fitzzzzzzzz

Fitzy!

It’s the generals vs. the commander in chief. I know which side I’m on.

The Constitution puts the military under civilian control. On the whole, it’s a good thing, but right now, with a cowardly idiot in the White House, it’s not so good.

Thanks for the heads up, Mark. That last sentence was wrong, which was written to match the title of the post. I uploaded it again and it’s now correct.

Dubya can’t admit mistakes. END OF STORY. He will stick by his man. ANyway they told HIM they would do the deed… He is just a petulent child king.

Cutting Rummy loose means he made a boo boo. Ain’t gonna happen.

Best you can hope for is Rummy decides to spend more time with his family… And Dubya can’t convince him how much we need him in the con.

I guess people should just STFU! and read truer accounts, like say, this for example;

http://www.simonsays.com/conte…..amp;agid=2

“That afternoon, I had a summary of the draft copied and sent it down the corridor to Don Rumsfeld. “I think you should consider this,” I said in my cover memo.

I never heard back from him about the report.”

hanson hates America.

Ever see those “Save The Children” ads. One of the things that they never tell you is that the third world child in the picture is in poverty largely because of US foreign policy.

Now that this nation is a criminal laughing stock before the entire world, the question arises, how far is this gang willing to go to maintain their hold on power. The pResident has already shown that he reads children’s books while the nation is under attack, and he doesn’t care about losing a major city.

Considering the criminal nature of the GOP, I truly doubt if Bush will leave controll of congress to the whim of a few carloads of rigged voting machines and jammed phone banks…

Be that as it may, this is a holiday, and for your enjoyment I would like to present the following:

An Easter Story Diary At Kos

May the Love that knows no Comprehension find refuge in your hearts and in your homes forever.

Namaste

isn’t it great that rummy’s getting younger every day? that his tolerance of others’ views is growing as he ages? that bush puts loyalty ahead of doing what’s good for america? pinch me, things are going so well that i must be dreaming

On the Friday Newshour, Mark Sheilds said that one of the generals passed up a promotion to three stars, and resigned instead. That is unheard of in the military, and is a clear signal as to the depth of hostility towards the arrogant SecDef.

Rummy didn’t even attend the retirement ceremony for General Shiniseki, which was a clear slap in the face to everyone in uniform.

As for the Rummy transformation, it is a NeoCon fantasy that is completely disconnected from the real world. Yes, the military needs to change, but Rummy has done more damage than anything since Vietnam.

You know, it’s not even so much that the retired Generals are opposing Bush. They just are offering constructive criticism of the failed Bush Iraq policy. It’s indicative of the nature of this regime that they responded to the criticism with a series of vicious smear attacks, instead of listening to the criticisms and responding in a thoughtful manner. They are so invested in their own supposed infallibility that they would rather attempt to destroy their critics instead of trying to learn from them.

gen wayne downing was on msnbc bitching about the public statements of the generals and said they need to ’stand down’ cause it’s detrimental to have the criticism during wartime (i would love to know what nuggets he fed the press during clinton’s cic days — cause he didn’t get that teevee gig on his good looks alone) and then goes on to say they’re pissed because: ‘one has a book coming out; one had his program cancelled; one has political aspirations.’…..
from bio…

oops — msgop forgot to mention this:

General Wayne Downing most recently served in the White House as National Director and Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism. As the President’s principal advisor on matters related to combating terrorism, he was responsible for the close coordination among the military, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, information, and financial operations of our war on terror, and for developing and executing a strategy that integrated all elements of national power.

bkny – good catch! they also had the ever popular Lt Gen Rick Francona who previously served with the 60 military advisors we sent to Iraq back in the day to see how well our chemical weapons worked against the Iranians – on of Francona’s dispatches is quoted in Fisk’s Great War. This of Francona’s complicity in that horror every time he opens his mouth to tell us how great we’re doing in Iraq.

what gets me is the caliber of the guys they’re trotting out to slime the generals. You have Tommy (I let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora and got a medal for it) Franks, who has the gall to accuse a couple of the generals of (omigod) writing a book while sitting for the interview WITH TWO COPIES OF HIS BOOK PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED BEHIND HIM!!!

Then, of course, you have Richard (I don’t care how incompetent he is, Bushie got my niece a bigass ol’ job as head of ICE and she ain’t qualified either) Meyers, talking about the ‘unseemilness’ of the whole thing. I guess nepotism ain’t unseemly at all, eh Dick?

What bothers me is that none of the MSM interviewers call them on it, or, even worse, when the charge of bookwriting is brought up, no one askes the obvious follow-up: “Well ok he’s writing a book. Isn’t it possible that he also believes the civilian leadership to be incompetent or are the two incompatible?”

Very good additions, bkny and siun.

Larry Johnson has an interesting post up re: Throwing Rummy off the Train, where he states Rummy’s days are numbered.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28849

Taylor–troll storm on the previous thread, 62, 63, and many more. The blue-green guy.

An excellent analysis of the vile, troop-hating spew from Hanson and his cowardly cohort can be found in Glenn Greenwald’s post from yesterday.

Pretty much sums up these descpiable types who will happily sell out the uniformed military if it gives them the opportunity to rim Dear Leader.

Yep, you’re right Ms. Marsh. The attack dogs are now set loose. Target: the retiring generals. I wonder, if the media pressed the Pentagon to go ahead and release the full plans and manuals for “post-battle” Iraq circa May, 2003….would the Pentagon claim “that’s classified”? Comment 1: how, WHY would that still be classified??? Comment 2: I bet the TRUTH is….no such written plans ever existed. Pathetic.
Why does Bush side with Rumsfeld? I have a pet theory, but with little or no evidence. I think, back in 2002, Bush already was going to invade Iraq. But, reality is, troops cost money! Go back to 2002….Bush already had plans for re-election, but was worried about the soft economy, and lessons from Daddy Bush’s failure post Desert Storm. Sooo, with a wink and a nod, he got Rummy to draw up battle plans with too few troops in an effort to save budget money, and thus improve the economy, and thus enhance his re-election bid. Rummy went along. Those two conducted “war on the cheap” just to keep the economy stronger so as to get re-elected. My reasoning may be a bit convoluted, but I think that’s what happened. Therefore, Bush will never get rid of Rummy…Rummy was “in” on Bush’s “war on the cheap” sham. And several thousand boys are now dead. Ghostman

1) Hanson is a third rate classicist not a military historian nor has he ever received either strategic or tactical training. I’ve yet to meet a single American officer who has a good word to say about his twaddle. If you want an example of the intellectual paucity of the American extreme right the fact that he’s an intellectual beacon [giggle] is it. As to places like Sandhurst, The Curragh, or Saint-Cyr he evoke open contempt.

2) I wish people would stop wasting time on Rummy and focuson on his boss Cheney. Who is the source of most of Rummy’s “initiatives.”

I’ve long wondered how long it would be before all those people with “Support Our Troops” magnets on their vehicles became aware of how little the administration shares the sentiment.

Rumsfeld took the job to do a corporate downsizing of the Defense Department, and has never been able to distinguish between objections based on hidebound bureaucracy and those based on the need to save lives and achieve objectives in the extremely reality-based universe our troops are living in. He, like his boss, is firmly sure of his own correctness, despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

I can only hope that the retired generals will be able to convince more people that Rumsfeld has never cared for the troops, or what it would really take to achieve the mission.

The Republicans have yet to hold Rumsfeld to their “Les Aspin Standard.” That is, decisions that needlessly cost American lives in battle cost defense secretaries their jobs, but apparently only if Bill Clinton is president.

For the details, see:
“Rumsfeld Fails the Aspin Test.”

I left something for you at the end of the preceding thread about the hashshÄshÄ«n egregious.

Hello. I hate Rummy as much as most of us. But the Q is, who would Bush replace him with? Probably someone worse. I live in fear of the time when most of the old hands jump ship.

The old hands generally jump ship in decent administrations toward the end of the 4 yrs anyway, and sometimes what is left as caretakers is not your best and brightest. The finale on this tragedy will not be pretty at all.

I posted this the other day, but it bears repeating here: Wilkerson said the other day in his speech at MEI that Rummy has unprecented power and that we actually have 2 sec defs– one in the Pentagon backed up by the former sec def in the WH– VP Cheney. The power that Rummy has directly flows from the real power– Deadeye Dick.

http://gorillasguides.blogspot…..-tail.html

Still blaming Bill Clinton. I should have seen it coming. Talk about clutching at straws. Anything but the truth. What a pathetic bunch.

ck, another point on this:

On the Friday Newshour, Mark Sheilds said that one of the generals passed up a promotion to three stars, and resigned instead. That is unheard of in the military, and is a clear signal as to the depth of hostility towards the arrogant SecDef.

It is my understanding that the amount and level of retirement pay is based on your discharge rank. This means that a general gave up that increase in rank that would have a direct impact on the amount of his future income.
I come from a large military family and understand how important it is when such high ranking officers speak out against their chain of command. This is just NOT done except under unusual circumstances which is where we find ourselves. Ex-CIA agents are blogging with Larry Johnson & field commanders are standing up for and defending the very oath the swore to defend, the American Consitution.
When I send my eFaxes to my congresscritters, I always remind them of their oath office where they swear on a bible to uphold and defend the Consitution, “Did you forget that?”, “Did you lie before God?”…..

Right-wing talking point: “moving ahead,” doesn’t matter if there were issues about how the war got started. Couple of days ago I saw a CNN commentator say this so many times I was about ready to reach thru the screen and smack her one.

