Right Wing Swiftboats Generals Who Called on Rumsfeld to Resign
Right Wing Swiftboats Generals Who Called on Rumsfeld to Resign
The right has wasted no time impugning the character and motivations of the seven generals who have spoken out against Secretary Rumsfeld. Right-wing bloggers, columnists, and television hosts have accused the generals of hurting troop morale, harboring personal grievances, chasing book deals and generally having partisan motivations.
Most generals, however, are not political appointees of any sort. While Defense secretaries have had the prerogative to nominate four-star generals and admirals (only one of the generals who have spoken out — Zinni — is four-star), the selection of one-, two- and three-star officers has been left to each service’s normal selection and promotion procedures.
Some lowlights —
Like so many CanCan dancers strutting their shapely legs before a lustful audience, the Clinton generals seem to be auditioning for the next Democrat administration…But seeing retired general officers pick up the pompoms and cheerleading for the Democrats is really over the top: it shows nothing but contempt for military honor and tradition.
A number of retired Generals have recently criticized SecDef Rumsfeld and demanded his departure. Big Lizards has a very interesting take on these ex-military types, including their Clintonoid backgrounds, plodding lack of originality in military matters, inefficiency, and outright dishonesty when comparing their statements before the Iraq War began and more recent statements on the situation in the Middle East.
Retired Generals Targeting Rumsfeld: Hurting Troop Morale?
Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online:
Currently, there are many retired generals appearing in frenetic fashion on television…Apart from the ethical questions involved in promoting a book or showcasing a media appearance during a time of war by offering an “inside” view unknown to others of the supposedly culpable administration of the military, what is striking is the empty nature of these controversies rehashed ad nauseam.
The only thing the right has proven is that it’s willing to attack anyone who disagrees with the President.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
… frankly, I’m surprised it took them this long to bring on the Clenis accusations …
April 17th, 2006 at 3:34 pmNice to see the neo-cons, who have shown themselves to be wholly incompetent at executing a war criticizing those who have shown such skill and knowledge as to have earned the rank of General. I guess if you run and hide during Vietnam you can later claim your expertise and knowledge on all things having to do with battle strategy.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:35 pmAhem,
Kindly wake me when regressives have been cured of their obvious Clintonian Deficit Disorder. CDD is killing our ability to debate ideas rationally.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:35 pmIt’s only 6 Generals, it’s only six Generals. That’s all we hear in any preface to rebut these six Generals.
Only a few months ago, when hundreds of thousands of American citizens marched against the war, life went on as usual in the Pentagon, just what you would expect. Now, we get “only 6 Gernerals” complaining, and it’s Pentagon White Paper time to defend Rummy and the war.
In conclusion, it is OBVIOUSLY a BIG DEAL, if the Pentagon needs to put out a White Paper at this particular time.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:36 pmTypical armchair warriors. Cowards who hid out with their deferments who gladly send others to fight and die for their stock options and dividends. I vote for reinstating the draft. Anyone who makes a statement in favor of staying in Iraq goes to the head of the induction line.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:39 pmOh of course it’s all Clinton’s fault. What was he thinking, “letting” these men become generals and thus forcing them to be loyal to all things Democratic…
This must REALLY have hit a nerve with the Republicants, b/c they THOUGHT they had the military on their partisan side. Generals dissing a Republican Admin is if Jesse Jackson decided to go GOP. Just mind-bending
April 17th, 2006 at 3:39 pmTwo things to consider:
1) The pentagon absolutely will not tolerate public dissent from generals. It is entirely inappropriate for the military to question its civilian leadership.
2) it’s only six generals. You don’t hear the active duty generals complaining, do you?
Now please go back to watching Fox News report on all the good things happening in Iraq.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:42 pmAlso, the economy is doing great for Neil Cavuto.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:43 pmOh, of course, everybody who says anything at all negative about this moron in office, the smearing comes fast and furious. They are desperate and quite mean. They care about nothing but saving any face they have left; which is not much.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pm“Clintonoid background”?
Is this a new medical condition that disqualifies someone from issuing an honest and informed opinion?
Not a single one of Rumsfeld’s defenders addressed the merits of the generals’ criticisms, instead lanching ad hominem attacks and accusing the generals of “cheerleading” for the Democrats -as if offering a criticism was to cheerlead for the opponent.
These Bush minions have also proven they have no argument, no leg to stand on, and they know it.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pmIf this was Iraq, how much taxpayer money do you think that the Pentagon would spend on “inforative” ads and PR to defend Rumsfeld?
