and deepest appreciation.”
“Earlier today I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the Global War on Terror,” Bush said in the statement released by the White House. “I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our Nation.”…
—
Exactly what is needed to keep one more person who could rat me out quiet.
Results of MSNBC poll linked in #85:
Should Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resign? * 22720 responses
Yes
92%
No
8.2%
I think people are missing the point. We don’t attack Rumsfeld because his removal will change the policy. We attack Rumsfeld because every chink the the wall goes further to weaken President Bush. Of course we know that ultimately President Bush and Vice President Cheney are more than equally responsible for this debacle, but as more and more of the underlings receive this kind of blistering rejection, Bush is weakened more and more.
Let’s all pile on and then wait for the next incompetent to be shown so to the American people. This is a sign that the American people and the military and (even) the commercial media are begining to catch on.
Rumsfeld today. Rove tomorrow. Next week Cheney. And then. . . and then. . .
92%? Wow.
Bush Doesn’t Want Confirmation Battle Either
One reason Bush does not want Rum-nuts to go is that his replacement will face a confirmation hearing in the Senate. Even if the nominee is agreeable to the Senate, it still becomes a forum to (finally) put at least part of Bush’s war on trial in a congressional hearing.
The Closer to November, the more political and more fraught with peril that becomes for the White House and the GOP members on the Armed Services Commitee who will be pressured to “rubber stamp” another Bush crony while also trying to protect the nominee from answering questions from Democrats about how the next Sec’y of Def. plans to fix all the mistakes of the current Sec’y of Def.
sláinte
cl
Here’s a question I’d like to throw out: Why is all of this happening now? Do folks think that the army really is worried about Bush nuking Iran? Is that the root cause of this? Or is something else going on? I have a hard time believing that all these generals just suddenly realized that Rumsfeld’s a disaster. Why now?
#74 Minnesota Chuck
Joe Sestak
From his site:
“Also, our defense policies are eroding our children’s future global defense security as the tragic misadventure in Iraq continues to pursue elusive, ever-changing goals at the cost of strategic interests elsewhere.”
http://www.sestakforcongress.com/
The USCMJ prevents active duty military from rebellion, but that doesn’t mean they can’t resign in protest over a new war in Iran.
defjef @106 – I get the visual of John Larroquettte (think Stripes)
“Fire that mortar…”
:-)
some of the posters today need to remember what we claim to be:
the reality based community.
def jef, for instance-but not only, should remember. we should be praising the generals (now retired) who are calling for rumsfeld to go, not belittling them for not having spoken out sooner. had they done that, they would have been reprimanded at best, and might have been drummed out of the service, thus compromising their protest. that would’ve given their critics more legitimacy. as it stands now, their call has more weight and legitimacy with a wider range of people. they’ve followed the rules and respected protocol and so they have legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
sure, they’re being belittled by some in the establishment (rumsfeld’s hired guns) for waiting until they retired, but this is hypocracy and deviousness at it’s worst. these attacks on the generals won’t stand up. these attacks are panic-driven and smarmy, and they won’t work.
this country is waking up, finally. rumsfeld will fall, and that will be just one more cut in george w.’s skin. it may take weeks or months, but it will happen.
we have the momentum. they have jomentum. we simply must continue, patiently, tightening the screws, and “screw our courage to the sticking place”.
it won’t be easy and it won’t be quick but we will prevail if we remain relentless. no false bravado, no arrogance, and no surrender.
carry on, pilgrims.
I just finished reading the above post and wanted to get my comment in before a new thread comes up.
I’m sure that this has been said a thousand times already, but it needs too be said again.
I believe we are screwed as a nation. It doesn’t matter how many Generals or retired military personal speak out against Rumsfield, Bush will not get rid of him. We are headed into World War lll. This administration don’t give a damn about America or the American People.
And once again if anyone doubts that Americans are not being spied upon by this government than you better think again. Here is a link on wiretaps and internet spying going on right now.