It is super important how the last war got started, because the same people are using the same tactics again for Iran. We watch like an oncoming train wreck…need to intervene.

We need to give the generals who are left in the Pentagon somewhere to hang their hat in order to disobey orders to initiate a nuclear assault on Iran. We need to start getting out now that such an order, without Congressional authorization, would be unconstitutional.

They took an oath to the Constitution, and can disobey an order on those grounds. We don’t want them disobeying on personal grounds (because some of them might obey.) We need them to believe Americans will support them when they refuse to follow an unconstitutional order.

Rumsfeld. Donald Rumseld. Anybody remember that this guy bought the house where Frederick Douglass was tortured?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..3624c.html

Now it turns out that he ordered specific prisoners tortured in specific ways (surprise!):

http://www.salon.com/news/feat…../14/rummy/

You can’t make this shit up.

Professor Foland–

Yes! How do we do it?

Thru the Armed Services Committee? Thru our reps?

If this is what retired generals are saying, just imagine what on-duty enlisted men and women are saying. We are getting very close to the next retired general making the next step and saying the country is unsafe with this President in office.

Gen Downing.. the same one that headed up Waco?

markfromireland/Elf, or Mr. Drama Ink?

tapadh leibh
(or if you would permit, tapadh leat)

On a side note, Professor Foland and Angie: I actually think it is legal for a president to use nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon is a….weapon. Is it legal, if a president believes that Iran poses a threat, to order a “hand grenade” dropped on a threat site? Sure. Hand grenades, 500 lb. bombs, tomahawk missiles, nuclear bombs are all just…weapons. Only difference is in size of destructive force.
But, I also believe the nuclear worry is a red herring. I really don’t think that’s a realistic idea, even with Bush. Bush and Cheney (sigh) still have this “3rd grade mentality” that threatening nukes will somehow cow Iran into submission. These boys are misguided….but that’s why they’re just overgrown boys. Ghostman

“Instead, we are left with the image of the defense secretary sitting in a lounge chair, surrounded by the ghosts of brutally tormented slaves and their vicious master, savoring a drink and enjoying a sunset over the bay.”

Oh my. Creepy does not even begin to describe Rumsfeld…you’re right Marclord, you really “can’t make this shit up”…

mfi 21, I trust there’s a comma in there before my name :D

markfromireland @18, you are right. Rumsfeld takes his orders DIRECTLY from Cheney. Whoever takes Rummy’s place if he does leave will do the same. Cheney is the one that has to be taken down and out. Fitz!

Gillard -

“The fact is that they want to save the institution, and this is round two. First was Jack Murtha, and he was semi-ignored. Then, it’s the generals. I think active duty retirements and resignations are next. They are ratcheting up the pressure on Bush.”

“This is about saving the Army, not about opposing the war.”

My heart goes out to the active duty folks Steve is talking about, but I sure hope he’s right

It’s getting wierd out here, eh? Whoever thought the military would turn out to be the backbone of the anti-war movement. Let’s stay focussed though: The problem wasn’t just that we didn’t have enough troops. The problem was that unilateral preemptive war based on lies is a really bad thing to do. Their incompetence is their ideology.
peace,
jim

the civilians speaking out are EX-generals who are not in the military chain-of-command – they have as much right of free speech as you or me. Incumbent military officers have to STFU externally – but I hope they holler like hell inside the Dept of Defense. EX-generals getting involved in the political process is as American as Mom and apple-pie… they need bring their military expertise to the public debate.

Some of the Bush apologists have questioned the credibility of these Generals remarks by asserting their connection to Bill Clinton. However, when Bill Clinton was President, it was fashionable to say that the military brass simply tolerated him because they had no other choice. Amongst other things, his early attempt to remove the ban on gays in the military was used to demonstrate his lack of any understanding or connection with the military mindset.

Now that numerous former Generals have called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush’s Secretary of Defense, are we to believe that these Generals are opposed to Rummy simply based upon some longstanding allegiance or political connection to Clinton? I don’t think so.

If the Bush apologists would put as much creativity into thinking about what this administration needs to do in order to fix it’s plethora of problems, perhaps we would have something worth reading. As it currently stands, I like my fiction from actual fiction writers.

read more observations here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com

TM please write an OpEd countering that sucker punched hit piece by Finkel on todays WaPo front page

From Wiki re the ICJ, even though I realize in our new world order, we ignore all treaties, etc.

In its 8 July 1996 Advisory Opinion, the Court decided unanimously that any threat of the use of force, or the use of force, by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter or that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51 would be unlawful.

The Court also decided (but by a divided vote) that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and would violate the principles and rules of humanitarian law. The panel’s vote on this ruling was seven to seven, with the President of the Court, Judge Muhamad Bedjaoui of Algeria, casting the deciding vote under ICJ rules. However, three of the seven “dissenting” judges (namely, Judge Shahabuddeen of Guyana, Judge Weeramantry of Sri Lanka, and Judge Koroma of Sierra Leone) wrote separate opinions explaining that the reason they were dissenting was their view that there is no exception under any circumstances to the general principle that use of nuclear weapons is illegal. A fourth dissenter, Judge Oda of Japan, dissented largely on the ground that the Court simply should not have taken the case. Peter Weiss of the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy concludes, “Thus the position on general illegality was, in effect, ten to four and the only three judges dissenting from that principle were those elected to the Court from the three Western NWS [that is, Nuclear Weapons States], Schwebel (US), Guillaume (France) and Higgins (UK).” [1]

Nevertheless, the Court’s opinion did not conclude definitively and categorically, under the existing state of international law at the time, whether in an extreme circumstance of self-defence in which the very survival of a State would be a stake, the threat or use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be unlawful in all possible cases.

Unanimously, the Court further decided that any threat or use of nuclear weapons would need to comply with all requirements of international law applicable to armed conflict, particularly the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, and would also need to comply with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings that expressly deal with nuclear weapons.

In its final declaration, the Court decided unanimously that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith, and to bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A….._July_1996

10,000,000 page views!! Congrats fdl!!!

Angie–

Go through Murtha to get a message to the Generals.

We could also take out an ad in the New York Times telling the Generals that they have our support and reminding them of their oaths to the Constitution, as Prof Foland says. An ad on Stratfor also might be fast, cheap, and effective. Larry Johnson or Pat Lang would probably know best, and if anybody here can think of something better, we’re all ears. And that’s just the start. We’re in a fight to the finish against this Administration and its supporters. We must remove them by any means or face the unpretty consequences.

This isn’t rhetorical. It’s real. If we let them bomb Iraq with conventional weapons, this country faces immediate economic collapse. If we allow them to strike Iran with nuclear weapons, we will start and lose World War Three, and we will suffer that loss in a wide nuclear conflict. America will be crushed and members of your family will die because our cities and bases will have been NUKED. The generals know this because they’ve wargamed it. They know that the anti-missile batteries being set up in Alaska will fail.

We are in a literal battle for the lives of those we love. The generals are pointing out who our enemy is, that they’re insane, and that their flank is vulnerable. They’re calling for a counterattack. The time is NOW. Committees of Correspondence. Tar and feathers. Burning in effigy. Burning. Because if we screw this up, hundreds of millions of people are going to get incinerated. Alarmist? Damned right. This is the alarm. So let’s go, silent majority, let’s go, you radical middle, and take these motherfuckers who stole our country OUT!

so far, none of our mistakes has been unprecedented, fatal to our cause, or impossible to correct.

None of the mistakes has been fatal to our cause or impossible to correct? Tell that to the families of the dead soldiers. Tell that to the soldiers who are going to have to spend the rest of their lives without parts of their bodies or a healthy psyche.

If that man said those things to this military spouse’s and soldier mom’s face, I’d be arrested for battery.

Tell it to the Iraqis, too.

I’m so angry I can barely think straight. If FDL is going to work towards something in regards to this, I want in.

This cannot be allowed to stand.

I’ll hever cease to be amazed at how people buy Republican BS about being the “strong military” party because they talk a good game and like to launch wars. In addition to their other failings, Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration, like every other Republican administration in the past thirty years, spend huge amounts on big weapons systems and screw the troops on pay, healthcare, and housing because we “can’t afford ” it. George Packer in the New Yorker:

In February, Rumsfeld released his Quadrennial Defense Review, a congressionally mandated report setting out long-term military policy. Its language seemed unassailable, focussing on the need for greater capability in civil affairs, military policing, cultural and language expertise, and counterinsurgency, all as part of what the document called “the long war†against global terrorism. But in its budget choices, which reveal the real priorities of the Defense Secretary, the Iraq war had hardly registered. Instead of cutting back on hugely expensive weapons programs in order to build more troop divisions—Iraq has made it painfully obvious that a larger army is necessary for fighting counterinsurgency wars—the review favored the fighter jets and carriers that are the lifeblood of military contractors and members of Congress.

I’ve also read that they’re shipping people with PTSD back to Iraq until they flip out and do something that gets them dishonorably discharged, so the military won’t be responsible for the lifelong medical care they’re going to require.

“Support the troops,” my ass!

