Rummy vs the Generals

[WillyBWright]

Yet another retiring general has called for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. That makes 6 Generals and Admirals that have retired since Iraq and began calling publicly for his ouster. (I wonder how many have retired and not been of this opinion.) Other dissenting generals have been dismissed for not agreeing with the war as it has been waged. I know this is not without precedent, but it seems a bit over the top compared to past examples. There is obviously little confidence from the upper ranks, or at least a notable segment of them. Should Rummy resign, be fired, or stay the course? If the Prez unilaterally pushed the button on Iran, would the nukes fly?

 

[18rabbit]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

I heard (but not seen) there is a new MSNBC poll that suggests something like 85% of the people now favor or would not oppose impeaching Shrub. Me thinks his private little world is starting to crumble.

 

[rolmops]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

Rumsfeld's ego and arrogance have cost him an election before.He is one of the people who sincerely believe that the world turns around them.The very idea that a mere general disagrees with him is unacceptable to him.The idea that he could be wrong is completely foreign to him.<br />I have respect for the generals who in spite of their opinion took their orders and executed them.I would have had greater respect for them if they would have resigned their commission on the spot.<br />The MSNBC thing is not a poll.It is a live vote and it states clearly that it is not a scientifically based poll.It shows 86% is willing to put Bush on trial for deceiving the nation.<br />If Rush limbaugh would do a simular on line vote it would show 86% supporting the war.Neither of these are connected to reality

 

[18rabbit]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

Fwiw, something like 17 general (and other heavy weights?) walked in together and resigned under Clinton. They were unhappy with Billy-Jeff’s gutting of the military. The whole event was deem a nat’l secret, means we didn’t immediately hear about all of the resignations at the time it happened.

 

[technostingray]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

It's a dog eat dog world. :wink:

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

It's going to be interesting just how many Republicans support the military after all.

 

[CJY]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

Fwiw, something like 17 general (and other heavy weights?) walked in together and resigned under Clinton. They were unhappy with Billy-Jeff’s gutting of the military. The whole event was deem a nat’l secret, means we didn’t immediately hear about all of the resignations at the time it happened.<br />

Ok.....but so what? It was not right then and is still not right today. Is this a response in support of today's administration? What happened 10 years ago does not change the fact that Rumsfeld is doing a horrible job with Iraq and should be removed.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

GOD#@#^%*** communistic terroist loveing general bustards, all should be hung up and shot for ever suggesting the most honest and brilliant strategic and tactical planner could have been wrong. we should take their retirement bennies.<br /> oh,, wait, thats already happening.<br /> anyway I cant believe they would actually wait until they retired before voicing an opinion.<br /> I mean why did they not say something 3-4 years ago? unless maybe they looked at what happened to those that did.<br /><br /> freakin commies.<br /> I am sure JB will be in 100% agreement with me.<br /> how dare they give aid and comfort to the enemy(who ever that is) in our time of war.

 

[solidwaste]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

I would like to hear what we should be doing in Iraq? If rummy is really that crummy then what would you do that would be better since everyone is a critic what should be done. The generals are soldiers disagreeing with a politician, wow like this is something new? Only in dictatorships and monacarys do the military and politicians agree and thats only becuase they dont have the right to disagree they do what there told or there killed. If we left our future completly in the hands of our top Generals then there probaly would be a lot less Iraqies alive today, Im not saying this is wrong generals and soldiers are trained to fight and kill there only constriant is our politicains. That have a much bigger picture to look at..I am a former Marine and support and will always suport any president regardless of party, that has the curage to stand up and protect americans. And for all the people who think that are troops have fought and died over there for nothing and the closet gultless hippies, I want you to think of how many terrorist attacks weve had since 911. Why do you think that is? Because they have gone to Iraq to fight us there. Maybe youd like our pres a little better if instead of us fighting them there we had our troops out in the streets here waiting for the next pizza joint to be blown up.. Or better yet the movie theater were I take my family..Look at the big picture and be glad its not here and honor those that understand this and are fighting for us they have sacrafised so we could take our familys to the theater and pizza joint with out fear..

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

It won't fly Solid. They can't get to Bush if they traveled down your road. They pick off Rummy and they get one step closer to making a eunuch out of Bush. WillyB would just be in 7th Heaven if that happened. That is, if there is a Heaven.

 

[CJY]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

I want you to think of how many terrorist attacks weve had since 911.

Solid,<br /><br />Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!<br /><br />

I would like to hear what we should be doing in Iraq?

Anything besides waiting for Iraq to run out of suicide bombers. We need to get on the offensive. So we need more troops, more armor, bigger guns, more planes, etc. Whatever it takes is what we have to do. Right now we are doing nothing but sitting waiting for them to suicide bomb us, again. <br /><br />By the way, have we removed the head from the "snake" of terror? I think not. It was not Hussein. We also need to put a greater effort into finding and killing OBL. Are we waiting for him to turn himself in, or is W still not worried about him?<br /><br />Most armies collapse shortly after their leader is dead. I believe the terrorist network would do the same. WHY IS HE STILL ALIVE??? I don't know if I'm right, but I think we should try it.

 

[crab bait]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

we got saddam..!! who..?? bin-laden who..??

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

I would like to hear what we should be doing in Iraq?

A Marine has to ask that question?<br />

I want you to think of how many terrorist attacks weve had since 911.