O.K. Let’s pretend this happens in America. How much money will they spend in America to defend Rummy. Get the idea where Pentagon PR money goes?
April 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pmIf this was Iraq, how much taxpayer money do you think that the Pentagon would spend on “inforative” ads and PR to defend Rumsfeld?
O.K. Let’s pretend this happens in America. How much money will they spend in America to defend Rummy. Get the idea where Pentagon PR money goes?
April 17th, 2006 at 3:46 pmWhat’s interesting is that there were no generals, retired or otherwise, with a “Reaganoid” background that were crying about Pres. Clinton or his Sec. of Def. William Cohen when they were in office.
Oh, I guess because Pres. Clinton never got the US bogged down in a land war in the middle east over oil.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:47 pm[...] Behind every left wing plot sits William Jefferson Clinton, plotting and planning… to what devious ends? [...]
April 17th, 2006 at 3:48 pmSo, in all of the bleating from the right, how many have actually criticized the factual observations of these generals? How many have dissected the generals’ arguments against Rummy and disproven them with factual analysis?
I’d check for myself, but this site and like two others are the only ones unblocked here at work. (NOTE: I work for a bunch of Republicans, so I’m stunned I can even get here. And if
April 17th, 2006 at 3:51 pmThe way these people talk one would think George Bush Jr. scored a 100% on every SAT/Test he ever took. He graduated from highschool at the age of 12. He graduated with a doctorate in astrophysics at the age of 24. And finally he has written at least 10 books on the subject of all things in military history and strategy. EVERY person who has ever thought otherwise has been shouted down as someone who just doesnt understand his genious….
WTF are they thinking?
April 17th, 2006 at 3:51 pm#5 – yankeluh, from another thread , here’s how I would complete your argument –
April 17th, 2006 at 3:53 pmUnless you or an immediate family member (your WWII dad doesn’t count, boomers!!) have served in the armed services, you are prohibited from purchasing gasoline. Think of how much more room I-R-I will have on the road….
Let’s nominate those generals for the Smedley Butler Hall of Fame. Smelly Butler was the most quoted military general by american pacifists, defeatists and Communists – let’s trot these guys out and feature them on the Cindy Sheehan bandwagon….
April 17th, 2006 at 3:58 pm#17…and he can walk on water,he don’t cuss,he don’t drink,leaps tall buildings in a single bound, and has a ’special phone line’ to god himself!
April 17th, 2006 at 3:59 pm#20: or, we could trot out Rumsfeld as a man who has blatantly failed to plan and run a military operation. A chickenhawk who can’t manage the military, refuses to put forth plans, and ignores the suggestions of military experts. A bureaucrat who would rather hide in his office than take questions from the troops. A man who promises to give the troops body armor but does not do so. A man who says “we go to war with the Army we have,” but whose own planning and strategy led to the shortfalls in manpower and equipment. Put him on any bandwagon you want . . . I’ve got a one-finger salute for him.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:03 pmOh, so now it’s attack the precious military. Not convienent any more to support them? Why isn’t any one asking about Bill Kristol’s accountability, or Wolfowitz, Pearle, Feith, et al?
April 17th, 2006 at 4:04 pmI bet none of this right-wingers ever served a day in combat or a full tour of duty in the real military.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:09 pmJust trying to add a bit of levity. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened some day.
It is their network, however, so they can do whatever the hell they want.
(Sorry for the OT comment).
April 17th, 2006 at 4:09 pm#20: One more thing, you should pull that “Support Our Troops” sticker off the back of your SUV. Obviously, you don’t support the troops who are fighting in the name of the United States; men and women who have sacrificed so much for us. What a sad legacy for you and the rest of the Conservatives. I guess tax cuts are where your hearts really are. Conservative colors are not Red, White and Blue, but green.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:12 pmMaybe they can get that Schmidt-head from Ohio to help bash the generals, just like she did with that highly decorated Marine, Rep. John Murtha.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:14 pmCompletly off topic, but wheres theTP post on former governer George Ryan. It would seem to be an immediate go ahead for TP.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:15 pm“Clintonoid backgrounds, plodding lack of originality in military matters, inefficiency, and outright dishonesty”
…as opposed to the Bushoid lack of planning in military matters, inefficiency and outright dishonesty, corruption, unethical behavior and greed.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:15 pm4 star promotions are determined by the secretary of defence personally. It used to be a little less engaged prior to him but it’s worth remembering that COHEN WAS A REPUBLICAN.