“From Wiki re the ICJ, even though I realize in our new world order, we ignore all treaties, etc.”
Angie, I respectfully disagree on about a 101 levels. Now, I do NOT advocate using nukes on this Iran problem. However, I’ll be damned if I’ll ever support ANY restrictions on American fighting forces based on some damn international whatever. Sorry. But this is AMERICA….we’ll make our own decisions on things. By the by, I felt the same way about that other “PC” movement re: land mines.
I fully endorse American troops using land mines in battle if/when they feel the need. Ever study how a Claymore will knock the crap out of enemy soldiers charging an American position? They save the lives of our soldiers. The problem has always been with under-developed countries not remembering where they put all the land mines…and then years later little kids get blown up. That is bad. But, I say, if our soldiers ever need to “Claymore” their position…have at it, god bless, and blow the enemy to hell. Ghostman

Cluster and his bunch changed their thinking re law wrt to my above post– they flagrantly ignore international law with their new doctrine.

One month after the publication of Giraldli’s warnings, physicists from around the world, including numerous Nobel laureates and prominent figures, signed a petition expressing their dismay at seeing the architects of Bush administration policy embrace the use of nuclear weapons as a tool in warfare like any other. The new US policy to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries has been officially formulated in two US government documents Nuclear Posture Review delivered to Congress in December 2001 and Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations dated March 15, 2005.

http://www.informationclearing…..e12569.htm

“Bush Speaks Out for Rumsfeld”
‘My Full Support’ For Defense Chief
….”The president’s decision to interject himself so forcefully stands in contrast to his mild reaction to recent reports of dissatisfaction with Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and reflected a calculation by Bush and his advisers that attacks on Rumsfeld by prominent former military commanders strike at the heart of his presidency. As Bush’s choice to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rumsfeld serves as his proxy, and most of the judgments that have come under fire were shared by the president and Vice President Cheney as well….What makes the recent criticism more threatening to the Bush administration is the sense that it represents an unspoken strain of thought among active-duty personnel. A poll of 944 troops serving in Iraq released by Zogby International and LeMoyne College did not ask about Rumsfeld but found that 72 percent think the United States should withdraw within a year and more than a quarter think it should leave immediately….Longtime Rumsfeld critics said the generals were speaking from genuine concern. “They really are acting out of patriotism,” said William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard. “This is not fun for them. They’re reluctant to step forward in this way, and for good reason. . . . But I believe they’re doing it because they believe that Rumsfeld is endangering the course of U.S. foreign policy.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01649.html

#46, marclord: huh? WHO is going to launch nuclear missiles against us, flying across Alaska?? Who? Oh, and check your facts, we actually do have some VERY GOOD “golly gee whiz bang” anti-missile technology. I’ve got about a zero worry of incoming nuke ICBM’s over the Alaskan territory. Ghostman

Ghostman #35

You say nuclear weapons are just weapons to be used like any others. The same could be said of chemical and biological ones as well. Yet these are outlawed. Not all weapons are the same. While use of nuclear weapons is not outlawed, they have only been used twice and that over 60 years ago. That should say something about their exceptional nature. They are not weapons to be used in place of others. They are weapons to be used only for the most serious of strategic purposes and that no such purpose has occurred in the last 60 very turbulent years is an indication of just unlikely and rare such purposes are.

Rumsfeld needs to be gone. Maureen Dowd looked at it today in her op-ed, search for it and I’m sure you can find the full-text.

We owe a debt of gratitude to Victor Davis Hanson. He has given us the coming attractions, as to why we’re gonna all have to “support” the policy, after we bomb Iran. It’s the oldest story in the warmongers’ book: we must not be nay-sayers, now that Our Troops are in harms’ way.

Never mind the fact that something can be done to put a stop to this NOW… after the fact, it’ll be the same old BS: “It’s time now to stop criticizing and be a patriotic American!” The hell it is.

I would add one thing to the chorus of calls for Rumsfeld’s resignation (arrest… drawing and quartering… whatever…). I tend to agree with the contrarian view of Greg Palast, in that we’re all following a red herring here in thinking that Rumsfeld’s the problem.

I apologize in advance for the extensive cut-and-paste; I have tried for 20 minutes to find an acceptable link to this essay, but no go:

Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign

By Greg Palast
The Guardian
April 14, 2006

Well, here they come: the wannabe Rommels, the gaggle of generals, safely retired, to lay siege to Donald Rumsfeld. This week, six of them have called for the Secretary of Defense’s resignation.

Well, according to my watch, they’re about four years too late — and they still don’t get it.

I know that most of my readers will be tickled pink that the bemedalled boys in crew cuts are finally ready to kick Rummy in the rump, in public. But to me, it just shows me that these boys still can’t shoot straight.

It wasn’t Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who stood up in front of the UN and identified two mobile latrines as biological weapons labs, was it, General Powell?

It wasn’t Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who told us our next warning from Saddam could be a mushroom cloud, was it Condoleezza?

It wasn’t Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who declared that Al Qaeda and Saddam were going steady, was it, Mr. Cheney?

Yes, Rumsfeld is a swaggering bag of mendacious arrogance, a duplicitous chicken-hawk, yellow-bellied bully-boy and Tinker-Toy Napoleon — but he didn’t appoint himself Secretary of Defense.

Let me tell you a story about the Secretary of Defense you didn’t read in the New York Times, related to me by General Jay Garner, the man our president placed in Baghdad as the US’ first post-invasion viceroy.

Garner arrived in Kuwait City in March 2003 working under the mistaken notion that when George Bush called for democracy in Iraq, the President meant the Iraqis could choose their own government. Misunderstanding the President’s true mission, General Garner called for Iraqis to hold elections within 90 days and for the U.S. to quickly pull troops out of the cities to a desert base. “It’s their country,” the General told me of the Iraqis. “And,” he added, most ominously, “their oil.”

Let’s not forget: it’s all about the oil. I showed Garner a 101-page plan for Iraq’s economy drafted secretly by neo-cons at the State Department, Treasury and the Pentagon, calling for “privatization” (i.e. the sale) of “all state assets … especially in the oil and oil-supporting industries.” The General knew of the plans and he intended to shove it where the Iraqi sun don’t shine. Garner planned what he called a “Big Tent” meeting of Iraqi tribal leaders to plan elections. By helping Iraqis establish their own multi-ethnic government — and this was back when Sunnis, Shias and Kurds were on talking terms — knew he could get the nation on its feet peacefully before a welcomed “liberation” turned into a hated “occupation.”

But, Garner knew, a freely chosen coalition government would mean the death-knell for the neo-con oil-and-assets privatization grab.

On April 21, 2003, three years ago this month, the very night General Garner arrived in Baghdad, he got a call from Washington. It was Rumsfeld on the line. He told Garner, in so many words, “Don’t unpack, Jack, you’re fired.”

Rummy replaced Garner, a man with years of on-the-ground experience in Iraq, with green-boots Paul Bremer, the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. Bremer canceled the Big Tent meeting of Iraqis and postponed elections for a year; then he issued 100 orders, like some tin-pot pasha, selling off Iraq’s economy to U.S. and foreign operators, just as Rumsfeld’s neo-con clique had desired.

Reading this, it sounds like I should applaud the six generals’ call for Rumfeld’s ouster. Forget it.

For a bunch of military hotshots, they sure can’t shoot straight. They’re wasting all their bullets on the decoy. They’ve gunned down the puppet instead of the puppeteers.

There’s no way that Rumsfeld could have yanked General Garner from Baghdad without the word from The Bunker. Nothing moves or breathes or spits in the Bush Administration without Darth Cheney’s growl of approval. And ultimately, it’s the Commander-in-Chief who’s chiefly in command.

Even the generals’ complaint — that Rumsfeld didn’t give them enough troops — was ultimately a decision of the cowboy from Crawford. (And by the way, the problem was not that we lacked troops — the problem was that we lacked moral authority to occupy this nation. A million troops would not be enough — the insurgents would just have more targets.)

President Bush is one lucky fella. I can imagine him today on the intercom with Cheney: “Well, pardner, looks like the game’s up.” And Cheney replies, “Hey, just hang the Rumsfeld dummy out the window until he’s taken all their ammo.”

When Bush and Cheney read about the call for Rumsfeld’s resignation today, I can just hear George saying to Dick, “Mission Accomplished.”

Generals, let me give you a bit of advice about choosing a target: It’s the President, stupid.

Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

The Generals’ speaking serves at least three purposes:

1) by engaging in an obviously doomed effort to bring about the resignation of Rumsfeld, it forces GWB to once again show his ass by giving continued and ongoing support to Rumsfeld, the author of the disaster in Iraq;

2) it puts out something of a “we’ve got your back” message to active duty military, even thought it would have been more effective if even one of them *had* spoken out before retirement. Rooting from the sidelines to be sure, but rooting nonetheless;

3) Getting it out in front of Joe Six-Pack that at high levels of their revered military, there is deep dissatisfaction with GWB, and his policies past, present, and future (by implication). If these guys are successful at portraying their views to be genuinely representative of the military, GWB takes a hit within that ever-present 37% base.

No down-side that I see.

OT – But shows the Bush Administration’s true intetions in Iraq. With a U.S. Embassy of this size (104 acres!) along with the mega-bases, do you think we will be leaving anytime soon?

By Charles J. Hanley
The Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq – The fortresslike compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq’s turbulent future.

#54, Hugh: no, sir, you’ve misunderstood. Someone above, a professor foland? made the arguement that people should petition the military to not use nukes because they are “unconstitutional”. Emphasis on unconstitutional. My reply was/is: wrong! Any president has the authorized war powers to use a nuke…just like any president can order usage of a hand grenade, or even chemicals!, UNDER HIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS.
Now then, as to your policy argument against using nukes….I agree with you 100%. Ghostman

There might be legal issues to running an ad calling for retirements – we should check since publications would then refuse the ad – just sayin’. Of course, generals may not want to retire while their men are held in servitude by stop loss orders … but we can go see each of our reps through the state project and plead on their behalf.