Spying on Americans
This is a very serious matter and I am very pessamistic that we will be allowed to have an election in November or be allowed to vote. Hope I’m wrong, but the signs are all there that this insane madman Bush has suceeded in gaining total power. Through all his signing declarations he has already set prescident establishing dictatorship. If this is so, than may God have mercy on us all.
Gyro Gear Lose 114
Washington has my respect for fervently rejecting any element of the monarchy, and he may have been better than the British regarding treatment of prisoners during war.
But lets not talk about what Washington did to the native people…we don’t want to bum everyone out.
George A.:
Many of us have been where you are. More and more of us are organizing together to fight. Victory is not assured on all fronts, but failure is assured if we choose not to act.
Frankly, we’re making progress. I hope you’ll find some hope and join us.
By the way, today in 1865, Lincoln died.
Taylor:
Someone needs to photoshop that picture to enhance Rummy’s sith-lord attributes.
.
I mentioned this on a thread last night, but is it just me, or does Rummy remind anyone else of my favorite cartoon character?
http://blog.magicpants.net/wp-content/skeletor.jpg
orangejumpsuit, I totally agree about including the female chickenhawks! I’m sorry the page I looked up about who served didn’t include them, nor was it a complete list by an means. Still it’s an eye opener to see all the names listed together.
It would be a great project to add more research and names all the way around. We should be harping on this issue strongly that it is the Democrats that have served our country the most versus hardly any Repubs. In my book it makes the Democratic Party the real experts on military affairs and national security having the true hands on experience. The Repubs have spent their lifetimes avoiding serving, the cowards. Despicable they think they can play clueless war games.
Grand Moff Texan:
I thought about doing that PS work but seem to remember seeing it over at fark.com some time ago.
Has anyone considered just how much of a belleweather that Jack Murtha was on this issue?
Go back and read some of his statements, he was really ringing the alarm bells. From what I understand, he had his ear pretty close to the ground with the military.
This is probably phase II of the revolt underway as the first phase ended with Murtha being called a traitor by the lovely and tan military strategist Mean Jean.
-GSD
Bush won’t fire Rumsfailed because that’s where the really nasty stuff has been going on. His replacement would have to be part of the cabal as Wilkerson said wed. John Dean’s right, worse than Watergate, but there’s a branch office in the Pentagon now. The Pentagon is spying on Americans. Etc. etc. That’s what these guys are talkin’. There’s more to come.
Another link from 3 years ago, on how this administration treats military families:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..Found=true
just more budget fodder
GSD–
Sy Hersh was saying the other day on the radio that Jack Murtha is one of the few guys…maybe the only guy in Congress…that gets the straight story from active duty military guys, who see him as being on their team. Hersh says that when Murtha said it is time to get out, he was speaking for the active duty leaders who cannot speak out under USCMJ.
1022 DAYS SINCE MARCH 20, 2003
I am sorry folks but I dispair. I was once a soldier and I am not pround of it, they have taken what little I had to offer of my experience with war and I don’t have anything left to give from that piece of my history.
The killing going on is the death of the future of two countries and the destruction of hope for our own political culture. The terrible wasteland that is our economy and the moonscape that is Iraq are not just moments in an ongoing history, they are the end of a history.
Our economy is finished, our progressive social fabric is torn assunder and heart of our politics is fibrilating while our blood coagulates in a middle-eastern desert.
And this end is calculated and orchestrated by a class of bloodless sociopaths…this is no tragedy of incompetence or hubris, this is deliberate genocide of a culture!
Let the generals revolt, let the politicians scheme, let the oligarchs murder…let the end begin. All we can do is fight for what we know is already gone, to do less will only condemn us forever in the memory of our children…
KEEP THE FAITH, IT’S ALL WE HAVE TO LEAVE OUR KIDS!!