SO how about swiftboating Cohen for promoting these generals….
Of course prior to 96 cohen was not secretary.
These attacks are pathetic though. Most of the generals that ’support’ rumsfield really support the idea that they’re supposed to be nonpartisan out of office in terms of not speaking about internal issues at their former work place.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:16 pm“Retired Generals Targeting Rumsfeld: Hurting Troop Morale?”
Hmm…surely the real cause of low troop morale is Rumsfeld’s inability properly co-ordinate the US forces. Instead of fixing the problem Bush&co bury their heads in the sand again and blaming the media for only reporting the bad bits of Iraq and claiming there is no civil war forthcoming (if not already).
Of course an active General won’t step up and speak out against Rummy. He’ll be sacked and no retirement.
When will there neoclowns pull their heads out of their asses?
April 17th, 2006 at 4:16 pmOver 4000 retired Generals and 7 have a problem with Iraq. Like a toothpaste commercial Over 3993 Generals agree………with Bush. MWAAAAAAAAAAA!
April 17th, 2006 at 4:16 pmIn 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft marketâ€â€”pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.â€
In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.â€
April 17th, 2006 at 4:17 pmIn response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the republican White House.
As a result of the openings created by Rumsfeld’s diplomatic triumphs, U.S. companies were recruited and encouraged, both covertly and overtly, to ship poisonous chemicals and biological agents to Iraq, by the administrations of both Reagan and George Bush Sr. Care packages to Saddam included sample strains of anthrax and bubonic plague, and components which would be used to develop nerve poisons like sarin gas and ricin. That’s where Rummy’s connections to major pharmaceutical and technology companies came into play.
———–
Nice of them to try Blaming it on Clinton, but as you can see the “Arm your ENEMY” Problem goes BACK to the Republicans and the Neo-Cons..
To all you who have never had military experience-Active duty military cannot complain,you follow orders.Especially in this “complain-and -you-are anti-american” administration.Please note that these are all front line,battlefield generals.Most generals run bases or logistics departments or are paper pushers.These are people who were in positions where they made battlefied observations, not like the political types that are in lockstep with what’s politically decided by this chickenhawk administration.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:19 pm#18; MA; Since I was drafted during the Vietnam War, can I buy as much gas as I want at a reasonable price? BTW, since IRI is too much of a craven coward to enlist, why SHOULD he be on the road at all?
April 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pmma is our only troll so far…. OK, whatever.
I was over at redstate this AM & tried reading that thread. In their wisdom, I can’t post there….I got about 1/2 way through the comments and was more sickened than ususal. Only one person had commented that maybe the generals had a right to their opinions. This was followed by warnings from the management that a booting was comming if they didn’t stop agitating the crowd. The crown wanted blood. I couldn’t read any more. A better choir, they couldn’t pay to find over there.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pm#20
They aren’t defeatists.
They want to win.
They don’t believe that Rumsfield can win anything, let alone manage the current war.
These aren’t peace advocates. These are people who are frustrated that the military is losing because Rumsfield has grand visions but no workable plans.
I like the part about how ‘rumsfield listens to his generals’ put out by one of the general.s He never, ever said they rumsfield ever listened to them.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pm#32 – Actually it would be more like “Over 3993 Generals agree. . . to be quiet about Pres. Bush & Sec. Rumsfeld’s failures, only 7 have the courage to stand up for their convictions”.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:21 pmReagans Freedom Fighters…gone awry.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:21 pmReagan the Dr. Frankenstein of Terrorism.
Next up: “Elitist Hillary Generals need to be tried for treason”
The GOP eunuchs get high marks for effort, too bad the stupidity of their arguments don’t carry water like their bowed short legs do for talking points.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:23 pm#31, The neocons will NEVER pull their heads out of their asses, they like the view there too much.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:24 pm# 38 or maybe, just maybe, 3993 think that those 7 are asses. maybe.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:25 pm#35 – Mighty Aphro used the phrase “Unless you or an immediate family member (your WWII dad doesn’t count, boomers!!) have served in the armed services, you are prohibited from purchasing gasoline.”
That way, if your dad/mom, brother/sister, son/daughter served you could buy gassoline. “Right between the I’s” had a family member serve, he couldn’t bring himself to actually join the military.
“Think of how much more room I-R-I will have on the road”
Yeah, Houston has a large number of neo-cons. Since neo-cons talk the talk, but can’t walk the walk, there’d be very little traffic down there.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:27 pmkindness – I was there reading the posts as well.