To understand why Bush backs Rumsfield, go read Billmon: “Munich”.

http://www.billmon.org/

The war in Iran has already started, with U.S. troops on the ground, readying for the open war, and Rumsfield is planning it. The six generals know this and the leaks about war planning and open criticism from retired generals were coordinated last-ditch efforts to stop a war that is already underway.

For Bush to dump Rumsfield is to end the opportunity for Bush to take care of the “Iran problem” as he sees it, something Bush believes he must do because no other president has the guts to do what needs doing. For Bush, this is not about Iran and nukes, is about regime change and protecting western interests in the middle east.

Billmon could be right — we may already be at war.

No doubt there’s full-blown swiftboating in the works for the dissenters, to be revealed once some Regnery author has had a chance to do the “research.” In the meantime, the cheap and easy criticism, which I’ve seen crop up in a couple of threads, is that the generals who have spoken up thus far represent an insignificant fraction of a percent of the 4700-odd retired generals out there. Rumsfeld himself indulged yesterday, according to the NYT: “Mr. Rumsfeld appeared Friday on an Al Arabiya television broadcast and said, ‘Out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round.’”

What his supporters neglect to mention, of course, is the overwhelming institutional pressure against showing disloyalty, disrespecting the principle of civilian control of the military or negatively affecting troop morale. The Times again, from an article posted a few minutes ago: “‘It’s certainly very unusual to have even retired military officers being this public about their opposition,’ said Christopher F. Gelpi, a Duke University political scientist and co-author — with Peter D. Feaver, now a White House adviser — of a 2004 book on civil-military relations.”
(snip)
“[Richard H. Kohn, a historian at the University of North Carolina who has studied the civilian control issue for 40 years,] said he found the chorus of attacks disquieting. He was disturbed, he said, by an assertion made by Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who retired from the Marines, in an essay for Time magazine, that he was writing ‘with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership.’

“‘That’s a fairly chilling thought,’ Mr. Kohn said. “Chilling because they’re not supposed to be undermining their civilian leadership.”

Half a dozen retired generals speaking out this publicly is a big deal, and don’t let anyone try to tell you otherwise.

Another foray into Freeperville confirms that the rationalization de jour is that “The Generals are all retired and jealous that they didn’t get promoted. Also, they are all stupid, because everyone knows that you don’t have to be smart to climb high in the military.” The mental contortions these people must put themselves through to maintain their worldview is astonishing to me. Reality just isn’t meant to be this hard to appreciate and comprehend!Why, oh why can’t they just admidt the obvious-that everything they believed was wrong and that their leader and his team are lying, felonious, incompetent fools?

To chime in somewhat on what markfromireland and Professor Foland said, Rummy makes a nice lightning rod for the Bushists, but replacing him won’t really change anything. Competence, as much as people love to rail on that charge, isn’t the real issue here. The issue is neoconservatism itself.

If we view Rummy, Bush and the rest of the GOP foreign policy crowd as incompetent, it’s only because their world view is radically different from that of sane, rational people. They have largely ruined the Army and Marines because they thought they could wage colonial war on the cheap. That’s stupid, of course, but the real problem is that they even though they could engage in colonial war in the first place! The US military isn’t organized around that type of warfare. You need colonial armies to do that and we don’t have any ghurkas the way the Brits did. We don’t have a Foreign Legion the way the French do.

The real issue here isn’t one of competence. From their view point, they think of themselves as competent. For us to argue their “competence” is to suggest that we can take their objectives and realize them while they can’t. This seems rather pointless to me.

Their world view is wrong. Their objectives are wrong. Their so-called “strategy” is brick-stupid in every conceivale way. Their way of managing through intimidating, blackmail and terror (which is the real point of the American Gulags and creating a torture state in the first place) is also stupid, but THEY think it’s foolproof.

In my mind, we should be attacking neoconservatism itself, rather thank attacking the fringes with charges of “incompetence.”

Neoconservatism has been made an almost systemic problem by a large group of people who have worked for many years to dominate the Pentagon, State Department, White House and Congress. They are all collectively to blame.

Let’s not forget that John McCain has self-ID’d himself as a devout neocon. Some liberals may think he’d be more competent than an idiot savant like Bush, but he’d still keep many of the same people around him. People who share in the neocon fantasy of ruling the world by having unfettered control of the world’s oil spigot. REgardless of his personnel choices, he’s still a man who believes the same crapola as the “incompetents” in the current administration. The result is he cannot be any more competent than any other Republican. Same end result.

The problem is neoconservatism itself.

Regarding the war in Iran already starting, homework begins with Seymour Hersh’s latest article, which stated that this is indeed the case, as Billmon, I and others have written.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/…..417fa_fact

As for admitting wrongs, DuktigP, that would be admitting that the Republican Party foreign policy platform is a failure. This is bigger than Bush. It goes to the overall failure, incompetence and weak premise of the Republican Party national security plan. It proves what we’ve known for a long time, that Republicans know how to campaign on national security, but they don’t know how to implement a strategy of national security in the 21st century. They are not modern thinkers.

This is for the whole ball of wax, the 30+ years they’ve been working to cement their majority. With Democrats obliterating their national security lead, the GOP is scared witless.

Ghostman,

your name is very well chosen.

Well, well, well!!!!! Now, if everyone would combine 63 and 64 above….I think the picture gets crystal clear. 63 offers the fundamental failure…64 offewrs what should be the nuts and bolts of the Democratic leaders chant, mantra, soapbox, and loud campaign talk. 63 and 64…this Bud’s for you. Damn good. Ghostman

Marclord…..??? If you disagree with something I said, let’s here it! We can debate in civilized fashion. Ghostman

Great post, Rick 63

67: let’s HEAR it….I’m embarrassed at myself. chuckle. Ghostman

Retired General Tommy Franks on Hardball said that while Rumsfeld played devil’s advocate, he did not dictate the Iraq war planning, but relied on the expertise of the generals. I specifically remember an LA Times article that reported, Franks labored over a fast and lean invasion strategy at Rumsfeld’s request. His response? A further cut in troop strength. The severe cut did not sit well with Franks, but he obliged. No problem.

Sorry, but to me it sounds like war planning.

Franks defending Rumsfeld is a perfect example why Bush will not dump Donald. By surrounding themselves with sychophants willing to toe the line in public, the administration can create the illusion of a lively debate and not what it really is-scorching criticism.

I do not have the time to go through the posts. If it has not been mentioned, check it out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..e/2006/04/
14/AR2006041401648.html

(first two paragraphs follow)

The Left, Online and Outraged
Liberal Blogger Finds an Outlet and a Community

SHERMAN OAKS, Calif. — In the angry life of Maryscott O’Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O’Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O’Connor’s reputation is as one of the angriest of all. “One long, sustained scream” is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.

Slowly, I think more and more military personnel will become democrats. Since we really care about governing and the necessary funding of things like VA benefits. This administration uses the military like inanimate objects–a sheild and a sword–to be dropped from their hands when spent however they choose to spend it.

I found a full-text of the Dowd op-ed.

if you’re interested.

I’m not very civilized, Ghostman, and I’d rather masterbate than debate.

Anyone here who thinks that the Bush Administration is bluffing about using nuclear weapons on Iran, and that using them won’t provoke a serious nuclear response is in a state of blissful ignorance. Stay in that state, and enjoy it as long as you can.

Correction, the above should read “masturbate.”

Richard P,
I’m interested. Can you post the link? Thanks!

The New York Times published a piece about the military civilian relationship. However, the paper could use a proof reader:

Here is how one source is identified:

“…This is what the chairman of the joint chiefs is expected to do by tradition and law,” said Dennis E. Showalter, a military historian at Colorado College who has taught at the Air Force Academy and West Point. Short of submitting his own resignation, General Pace had little choice but to offer a public show of support, Mr. Showalter said…”

In another graph, one reads:

“If the military is always fighting the last war, well, in the last big war, in Vietnam, the generals stayed quiet and that’s now seen as a mistake,” said Mr. Showalter, of the University of North Carolina…”

Incidentally, Ghostman, Tommy Franks’ Hardball appearance (mentioned by goodasgold #70) confirms your suspicion about timing in #17. This from HuffPost:

On Hardball Friday afternoon, Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of the Iraq war, was defending Defense Secretary Rumsfeld against the recent offensive by the retired generals. In passing, he said this:

“Ask him about the 14 months we spent planning this thing.”

That would put the operational, as opposed to contingency, planning as having started in roughly January of 2002, about eight months later than what was implied in Joint Chiefs head Peter Pace’s statement at the Pentagon briefing earlier this week.

RE: The Left, Online and Outraged.

To the Editor:
Your article on left-leaning blogs being full of rage is yet another example that the mainstream media is in the pockets of the wealthy conservatives who own them. Why the vicious stereotypes? Have you read any of the racist, hateful vitriol that passes for “debate” on the blogs of the right? I look forward to your report on Freerepublic, Red State, and Little Green Footballs.
I regularly read a couple blogs (and had never even heard of Ms. O’Connor before reading your article) and am amazed at the civility and intelligence brought to the discussions. Is there anger on the left? You bet, just look at the state of things after 4 years of a govt run entirely be Republicans. But even in our anger we are striving for progressive, lawful ways to counter the spin of the arrogant deceitful warmongers causing grave harm to our nation and it’s future.
Your article, more than anything else, indicates that you are afraid of losing your own readership to the more hard-hitting blogs who aren’t afraid of taking on the corrupt leadership. Try reporting the truth instead of kowtowing to the Bush Administration.
Sincerely,
*****

The WaPo article about O’Connor is Len Downie’s shout-out response to Jane Hamsher’s Late Nite FDL: Right Wing. Len sez: Ms. Hamsher, my megaphone is bigger than your megaphone.