If Ann Coulter was a dominatrix, would that count as combat? Just wonderin’ :)
Norske–”to fight for what we know is already gone”–oh, wow
murray waas alert:
http://news.nationaljournal.co…..414nj3.htm
All this discussion about why ‘Generals’ didnt speak up before,or why active ones dont know shows a really poor understanding of human (much less ‘military’ behavior). These are professionals who have dedicated their entire careers to the military. They have not just their careers, but their families, their built in biases, as well as institutional prejudices to overcome. How many ‘corporate types’myself included, will take the leap to openly defy their boss or their ‘company’ in open revolt (x a factor of about 100 in the military?). The fact that this is happening at all is astounding and really should be recognized for what it is.
Show Me, Washington leap as far as any man in the 18th century could have, I don’t fault him for jumping any farther. I’m just glad he didn’t decide to be a king, if we could just stop the one we have now. “When looking in the telescope of history, be sure to look in the right end.”
Ah, if only Irving Berlin were alive today this song from “White Christmas” might sound a liitle different today:
“What Can You Do With a General?”
While the war was being waged, why, there were no good jobs to score
Not even for the for the G.I. Janes and Josephs who were coming back from war
But for the retired generals on TV they opened up the store
So it’s not so hard to understand
What can you do with a general
When he stops being a general?
Oh, what can you do with a general?
How about put him on TV?
We’ve got a job for generals
When they stops being generals.
What’s this jobs for generals?
We let them talk on CNN and MSNBC!
They fill his chest with medals while he’s across the foam
And they spread the crimson carpet when he comes marching home
The next day someone hollers when he comes on TV
“Here comes the general” and they all say “What General?”
“That’s the General on MSNBC!”
They’re delighted that he came
But they can’t recall his name
They google it when told
And they find out he’s NOW so bold
As to critisize his bosses of old…
Nobody thinks of asking him…
As they keep wining and dining him…
WHY IT TOOK SO *&%#ing LONG?!?
My apologies to the late, great Mr. Berlin for butchering his song.
North Korea is vowing to beef up their nuclear arsenal now.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s…..4-13-43-15
See how the brilliant Neo-Conartist strategy worked. Only 5 years into their unfettered world vision in action and the world is headed toward nuclear obliteration with the most irrational and nationlistic and jingoistic leaders cheered on by the homegrown lunacies of their most rabid followers.
IF a leader TRIED to fuck up the world he couldn’t have done nearly as good a job as Bush.
Unfortunately for him and his followers they realize that their only saving grace can be divine intervention…that is one doozy of a policy to hang ones legacy on.
-GSD
For any that think Rumsfeld’s management style is something new, I would like to refer to this deja vu article from the WaPo October 16, 2002 (six months before the beginning of the Iraq War):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..Oct15.html
The article rambles a bit but portrays a dysfunctional relationship between Rumsfeld and the uniformed military:
“there is a huge discrepancy between the outside perception of Rumsfeld — the crisp, no-nonsense defense secretary who became a media star through his briefings on the Afghan war — and the way he is seen inside the Pentagon. Many senior officers on the Joint Staff and in all branches of the military describe Rumsfeld as frequently abusive and indecisive, trusting only a tiny circle of close advisers, seemingly eager to slap down officers with decades of distinguished service.”
Sound familiar? Shinseki was not the only object lesson in how not to cross or disagree with the all seeing and all knowing Rumsfeld. There was also the case of Lt. Gen. Ronald E. Keys who lost promotion to an important Pentagon job because he had had the effrontery in discussions to actually respond to Rumsfeld frankly. So much for “give and take” and “encouraging different views”. Having suppressed dissent, Rumsfeld could say with some honesty, Hey everybody here agrees. What’s the problem?
Photoshopped scary rummy picture:
http://www.wolfblog.net/images/scary_rumsfeld.jpg
shooogarp,
what about this one?
No American will ever be marched to the Hague. Not that I wouldn’t like to see it.
Somebody has to pay for the torture (& not just those low-level men & women in the Abu Ghraib pictures.) Umm, I nominate Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Hadley . . . & who else?