I find it pretty funny how they talk about the DEMS being negative and such, yet when someone who does not share their view they call them names and threaten to ban them.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:29 pm#32 stupidity of an arguement:
I cant remember reading about even one retired General in Germany who critisized Hitler, not even one. That doesn’t make it right. Mwaaaaa
April 17th, 2006 at 4:30 pm#32 – that is far from meaning that “3993″ Generals agree with Bush&co.
Since they won’t ever speak out while on active duty, we’ll see what more of them say when they retire. Unfortunately, thanks to you NeoClowns, the damage will already have been done and you’ll still be cleaning Bush’s brown stuff off your noses long after he leaves office.
Time to pull your out of your white, oversized ass?
April 17th, 2006 at 4:32 pm# 35 I too served in Viet nam, though I joined out of pride and served with honor. Your post name is an embarassment to all who have fallen. You should be ashamed. To the rest, I served under Gen. Zinni , he was a horses ass both personally and professionally . As for the others I respect their opionions.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:35 pmMighty Aphrodite, (#18),
let’s take your argument to the next step: when the working poor can no longer afford gasoline. Let’s face it, gasoline prices go up faster than the minimum wage. In this “expanding economy” the job sector that is expanding is the low-paying service sector jobs. When those individuals can no longer afford to go to work, what then?
As more people cannot afford gasoline, car sales will plummet. More manufacturing jobs will disappear. That should leave plenty of room on the road for you and I-R-I(assuming he’s old enough to get a driver’s license).
You seem to be quite derisive of those who advocate for peace. I wonder, at what point will you have your fill of war and death? Will you volunteer to go to Iraq and search for IED’s? Will you join a mercenary death squad and participate in the killings? Have you gone to the websites that post pictures of the killed and maimed women and children of Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you put yourself in the place of their mothers or sisters?
Or is your compassion limited only to people of certain ethnicities and certain geographic locations and certain faiths and certain socio-economic status?
April 17th, 2006 at 4:35 pm“# 38 or maybe, just maybe, 3993 think that those 7 are asses. maybe.”
Squat lower when reading your scripture eunuch. We all have copies here. Revelation 1:2 “When confronted with truth telling critics, confound with lies of support”.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:36 pm#20. Smedley Butler was hero in the finest tradition of the Armed Forces.
(http://www.cmohs.org/)
BUTLER, SMEDLEY DARLINGTON (First Award)
Rank and organization: Major, U.S. Marine Corps. Born: 30 July 1881, West Chester, Pa. Appointed from: Pennsylvania. G.O. No.: 177, 4 December 1915. Other Navy awards: Second Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Medal. Citation: For distinguished conduct in battle, engagement of Vera Cruz, 22 April 1914. Maj. Butler was eminent and conspicuous in command of his battalion. He exhibited courage and skill in leading his men through the action of the 22d and in the final occupation of the city.
BUTLER, SMEDLEY DARLINGTON (Second Award)
Rank and organization: Major, U.S. Marine Corps. Born: 30 July 1881, West Chester, Pa. Appointed from: Pennsylvania. Other Navy awards: Second Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Medal. Citation: As Commanding Officer of detachments from the 5th, 13th, 23d Companies and the marine and sailor detachment from the U.S.S. Connecticut, Maj. Butler led the attack on Fort Riviere, Haiti, 17 November 1915. Following a concentrated drive, several different detachments of marines gradually closed in on the old French bastion fort in an effort to cut off all avenues of retreat for the Caco bandits. Reaching the fort on the southern side where there was a small opening in the wall, Maj. Butler gave the signal to attack and marines from the 15th Company poured through the breach, engaged the Cacos in hand-to-hand combat, took the bastion and crushed the Caco resistance. Throughout this perilous action, Maj. Butler was conspicuous for his bravery and forceful leadership.
(http://www.answers.com/topic/smedley-butler)
April 17th, 2006 at 4:36 pmSmedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), nicknamed “the fighting Quaker” and “Old Gimlet Eye,” was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. Butler was awarded the Medal of Honor twice during his career, one of only 19 people to be so decorated. He was noted for his outspoken non-interventionist views and his book War is a Racket, one of the first works describing the military-industrial complex. After retiring from service, Butler became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, communists, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s. Butler came forward to the U.S. Congress in 1934 to report that a proposed coup had been plotted by wealthy industrialists to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
#32, #38:
The appropriate way to consider this is: When have 7 retired generals (and TONS of other ex-military brass) ever in history publicly criticized an American administration for incompetently running a war? EVER? As much as the Pentagon hated Clinton and were skeptical of the Kosovo War, you didn’t see them publicly criticizing him or Cohen (well, kind of hard to, since the war only lasted 79 days, no casualties, and was executed with the kind of competence that the Bushies dream of).