Total smear job by choosing O’Connor as the subject, and then cherry-picking expletive-laden comments from other lefty blogs. I was proud that there was nothing in FDL posts and comments that met the low standards of the WaPo smear (although I was a little disappointed that some of my personal favorites from Sharkbabe didn’t get chosen!).

========
Had enough?
========

Ghostman: My reply was/is: wrong! Any president has the authorized war powers to use a nuke…just like any president can order usage of a hand grenade, or even chemicals!, UNDER HIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS.

I would agree that the ICJ decision is not a strong argument to use against nuclear weapons, but as for whether the president has the power to use weapons that have been banned by international agreements that the U.S. is party to — wrong!

Treaties have force in the United States because Congress passes American laws that implement them. The president does not have the “constitutional powers” to break those laws, any more than he has “constitutional powers” to authorize torture contrary to the Convention Against Torture or authorize wiretapping contrary to FISA. The president’s “constitutional authority” is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, a constitution which does not place his judgment about national security above the law.

marclord….ok, let’s agree to disagree.
Onward….#79…..hmmmmm, interesting. I again fully admit that I really don’t have much evidence at all to back my theory…but your note from the Hardball interview does make my nose twitch! Thanks. Ghostman

Shorter Victor David Hanson: “We may have fucked up by being inept, lying bastards who ignored reality and the lessons of history and cherry picked evidence like a home-town ref to support our outrageous claims, but you have no right to be critical of us because you are unimportant.

and since Dr. Hanson is an alleged expert on the Classical Age, let him eat this:

A quote from Thucydides in reference to the civil war in Corcyra:

“To fit in with the change of events, words too had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defense. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted and anyone who objected to them became suspect.”

Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian Wars (III, v 82)

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

Redshift–
“The president’s “constitutional authority†is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, a constitution which does not place his judgment about national security above the law.”

I talk to conservatives quite a bit and they won’t believe this. I’ve tried…they simply attack the messenger. Resolute fantasy world, indeed.
They remind me of old Commies. Longing for the day of the “tough boss,” Stalin.

Read my lips:

Cheney is a fascist madman and the grand architect of the strategy. Think Richelieu.

Rumsfeld is a know-nothing Corporate CEO. For them, the answer is always downsizing, kicking ass, smart-ass retorts, and writing books. They don’t know anything else.

Bush is just a stupid dumbfuck. He wouldn’t know how to pee except with Cheney’s advice, and Rumsfeld to hold his pecker.

Once you grasp the essence of these people, you know what to do, and in what order.

#82….well, part of what you say catches my attention. I guess the question is: are there US CONGRESSIONAL LAWS (not international whatever conventions), that expressly outlaw the president from using nukes in a situation such as Iran? I don’t know the answer.
But if there is a Congressional law on this….I think you have a valid argument. Ghostman

Rummy’s departure and the arrival of a new SecDef might also bring about a bit of introspection that Bush might not want to engage in. Specifically, I could easily imagine a new Sec of Defense – even one with the requisite conservative credentials – asking some rather detailed questions about torture, Gitmo, etc. “OK, bring me up to speed here: just what exactly did my predecessor authorize, what did local commanders authorize, etc.” Rather than that, I think Bush would rather have Rummy continue to ignore/deflect/sit on all these kinds of questions.

When even rightwingers are asking questions about our relationship to the Geneva conventions, it’s probably safer from Bush’s point of view to continue to support even a damaged Rumsfeld.

The hypocrisy of the generals criticizing Bush’s handling of Iraq, if not also liberal bloggers, is simply mindblogging. Taylor Marsh lauds the generals for their “truth, outrage, and honesty” but never addresses the fact that not one former military officer, to the best of my knowledge, thinks the safety and welfare of the soldiers and Marines who are being killed and blown up and psychologically traumatized is important. Certainly if this issue was the least bit important to them they would be shouting from the rooftops, if not the airwaves, that the only way to save the military from this abbatoir in Iraq is to call for the immediate and rapid withdrawal from Iraq. All of these generals whom Taylor Marsh is so fond of have made sure that the word withdrawal does not escape from their lips. The bizarre and illogical thing about all this, of course, is that these generals should remember something in this country’s history called Vietnam, where the stock phrases that are uttered today- we must stay the course, cannot cut and run, must bring democracy to the people, etc.,- ring just as hollow and are just as invalid today as they were forty years ago yet people like Taylor Marsh and other liberal bloggers cannot see the forest for the trees. As long as those military personnel remain in that quagmire in Iraq, they will continue to run the very real risk of, if not being blown apart, then returning to this countgry with fractured skulls, missing limbs, eyes which no longer see, etc. But that prospect seems to be of little concern to the much-praised generals and the Taylor Marshs of the blogosphere.

But, but, but! Dear Leader, The Unitary Executive, has powers that transcend Congress’ past lawmaking and future legislating. This has been established by “testimony” to Congress by His Attorney General. Once we grasp the plenary powers of Dear Leader in this time of The Long War, we will better understand that nothing can constrain The Unitary in His great pursuit: protecting US. Since He can torture, wiretap, and out CIA NOCs because we are at war, how can you limit His choice of weapons in wartime?

new thread!

MarcLord, re 75-76,

I got to introduce Wm. F. Buckley in a radio debate 35 years ago as “America’s master debater.” He smiled wanly at me, which, of course the radio audience missed, even if they got the pun.

Buckley’s on our side on more and more issues, so maybe I’ll take it back.

Libby Sosume (now there’s a great name),

There are historical what-if games about Stalin and Hitler, whether the bodies of state they represented would’ve marched on the same if the heads had been cut off. All very fun stuff. It seems fairly clear, however, that at some point individual heads become the state, and cutting them off will simply make the bodies die. If Stalin or Hitler had been killed at certain points, for example, it would’ve fundamentally altered, or at least forestalled, the course of history and plunged their states into comparatively healthy internal chaos. That’s my take on the situation here, and what you allude to is a realization that’s spreading amongst the military as necessary to postponing catastrophe.

OT, but Deborah Howell’s offering her light-weight thinking about Hiatt’s “Good Leak” editorial.

In fact, the editorial writer had not read the Gellman/Linzer story. The editorial was written Friday; the story appeared in the Sunday edition. Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt said it is unlikely that the story would have influenced the editorial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01393.html

Hanson? What happened to him? I graduated from “Fresno State” in the 90’s with a Classics minor; he was a selma farmer back then bemoaning the loss of man’s work and purpose. Hey man, I guess he got tired of farming. Manly typist now.

US Army Colonel James A. Adkins, currently deputy secretary of the Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs, has called not only for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation but for George Bush’s as well.

He suggested Rumsfeld’s departure in a letter to Chris Matthews last December that adds to the rising tide of military discontent led by six generals who agree Rumsfeld should go. But in a subsequent note, Adkins now says, “I am no longer a Republican. Now I think the president needs to go.

ghostman (if you’re still around on the thread)

Actually, I didn’t quite mean to make the argument you attribute to me, though I grant that what I wrote is a little inelegant.

An attack on Iran, of any sort, is pretty clearly unconstitutional (leaving aside foolishness.)

However, there is no chance that a general is going to disobey an order to bomb Iran with conventional bombs. There is a substantial chance, though, that many generals would like a place to hang their hat in ultimate opposition to a nuclear strike on Iran. In this one eventuality, I’d like to give them a place to hang their hat. Though the argument cannot be limited to this one eventuality, as you correctly point out.

We need to oppose all attacks on Iran on constitutional grounds now, in order to prevent a nuclear strike. Constitutional opposition won’t help us prevent a conventional strike, at least not through the generals. That requires some other strategy.

If you think nukes are “just another weapon”, and constraints on their use are are “international whatever”, American nuclear strategists disagree with you. You may check out the Dyson report on the subject.

Erroll, please review the Powell Doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

John Casper-

I went to your link concerning the Powell Doctrine though I am not sure what that had to do with my comment. The Powell Doctrine asks, among other things, if there “is a vital national security interest threatened”? and “is the action supported by the American people”? The answer to both queries is no. One can also include Colin Powell among the other generals, in so far as he also has not called for withdrawal. If anything, his situation is more egregious than the generals and the other so-called liberal bloggers, since Powell should have learned that Iraq, like Vietnam, does not even remotely pose a threat to this country, unless he believes that the Iraqis are ready to storm the beaches of the United States. All the Iraqis wish to do, like the Vietnamese against the French and the U. S., the Algerians against the French, the Afghans against the Soviets, is to drive the invader, the United States, out of their country. This is why the Iraqis, like the Vietnamese, will keep fighting as long as they can breathe until the occupying power, the U.S., has finally left their country. Again, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, for the sake of the American forces and the Iraqi people, the United States military forces have no right fighting in Iraq, killing and getting killed, and should be withdrawn NOW, if not immediately, then ASAP.

Erroll: Mindblogging? A typo, I’m sure, but I love it. I’ll use it to descibe my idle thoughts when I’m not at the computer.