I agree with aquarius2, his/her April 14th, 2006 at 10:28 am post— we need to get out information on the BIG, BIG picture or plan (PNAC, AEI, etc.) — without understanding this and the level of infiltration of the OVP, etc., there is only changing of the guard, the figurehead or place holder — be it Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. I think we have lost far more of the country than anyone likes to state — absent free press, etc. If public is left to figure it out slowly bit by bit, country will be gone before most realize it. It may already have been sold out.
Regular posters and writers here are by far smarter, well-educated and can articulate ideas well — but I fear we lose sight of the forest for the individual trees —
I just finished the comments on Taylor Marsh’s post. One of the things that seriously divides us in FDL is religion. I can handle people thinking that I’m a jerk for being religious, but really, this is so counterproductive. I would gladly debate my religious faith with any of you, but this is not the forum for such discussions. What I want here is respect from those who disagree with my stance.
Framing the religious discussion as being betwen those who believe in ridiculous fairy tales and those who base their actions on logic and rationality — that is not fair, and diminishes me illegimately. It amounts to name-calling, and since I won’t engage in a religious debate on this site, it marginalizes and excludes me.
Likewise, those who distinguish “religion” and “spirituality” so that religion is human made and spirituality is divine – that is just as ill-informed and unfair to those of us who have not fully given up on organized religion.
I will gladly explain my reasons off-site (d9penchansky at stthomas dot edu).
We have a battle to fight and we agree on the basics. Give me and other religious folks on this site more respect and the benefit of the doubt that we (along with Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Sloan Coffin, etc. etc.) that we are not idiots.
Thank you! Happy Easter everybody. I will be celebrating it all alone this year, surrounded by Muslims in Saudi Arabia, for whom it is just another day of the week.
“Rumsfeld on the Spit”
I’ll bring the marshmallows!
http://www.thoughttheater.com
Koheleth, for a large number of people, their religion is indistinguishable from believing in fairy tales.
Since these people are very political, there’s no avoiding a discussion of religion.
Truisms about the military: “There is never a war that a general doesn’t love.†“It may be a stinky war but it is the only one we’ve gotâ€. Then, why are the retired Army Generals speaking out? Two reasons; 1) the Iraq War is being fought on the cheap and the Army is worn out. 2) The Air Force is preparing operational plans for Iranian nuclear strikes with Army troops downwind in Afghanistan.
North Korea is vowing to beef up their nuclear arsenal now.
Great. I think N. Korea should focus on solving famine problems.
Happy Easter Koheleth!
and I will celebrate the Rising of 1916 and look forward to Beltane.
And in honor of the Rising and to raise spirits in this dispirited time, take a moment to read the following from our friend MFI:
http://markfromireland.blogsom…..y/ireland/
Marky,
I am certainly willing to discuss the political implications of religious committment — the damage of fundamentalism (Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Islam) and the way religious communities can both support and the way they undermine the public good in our society.
But the validity of religious belief and theism is not on topic. If Jane and Christie want to change that, I’m willing to listen and ready to engage.
Minnesota Chuck and John Casper,
the Ret. Vice Admiral running against Curt Weldon is named: Sestiak
he’s the one Weldon took off after for taking his 5 year with a malilgnant brain tumor to a DC hospital vs. PA. Hospital
Anchors Aweigh Curt !
A couple of links for your reading entertainment:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/…..46,00.html
^^ Study of Bush’s psyche touches a nerve
http://www.google.com/search?h…..ch+the+Web
^^^ Links to the psych report Conservatives wanted banned
Impeach Bush:
http://tinyurl.com/a6erq
One more thought. I think Imman. or someone & also this post mentioned something about the rise of military folks running for office. That’s disturbing to me, because I feel civilian offices should have civilian mentality, including the president. Ike aside, we had Truman & FDR during WWII.
Koheleth,
Someone posted a list yesterday or the day before of the differences between religion and spirituality. I’m not a religious person but I do consider myself spiritual in that I believe that there is something divine and beautiful about many of the things that have touched me, be it music, a spectacular mountain view, the innocent laughter of my children…etc. but that list struck a chord with me and I printed it out and asked my wife, who is devoutly Catholic, to read it. She appreciated all of the things that the list suggested “spirituality” brought to the table but she disagrred with the characterization (she might even say demonization) of religion. She simply said: that’s not what it means to me.