It was 10 years between the first attack on the WTC and the second. That doesn't mean Clinton was doing a good job fighting terrorists. A specific answer to your question is; there has been hundreds.<br />

Only in dictatorships and monacarys do the military and politicians agree....

So if they do agree it's a dictatorship or monarchy? <br />SOLID, in debate your words are going to have to matter.<br />And by them you prefer to support politicians over the military in time of war. <br />We'll fundamentally disagree on more I'm sure.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

Originally posted by Skinnywater:<br /> ....you prefer to support politicians over the military in time of war. <br />We'll fundamentally disagree on more I'm sure.

For better or for worse, that's the law of the Land Skinnywater. If it hadn't been for the politicians (Truman) Mac Arthur (may God rest his glorious soul) we'd a started World War III.

 

[PW2]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

I don't think removing Rummy at this point would do any good. The US military is stretched too thin to do anything in Iran anyway, and the mistakes in Iraq have happened already.<br /><br />At this point in time, there is no military solution to Iraq. It is going to require deft diplomatic skills. Whoops, where is Powell when we need him???

 

[18rabbit]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

PW2 - are you suggesting to keep Rummy because he now has experience, been thru the learning curve as it were?!?<br />

 

[treedancer]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

I expect that General Peter Pace will be resigning /retiring as chairman of the joint chiefs very soon. General Pace's personal decorations include: Defense Distinguished Service Medal, with two oak leaf clusters; Defense Superior Service Medal; the Legion of Merit; Bronze Star Medal with Combat V; the Defense Meritorious Service Medal; Meritorious Service Medal with gold star; Navy Commendation Medal with Combat "V"; Navy Achievement Medal with gold star; and the Combat Action Ribbon. General Pace served as a rifle platoon leader in Vietnam in 1968,he was assigned to the 2nd battalion 5th marines 1st mar. Div .It surely has to gull him to be aboard this ship of fools. At least one of his predecessor’s has managed to get off the ship, General Colin Powell; he has been rather outspoken ever since. <br /><br /> General Peter Pace was sworn in as sixteenth Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Sep. 30, 2005. In this capacity, he serves as the principal military advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council. Prior to becoming Chairman, he served as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2001 to August 12, 2005. General Pace is the first Marine to serve as Chairman. He also holds the distinction of being the first Marine to have served as the Vice Chairman.<br /> When all is said and done the issue now is about "the president's decision-making and judgment."

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

If it hadn't been for the politicians (Truman) Mac Arthur (may God rest his glorious soul) we'd a started World War III.

Just a tiny World War over in months. Instead we had two major conflicts and several moderate ones. Plus 50 years of cold war, suffering and loss of life and capital, all because we didn't. <br /><br />One of the greatest hypocracys in the Iraq conflict that were obviously contrary to military strategy was this;<br />Early on before the Iraq elections our military had surrounded a dangerous military opponent to any Iraqi solution that sensibly complements our mission. They had him surrounded several times on several occasions. And our military was poised on those to completely destroy him and his hostile and terrorist movement. I don't need the media or stinkin' Ted Kennedy to remind me of this at a later date why Generals think Rumsfeld is "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically"<br /><br /> Remember this guy? <br /> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/al-sadr.htm <br /> What here didn't (or doesn't) make him a viable target? <br /> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-sadr.htm <br /><br />That was only a secondary arguement. <br />The "forgotten" guy (Binladen)in the "forgotten" war (Afganistan) has already been brought up. And that's a viable first arguement. <br /><br /><br />Oh, and just in case you're still in this SOLID and think I'm some "closet guiltless Hippie".

...and will always suport any president regardless of party,...... and the closet gultless hippies,....

Loyalty to country means allegiance to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. It does not mean blind support for a president, an administration or a political party. Generals are more apt to practice this philosophy MUCH more than politicians have exibited it. <br /><br />

Whoops, where is Powell when we need him???

OUCH....ouch.. <br /><br />All that's missing now is for the Republicans to start discrediting all those Generals.....maybe leak a little classified info on them.....call them unpatriotic....sympathetic to the liberal cause.....see if they really deserved that purple heart.....

 

[treedancer]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

Heres a few more rummsy for the brainwashed, notice that the dates are all the same day. <br /> Tuesday October 5, 2004 <br /> <br /> I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al-Qaida and <br />Iraq. This assessment was based upon points provided to me by then CIA Director George Tenet to describe the CIA's understanding of the al-Qaida-Iraq relationship.<br /> Tuesday, 5 October, 2004, 14:27 GMT 15:27 UK<br /> <br /> US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld<br />Rumsfeld's comments can be revealing<br />US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.<br /><br />The alleged link was used as a reason by President Bush for invading Iraq.<br />Mr Rumsfeld was asked by a New York audience about connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.<br /><br />"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said, though he later issued a statement saying he was misunderstood.<br /> When asked about the putative link during a session at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Monday, the defence secretary said: "I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way. (huh) <br /> I find it amazing that people are still defending his job, seems to me the Generals have some good reason to ask for his resignation.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Rummy vs the Generals

<br /><br />The knives are out for Rummy<br />Zinni on prerwar intel<br />Hidden History of Iraq war critics<br />Who you are and where you'll go to "Get Bush" are no longer clandestine. Even an idot like me can vett these attack attempts and kill them even quicker than we can find the source, and sometimes at the same time.<br />But keep it up -- because people are not as gulible as you think they are. And they will see you for what you are....Which means we will continue to win. God Bless America.