This, however, I do not love:

not one former military officer, to the best of my knowledge, thinks the safety and welfare of the soldiers and Marines who are being killed and blown up and psychologically traumatized is important. Certainly if this issue was the least bit important to them they would be shouting from the rooftops, if not the airwaves, that the only way to save the military from this abbatoir in Iraq is to call for the immediate and rapid withdrawal from Iraq.

I can think of myriad reasons why retired military personnel might not call for immediate withdrawal. Perhaps they believe that calling for withdrawal would be harmful to the troops’ morale and therefore to their effectiveness and safety – because the generals care – whereas focused criticism of Rumsfeld would not. Perhaps they believe that forces currently in Iraq might even be heartened by the removal of a man whose management style and fealty to the White House have obviously been disastrous. Perhaps they believe that there’s still a mission to be salvaged. Perhaps they believe that half a dozen or more generals united on one message might be more effective than individuals each arguing for his own strategy.

Of this I’m pretty certain: you don’t make general without caring for the people under your command. To say they have no concern for the troops now that they’re retired, and to call them hypocrites on top of that, is an insult to them, their experience and their willingness to speak out, as well as to the intelligence of the people with whom you’re sharing your ideas.

Incidentally, Erroll, having read your last comment since I put mine up, I might add that we’re fundamentally in agreement. Like you, I believe that Powell’s participation has been especially egregious in many ways, and I also believe that withdrawal ASAP would likely be in the best interests of everyone involved. But when you refer to “the generals and the other so-called liberal bloggers,” I’m not sure exactly where you’re coming from.

Wesley Clark: Would Fire Rumsfeld
Monday :: September 29, 2003


Wesley Clark told a college audience in New Hampshire Friday that he’d relieve Rumsfeld of his command. Others (Dean, Kerry) have called on Rumsfeld to resign, but this is the first we’ve seen that a major candidate would give Rumsfeld the boot.

Gen. Wesley Clark, told a New Hampshire audience Friday night he had only fired one person in his life. On Saturday he said he wanted to fire a second person: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

When asked at a house party on the Seacoast about what he would do in Iraq if elected president today, he was met with applause when he said, “First of all I would change the Secretary of Defense. Then I would go to the commanders of the ground and go to Iraq myself personally and I would develop an exit strategy that gives us a success and lets us downsize our commitment there.”

Besides Rumsfeld, Clark also criticized Bush’s National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice for her views of the world and then U.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay, also a Republican, for his vote on a measure involving Kosovo.

In Washington Saturday, Clark said Americans are embarrassed by Bush.

Speaking after an event in Washington at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual conference, Clark, 58, told reporters that the American people are “really embarrassed” by the administration’s leadership.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003860.html

Bush is fundatmentally stupid if he doesn’t ask Rummy to step down “to be with his family”.

The discussion pits military against civilian leadership; it keeps the military’s dissension in the news; if it continues, it makes Rummy’s job impossible to perform. If Rummy goes, the problem evaporates.

So, what do you think Bush will do?

Given a choice between avoiding a fundatmental breech in the balance of power in our military, or admitting he was wrong?

Bush will allow yet another American institution to be damamged.

#97, professor:
1.”An attack on Iran, of any sort, is pretty clearly unconstitutional”
Comment: wrong, wrong, wrong. Any president has inherent constitutional authority to use military force. It’s Art. II, it’s the War Powers provisions. Examples:
Ford: ordered marines in against viet forces which captured the Mayaguez, post viet nam.
Carter: ordered military action against Iran re: hostages.
Reagan: ordered air strikes against Libya
Bush Sr.: ordered invasion of Panama, and Grenada
Clinton: ordered air strikes against Serbia.
ALL of the above actions were constitutionally “ok”.
2. the “nukes” argument: you’re still missing the point. A president has the “legal”, the “constitutional” authority to use nukes. Now, would it be wise and smart? Oh hell no…but any president has the legal authority to do it.
Your Dyson report is therefore, irrelevant. it’s a report on the “plusses and minuses” of using nukes in viet nam. The report notes some military objectives could be achieved, but that also, if either china or russia supplied the viet cong with nukes, we could get hit hard due to our troop concentrations. The report concludes that use of nukes in viet nam would not be “smart”. I agree. But, back then, use of nukes by a US president would have been “legal” under the constitution….just not a wise policy.
I think, “maybe”, you don’t understand the difference between what can be “legal”….yet not very smart or wise. It’s “Legal” for a president to order a navy ship to shell the penguins in Antarctica….but it’s also a really stupid idea. Ghostman

Newsflash – Amerikan exceptionalism is dying. It is a pitiful helpless giant. While it exists it does have international obligations enshrined in law. Among these are a specific obligation against first use of nuclear weapons. And besides that if we go to the parchment itself there is something about ‘ cruel’ and something else about ‘ unusual’.
So to sum up there is plenty of grounds NOT to obey any illegal and unconstitutional order to use nu-cular weapons. Even if we lose the case that would still get us all past the ‘ October surprise’ window of opportunity.

WTF are we waiting for! Chimpeachment now!

Hanson is a wanker who dresses his wank in relatively fine language (he is a better stylist than david brooks, for example, whose relentless use of dualism is quite tiresome). i am surprised that you put the quote from hanson with no direct comment on his prose.

I agree with Professor Foland. We need to communicate with the Generals via our Internet comments. It is very important to make our voices heard anyway we can that the bush regime must be stopped before it attacks Iran or Venezuela or any of the other 10 similtaneous theatres of war in the insane PNAC plan. See The Grand Chessboard.

Imcq-

You are right about the typo. After I typed my comment, I proofread it, as I always do, and i still missed it. Sloppy work on my part. The word mindblogging, such as it is, should have been mindblowing. Now I will see if I can address some of your criticisms without any more foolish grammatical slip-ups on my part. When you say that retired military personnel might not be calling for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops because they fear that it might be “harmful to the troops’ morale” is, on its face, ludicrous. This is the same rationale that was used against people who protested against the Vietnam War those many years ago and is just as asinine today as it was then. I do not know if you have ever been in a combat zone but a soldier or Marine is going to be a lot less concerned about what someone may say concerning the war than they are about trying to dodge a bullet and avoiding an IED and making sure that they return to this country in one piece. They are also going to be a lot more grateful when they read that there are people [the few people that there are] trying to get them out of Iraq and out of harm’s way. You go on to say that perhaps these generals may not be speaking out for withdrawal because they may feel that “there’s still a mission to be salvalged”. That kind of reasoning would seem to fly in the face of the criticism that they have been hurling at Rumsfeld and the administration, i.e. at the way he has conducted this idiotic war. You seem to save your biggest criticism at the end, when you criticize me for daring to criticize these generals who spoke out criticizing Rumsfeld, because I accused them of not caring for their troops. If you think that I am backing down from that statement, then you are sadly mistaken. You think that I insult them by calling them hypocrites? Hardly. As I mentioned in my earlier comments [#89], most, if not all of these generals had been in that quagmire called Vietnam, where they witnessed those soldiers and Marines getting thrown into that meatgrinder in Vietnam. Were they getting killed and chopped up for some noble cause? As in Iraq, the answer in Vietnam was no. That is why these generals whom you hold in such high esteem I look upon as being quite superficial in their criticism of the war because, as I said earlier, they are not seeing the forest for the trees. If these generals admit that the war in Iraq is not for a supposed noble cause, as was also the case in Vietnam, then they are indeed hypocrites for not calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops from the area and it certainly does not seem to me that they care that these soldiers and Marines are getting blown up and killed and returning to this country in pieces because of the failure of these people to speak out. What makes it even worse for them is that they are no longer in the military, so they can say what they want and yet they still think, apparently, that the U.S. should stupidly stay the course. If the course of action involves going over a precipice, these military geniuses are saying full speed ahead. There most likely will be, if there is not already, civil war in Iraq. 26 million Iraqis vs. 136,000 Americans. It brings to mind Tennyson’s phrase “into the valley of death” rode the 136,000. There are already close to 2500 dead Americans in Iraq and many more thousands of miliary personnel returning to this country with broken bodies and minds traumatized by the horrors of war. You also seemed to express surprise that I dared to criticize liberal bloggers also. How many more dead Americans will it take before your beloved generals and fellow [so-called] liberal blogers will utter those dreaded words [for them] and that would be rapid and immediate withdrawal? Will it be 10,000 dead Americans? Do I hear 58,000? How about 100,000? What number will it take before these so-called outspoken people actually decide to do the right thing and realize that enough Americans and Iraqis have died for what Burt Lancaster, in the classic Western film The Professionals [1966], called “a lost cause” when he was referring to those who died in the Cemetery of Nameless Men? Until these generals and other so-called liberals call for withdrawal, then their criticism against this administration and the war rings quite shallow indeed.

Let’s see, Dwight D. Eisenhower was an ex-general who got into politics. Wesley Clark was an ex-general who got into politics. Both ex-generals served their country admirably, defended our Constitution with our Bill of Rights courageously, got out and continued to serve our country admirably and defend our Constitution with our Bill of Rights courageously.

Now, some wing-nuts, many of whom have never even served in our military, are viciously attacking our ex-generals, who have proven their honor and their allegiance to our Democracy over and over again.

Why do these wing-nuts hate America so much???

Why do more and more of these wing-nuts sound like a bunch of Communist Party propagandists??? You know, like in any Commie-controlled country where one-party rules and dissent is not allowed??? Especially from ex-generals who are members of the “reality-based community”???

Why do these wing-nuts hate America so much???