Complex, personal issue and I think you’re wise to avoid such discussions in a forum that clearly garners emotional opinions from every point on the spectrum. Sort of like talking politics at work. Not always a good idea if you like the people you work with.
A while ago, I found a better copy of the rummy picture used at the top of the post. You can see a copy of it here:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/zamboni/rummy.jpg
Koheleth,
I guess the best way ta put it is to say that religions and people active with organized religion today have only one responsibility before they can engage in the kind of colloquy you desire with the greater society…clean up your religious act, fight and win the battle with the pseudoreligious businesses and political machines to define youselves. Only after you have created a religious culture that can police itself can you enter the arena to offer paths to a better world for all of the rest of us.
Oragnized religion in the form that we have known it is dying…I have no idea the form in which it will re-emmerge but I am not gunna waste any time engaging with current “religious” folks about what religion has to offer until there is an honest, pogressive and intelligent religious culture to engage.
KEEP THE FAITH, IT’S YOURS TO LOSE AND GOD IS WATCHIN’!!
koheleth,
If you are still reading this thread, you might want to look through the previous comment thread. I think RevDeb made some excellent points re the straw dog of religion vs spirituality.
I think it is very important for all of us to learn to talk to each other about these issues without impuning the other’s personal choices and integrity.
Religion clean your room before you come to the dinner table.
new thread – new boil
“Do you feel it? Do you feel the power of the Dark Side?”
;>)
seaside says:
April 14th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Seaside, you have hit the nail on the head. There is a strong feeling among the senior ranks in the officer corps that getting out just leaves fewer and less experienced comrades behind to try and hold it together.
This also goes helps explain why the comments by the retired generals have focused on execution more than on policy, as there is a tendency to see criticism of the mission as bad for morale.
Civilians don’t realize just how big a deal it was that rummy announced Shinseki’s replacement prematurely (as chairman of the jcs, there’s nowhere else to go but out to pasture, but rummy essentialy made Shinseki a lame duck ahead of schedule). In addition, rummy didn’t attend Shinseki’s retirement ceremony. For a secdef not to attend a command officer’s retirement ceremony (and a chief of staff, even) is a huge breach of protocol that sent a very clear message throught the military. As a highly regimented and heirarchical organization, the military sees these things in much starker terms than a civilian would.
Finally, Zinni and Clark were three stars or better at retirement, and as such dealt with things at the command level, dealing with a geographic territory or type of operations. The guys speaking out now were 2 stars. These guys were division commanders, who had 20,000 or so personnel under their direct command, and all are from combat arms. That they would speak out against a sitting secdef during ongoing conflict is truly, truly extraordinary. Plus, these guys were coming out of ROTC at the end of Viet Nam. They went into the service when it was not a very popular career move, and morale, professionalism and capabilities of personnel on the whole were at their nadir for the 20th century. These are the guys who rebuilt the army, in terms of standards of conduct and human capital. (Which is why I hate miller so goddamned much.)
BTW, I only know all of this becuase my sister is married to a 2 star.
“Of the retired generals, Zinni is the one who attacked the rational for the war itself.”
Zinni has been on all sides of the issue as have other of the retired generals. Hard to tell which of their positions they actually hold. I guess it depends on the moment in time.
DefJef says:
April 14th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Screw military law.. I say… They have WAY WAY WAY too much power and independence in our country. The military must be subject to civil law. Change it!
The UCMJ is a statute enacted by Congress and signed by the President, the same as any other federal law. It can be found beginning at Title 10 United States Code Section 800.
Courts-martial are subject to appellate review by courts consisting of military judges at the first level of review, but also by civilian judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and by the United States Supreme Court.
Military members also are subject to the jurisdiction of civilian courts in the U.S., and of foreign courts in accordance with treaty agreements between the U.S. and the host country when stationed overseas.
No offense, but you might want to brush up a little on this topic at some point.