As pleased as I am with retired generals coming out against Rumsfeld, I am not blind to the facts that: 1) they waited to be retired to speak up; 2) most of them were and still are in favor of the war with Iraq; 3) some of them are eyeing book contracts and speaking fees…

In other words, I do not think any of them is motivated purely by integrity and honesty. So, let us not make them into civil rights heroes.

Be that as it may, I am still glad that they are speaking up. If anything, it will prompt constituencies to give hell to their representatives. The clowns have gone home for a show and tell — again –. Let us hope they come back to Washington and actually behave like adults for a change.

By the way, a great photo–it is of an unknown Marine after a tough battle in the Pacific Theater in WWII. I can’t recall if it is Saipan or Pelilu, but is is a classic. And a reminder of how our troops have been let down by their civilian leadership- namely Rumsfeld.

Terrific post but please credit the photograph. The famous image is by the legendary American Photographer W. Eugene Smith. It is from a Smith photo essay on the Battle of Saipan and it appeared on the cover of Life Magazine in 1944, The soldier is Sgt. Angelo Klonis. He survived the war. It is one of the most famous iconic images of American Marines in the Pacific Theatre during the Second World War.

Having read through these comments I got very angry at reading Erroll’s post (#89). Totally Phucking CLUELESS and my only queston to “Errol” is: “Is your head up your ass for the warmth”? Like Ck (#9) and Katymine (#26), I’d like to remind you that General John Batiste turned down a 3rd Start so that he could speak out. This affects his retirement and prestige. You just don’t turn down a 3rd Star, unless you are making a supreme sacrifice. This needs to be recognized by this blogging community and the world at large. And why did he turn down his 3rd star? Because he wanted to fight for his men. That’s alot more than wing nut trolls like Erroll or his Chickenhawk commander are doing.

Finally, I saw Tommy Frank’s interview on Hardball last night. For Franks to have anything nice to say about Doug Feith was absurd. Didn’t he previously refer to Feith as one of the stupidest men on the face of the planet or something along those lines? I wonder how many shares of Carlye stock he got for shilling for his masters?

Ron Russell-

I usually don’t reply to people who engage in ad hominem attacks and whose comments seem to be bereft of intelligence but, nevertheless, I shall attempt to reply to your comment. You say that you were “very angry” when you read my post. The problem I have is trying to determine what you are so angry about. As far as I can make out, you think that I said that General Batiste should not speak out. If that is what you think, then you are woefully mistaken in your belief. I doubt if you are nearly as angry as I am at these generals who criticize Rumsfeld [now pay attention, since this next word is fairly important]justifiably, for his handling of the war and admit that the United States should not have invaded Iraq but did not go far enough in what they said. If you had actually managed to get beyond the 2nd sentence on my post of #89, you would have read that these generals do not seem to have learned the lessons of a place called Vietnam, where the U.S. was stuck in that quagmire for at least twelve years and cost the lives of 58,000 Americans. The same thing is happening in Iraq, where the U.S. is again trying to defeat an insurgency, which, as with Vietnam, most likely will end in defeat. That is because, as in Vietnam, the Iraqis, will fight until they can no longer breathe until the invader is driven from their homeland. The U.S. is caught in a civil war and it is only going to get worse. 26 million Iraqis vs. 136,000 Americans. There was a poet named Alfred Lord Tennyson, who wrote a poem which describes what the U.S. is going through- “into the valley of death” he wrote, but in this case, rode the 136,000. That is why I am angry with these generals whom you hold in such high regard. If they gave a damn and learned the lessons from Vietnam, their first priority would be to stop their soldiers and Marines from getting blown up and killed and maimed and mutilated and crippled and traumatized, in many cases, for life, for what they experienced in the fog of war by calling for a rapid and immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. You bizarrely claim that Bush is my “Chickenhawk commander”. I am not the one, unlike these generals, who is advocating staying the course and allowing more Americans to be killed. One doed not remain on a course if that road is heading off a precipice. The irony of all this seems to be lost upon you. The retired military personnel rightly condemn Rumsfeld for what he has done but yet they refuse to condemn Bush for allowing the troops to remain where they are so they can be picked off like ducks in a shooting gallery. How many more American lives should be lost in this “noble cause” before these military generals decide to utter the word withdrawal? 10,000? Do I hear 58,000? How about 100,000? “Wing nut troll” as you so intelligently put it? I think not.

The power to declare war rests with Congress (Article I Section 9). An attack on Iran is legally an act of war, and would be the sort of “total war” that declarations are envisioned for. The war powers resolution, which you bring up, grants the president authority in cases of national emergency caused by attack, declaration of war, or specific statutory authorization. The president has an NIE specifically stating there is no national emergency.

This http://digital.library.unt.edu…..f81d546582 CRS overview of the war powers resolution reviews the constitutionality of each of the cases you bring up, starting on page 11. Grenada, incidentally, was Reagan.

I am acutely (and often painfully) aware of the difference between legal and smart.

The Dyson report is very relevant, though not in some of the tactical details regarding use of weapons in dense plant cover. The very vulnerabilities it points up (isolated large, static American bases) are exactly those of the American position in Iraq. And the military consequences of “open season” with nukes, as it points out, clearly militarily favor the enemy, not us.

Ghostman–

I sincerely hope you continue to needle me. We have absolutely the same aim: this insanity must be stopped. And you’re making me sharpen my instrument.

To be clear, I see the constitutionality argument as a tactic to prevent the insanity. I think the nub of the constitutionality argument is real and true, even if there are counterarguments.

What I want is to find a way to give the generals a fig leaf for disobeying the nuclear order, because I think they want to, but (properly) feel bound by duty not to. If the fig leaf is small, or torn, it’s still a fig leaf. Naturally, the better and more complete the fig leaf, the better.

I think if the generals feel there is a plausible (not even necessarily iron-clad) constitutionality argument, it will go a long way. You’re helping me form a plausible argument. Or so I like to think :)

I rumsfeld being made to be the fall guy?

just asking. It seems like a lot of mistakes were made, and not just by Rumsfeld.

DA #110, I don’t think anybody’s making them into civil rights heroes, and I have no idea how mixed their motives may be, but these guys have to know that they’re opening themselves up to vicious attacks, so their willingness to speak out should be appreciated. Incidentally, active duty personnel can be court martialed for speaking against the Secretary of Defense.

By the same token, Erroll, I don’t necessarily hold them in such high regard. Certainly, to the extent that they supported the war in the first place I’m in total disagreement. This will go down in history as one of the most monumental fiascos of all time, and it’s the worse for having been largely predictable. But given that Iraq is currently in a state of civil war, a war for which our destabilizing influence is largely responsible, this country needs to bear in mind how our departure will affect the situation. I wish I could believe that immediate withdrawal would end the civil war, but I honestly have no idea what’s in the best interest of the Iraqis at this point, and that’s what matters most as far as I’m concerned. First priority should be to stop fucking up. That would be a good step in the right direction.

In Tom Ricks WP article about the generals and Rumsfeld, he quoted Michael Vickers of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) opinion that…†the generals themselves may be partly to blame for the situation in Iraq, along with Rumsfeld and the White House … It’s just absurd to lay the blame on Don Rumsfeld alone.” No reason for this opinion, apropos of nothing. So what is this official sounding organization related to strategy and budget and assessments, which some people might think is a government-related organization? And who is Michael Vickers that his opinion counts? Why does Michael Vickers feel that the generals themselves may be partly to blame? This quote and its context begged more questions than it answered. The answers I found doing a little research were most enlightening.

Why were the generals partly to blame? Presumably because they didn’t put their careers on the line and tell publicly what was really going on early on – before billions of dollars were spent (primarily with no-bid contracts benefiting Cheney and Rumsfeld and/or their friends in high places indirectly or directly).

We have seen what happens to whistle blowers – even non-military ones. The press mentions them briefly, and then they are just one more casualty. There don’t seem to be any laws protecting them anymore. They aren’t glamorous. And lots of times they end up penniless and friendless pariahs. And then there’s the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and its implications for those who go against their commanding officer, particularly the Commander-in-Chief. See Article 134. And we all know that W just does what Rummy and Cheney and Rove tell him to do. So even though Rumsfeld is not in the military, he is giving direct orders through the Commander-in-Chief.

So why did Tom Ricks, an experienced Pentagon reporter, tack this quote at the end of his article?

What is the agenda of the CSBA? If you look at some of the funding and projects of CSBA,

http://www.mediatransparency.o…..pientID=59

You can see how their projects contributed to the pre-emptive debacle that is now Iraq and who was funding these projects. They’ve been working since 1996 on the Revolution in Military Affairs, whatever that is. And being paid to produce reports for the Pentagon, most of which don’t ever seem to be released. http://www.christiansciencemon…..pdate.html by retired Lt. Col. Andrew Krepinevich aka Dr. Krepinevich.

Here is what CSBA has received in the past from neocon organizations and for what purpose:

2-10-2003 $75,000 To support general program activities The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-2003 $500,000 Military Transformation in a Transformed Security Environment: U.S. Military Strategy, Policies and Budgets
Andrew Krepinevich will lead an effort to analyze the transformation of the U.S. armed forces in light of the changing security environment and the revolution in military affairs. The project will organize activities to provide congressional, executive branch, and opinion leaders with alternative strategies for transforming the American military. Smith Richardson Foundation

6-10-2002 $37,500 To support the “Guiding Military Transformation: From Concept to Reality” program The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

2-11-2002 $37,500 To support the “Guiding Military Transformation: From Concept to Reality” program The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-2002 $223,280 America’s War on Terrorism Smith Richardson Foundation

1-1-2002 $500,000 Military Transformation in Security Environment: U.S. Military Strategy, Policies, and Budgets Smith Richardson Foundation

6-6-2001 $37,500 To support the Accelerating Military Transformation project The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

2-12-2001 $37,500 To support the Accelerating Military Transformation project The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-2001 $390,000 Thinking Out of the Box: Addressing America’s Future Military Strategy
Andrew Krepinevich will lead an analytical team that seeks to advance the policy community’s thinking on the transformation of the U.S. armed forces in light of the changing post-cold war security environment and the revolution in military affairs. The project will organize activities to inform congressional, executive branch, and opinion leaders of alternative strategies to effect a transformation of the American military. Smith Richardson Foundation

7-10-2000 $37,500 To support general program activities The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

2-11-2000 $37,500 To support general program activities The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-2000 $390,000 Thinking Out of the Box: Addressing America’s Future Military Strategy
Andrew Krepinevich will lead an analytical team that seeks to advance the policy community’s thinking on the transformation of the U.S. armed forces in light ofging post-cold war security environment and the revolution in military affairs. The project will organize activities to educate congressional, executive branch, and opinion leaders on alternative strategies to effect a transformation of the American military.
Smith Richardson Foundation

1-1-1999 $50,000 To support general program activities The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-1999 $372,500 Promoting Defense Priorities: The National Defense Panel and Beyond
Andrew Krepinevich will lead a collaborative effort to research and analyze issues related to the transformation of the U.S. armed forces in light of the changing post-cold war security environment and the revolution in military affairs. The project will disseminate its findings through a series of publications and briefings for members of Congress, congressional staff, executive branch officials, industry executives, military leaders, and members of the news media. Smith Richardson Foundation

1-1-1999 $87,000 U.S. Military Strategy and Budgets: Planning for the Future Security Environment
Andrew Krepinevich will research and write a report that provides a blueprint for transforming the U.S. military to meet the military and political challenges of the early 21st century. Smith Richardson Foundation

7-10-1998 $25,000 To support general program activities The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.
1-1-1998 $372,500 Promoting Defense Priorities: The National Defense Panel and Beyond
This grant supports research and analysis on the revolution in military affairs (RMA). Andrew Krepinevich will direct the project that will develop a strategy for the transformation of U.S. military forces and in response to the RMA. The project’s findings will be disseminated through reports and briefings for members of the policy making community. Smith Richardson Foundation
12-18-1997 $25,000 To support general program activities The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

7-10-1997 $25,000 To support general operations The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-10-1997 $25,000 To support general operations The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-1997 $227,095 The U.S. Military: Transitioning to a New Era
This grant supports research on how the U.S. military should adapt its forces, doctrine, and strategy to maximize its effectiveneses in light of the new security environment and the revolution in military affairs. CSBA’s research will analyze the nature and implications of the revolution in military technology, the future allocation of responsibilities within the U.S. alliance system, and the quadrennial strategic review in 1997. Analysts willduce a series of reports, as well as provide briefings to policy makers in the executive and legislative branches. Smith Richardson Foundation

7-29-1996 $25,000 To support general operations The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-31-1996 $25,000 To support general operations The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-1996 $227,095 The U.S. Military: Transitioning to a New Era
This grant supports a two-year research project that will analyze the nature and implications of the revolution in military affairs, the future allocation of responsibilities within the U.S. alliance systems, and the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review. Reports, policy papers, and congressional briefings will focus on how the U.S. military should adapt its strategy, doctrine, and forces to maximize its effectiveness in light of the new security environment and the revolution in military affairs. Smith Richardson Foundation

When you see one of its representatives quoted as a source of expert opinion, please remember that it receives the majority of its money
from:

1) The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This is the country’s largest and most influential right-wing foundation.

and 2) Smith Richardson Foundation

Financed by the Vicks Vaporub fortune, this foundation is estimated to have assets of about $250 million. The Richardsons are estimated by Forbes to have a net worth of $870 million, making them one of the country’s richest families. The Foundation gave approximately $99,686,911 to a total of 266 grantees – a virtual who’s who of conservative “think tanks.”

Maybe their agenda, since they can’t do away with the U.S. Military, would be to put it under direct corporate control. “Privatize it” to serve the mission not of the U.S. government, but that of the oil companies,
Wackenhut, and other major supporters of these organizations. To hell with honor and freedom and justice and protecting our country, just get out there and make sure the corporations’ assets are protected and that they get the oil – at any cost no matter what.

The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation is to return the U.S. – and the world – to the days before governments began to regulate Big Business, before corporations were forced to make concessions to an organized labor force. In other words, laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off.

To further this objective, Bradley supports the organizations and individuals that promote the deregulation of business, the rollback of
virtually all social welfare programs, and the privatization of government services – including in this case – the army?

The Bradley Foundation funded Charles Murray, one of the authors of The Bell Curve, an incendiary and racist bestseller that attributes expanding inequality and class structure to inherited differences in intelligence. In Inequality By Design, Claude Fischer and his colleagues have challenged the arguments that expanding inequality is the natural, perhaps necessary, accompaniment of economic growth. They refute the claims of the incendiary bestseller The Bell Curve (1994) through a clear, rigorous re-analysis of the very data its authors, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, used to contend that inherited differences in intelligence explain inequality.

Inequality by Design stresses that economic fortune depends more on social circumstances than on IQ, which is itself a product of society. More critical yet, patterns of inequality must be explained by looking beyond the attributes of individuals to the structure of society. Social policies set the “rules of the game” within which individual abilities and efforts matter. And recent policies have, on the whole, widened the gap between the rich and the rest of Americans since the 1970s.

Not only does the wealth of individuals’ parents shape their chances for a good life, so do national policies ranging from labor laws to investments in education to tax deductions. The authors explore the ways that America–the most economically unequal society in the industrialized world–unevenly distributes rewards through regulation of the market, taxes, and government spending – and allowing nonprofit foundations to be the feeding trough for hacksters that write ideological BS based on incorrect assumptions and bad scientific methods and get it published. To the extent that these front organizations and people are running the show, they need to be exposed for who and what they are.

It’s actually encouraging that these generals feel the situation, as they see it, must be publicy addressed. And they can do so without fear of sedition charges. Yet 6 out of an estimated 4,500+ Army, Marine and Air Force retired generals doesn’t really mean much. Even when I might disagree with their assessments I would be much more worried if no one raised any objections.

Had to jump to MarcLord’s money quote:

“We are in a literal battle for the lives of those we love. The generals are pointing out who our enemy is, that they’re insane, and that their flank is vulnerable. They’re calling for a counterattack. The time is NOW. Committees of Correspondence. Tar and feathers. Burning in effigy. Burning. Because if we screw this up, hundreds of millions of people are going to get incinerated. Alarmist? Damned right. This is the alarm. So let’s go, silent majority, let’s go, you radical middle, and take these motherfuckers who stole our country OUT! “

Bravo!

I am Not impressed by current day military men who criticize After they are out of office. I am impressed by line officers who criticize while in the service.

Why?

Because some are brave enough and have enough Conviction to risk pension for Patriotism.

Tomorrow is Patriots Day in Ma and ME. It is an offical state holiday.

On April 19, 1775, the men of Massachusetts stood at a wooden bridge in Concord, Ma and refused to give ground to Tyranny. Period.

They put their Life, and their Love and their sacred Honor on the line to stop a King.

Our present day military man won’t even risk their fucking pensions to do the same.

They are Not in the same class as are Founding Fathers.

Fitz can’t hear you.

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/F…..inchey.pdf

Fitz has let us down completely – Please let people know about this:

One page pdf linked at Rep. Hinchey’s site. Why did it take Fitz SIX MONTHS to offer his REFUSAL TO INVESTIGATE THE NIGER FORGERIES as requested by Rep. Hinchey and 39 other Democrats last October?

Fitz is a smart man, he tells Congressman Hinchey that the letter empowering him to investigate does not include investigating lies in the run up to war and he refers Rep. Hinchey to the DOJ site BUT WHY DID IT TAKE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FITZGERALD SIX MONTHS TO FIGURE OUT HIS MANDATE???

Please sign petitions AGAINST War on Iran. Indirectly Supports the 6
Generals

The difference between an opinion & one that counts Please copy this
link and send it to everyone you know:

http://www.dontattackiran.org

Please ask Congress to instruct Bush and Cheney not to attack Iran:
Email Congress.

Please stay involved by joining these organizations: Gold Star Families for Peace CODE PINK…

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/iran

Sign Petition Opposing Attack on Iran Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2006-04-10

[This Petition and signatures and comments will be delivered to the White House by many activists, including Cindy Sheehan.]

Dear President Bush and Vice President Cheney,

We write to you from all over the United States and all over the
world to urge you to obey both international and U.S. law, which
forbid aggressive attacks on other nations. We oppose your proposal
to attack Iran. Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, just as Iraq
did not possess nuclear weapons. If Iran had such weapons, that would
not justify the use of force, any more than any other nation would be
justified in launching a war against the world’s greatest possesor of
nuclear arms, the United States.

The most effective way to prevent
Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be to closely monitor its nuclear energy program, and to improve diplomatic relations — two
tasks made much more difficult by threatening to bomb Iranian
territory. We urge you to lead the way to peace, not war, and to
begin by making clear that you will not commit the highest
international crime by aggressively attacking Iran.