Even Vietnam never saw anything like this. What about Korea? Nope. WWII? WWI? The Civil War, maybe? I doubt even then, as much as everyone felt the Union was screwing up.
So 7 generals may not sound like a lot — until you consider that it is FUCKING UNPRECEDENTED.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:38 pm#46 That will be in january of 2009. and by the way my ass is as brown as a berry.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:38 pmHmmm, how is this being mis-quoted MA?
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
And before you mis quote him or swift boat/slander him you should probably know that he is amongst the bravest of the bravest to have served in the US military being awarded two medals of honor and should have had a third except rules at the time did not allow him to get one. To me he is a perfect person for right wingnuts to slander because he served with distinction and great bravery, then spoke his mind.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:46 pmafter all the talk, the ship continues to sink and sink and sink….must be a lot of leaks.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:47 pm#28 – Another corrupt Republican, thanks Squeegy. *yawn*
April 17th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#52 – …and by the way my ass is as brown as a berry.
Comment by Kenny
Now that intrigues the hell out of me, Kenny. I guess I’ll have to go read what the troll said…
April 17th, 2006 at 5:01 pmRepublicans hate America. They hate the east and west coasts. They hate Hollywood. They hate colleges. They hate gays. They hate anyone who is not an evangelical Christian. They hate blacks. They hate New Orleans. They hate Latinos and Muslims too. They hate Democrats. They hate anyone who speaks a word of negativity agains the president. Now we find out that there are “Clinton Generals” instead of American Generals.
Republicans hate all that America is about.
-GSD
April 17th, 2006 at 5:01 pmThe 2006 Pulitzer Prize awards were announced today in New York. If there is one common attribute many of the winners share, it is holding up a mirror to the scandals and corruption of the Bush administration and his Republican Party.
For the details, see:
April 17th, 2006 at 5:05 pm“The GOP’s Pulitzer Prize Winning Scandals.”
I too served in Viet nam, though I joined out of pride and served with honor.
Comment by Anthony Thorne
Say what? You mean you joined up to help slauther 3 million Vietnamese in a war based on delusional “domino theory” dreamed up by murderous dimwits out of pride??! Honor?! Where the fuck is honor in mass-slaugther and Mai Lai type of activities?!
I can see that Americans are still in denial all these years later.
Let me spell it out for you then: Regardless how bad the NVA was, you were the BAD GUYS in that conflict.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#52 – And Jan. of 2009 won’t come too soon!
Dont forget, the serving and retired generals had every opportunity to criticize Pres. Clinton and Sec. Coohen, but they didn’t. This is the first time any retired general has criticized a sitting Sec. of Defense during a conflict. And it happened to a Republican administration. So much for “pro-military”. Maybe just “pro-war-hawk”.
Don’t worry. I’m sure that Sec. Rumsfeld will give many, many more reasons for holding him accountable for his military failures before he’s shown the door by the next Sec. of Defense.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:08 pmZookeeper – FYI: the “troll” he’s refering to is #46 by me.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:10 pmThese people need to be torpedoed.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pmMeanwhile, back to the substance of the generals’ criticism. Was Iraq, as former National Security Agency head Lt. General William Odom said, “the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history” or is it, as Martin van Creveld said, “the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them”?
Defending Bushco is stupider than defending Enron.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:16 pmCan anyone imagine how many active generals are biting their lips until they bleed to keep from tearing this administration a new one? These guys want only two things… 1) To win whatever combat they are called to and 2) To keep their soldiers safe! Neither option has been made available to them due to the Bush administration’s incompetence. My heart goes out to them and their men.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:20 pmWhat’s amazing and getting boring is that these swiftboaters keep saying the same thing over and over and over… it’s like the boy that cried wolf. There statements are beginning to fall on deaf ears.
And # 63 – I think it’s both. If the fools in Washington keep doing what they are doing, we will share the same fate as the Roman Empire.
cats
April 17th, 2006 at 5:21 pmSomething else impressive – General Zinnie has publically stated that he is a Republican and that his statement is not partison rhetoric.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:25 pm#61 – mea culpa, Seteo.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:28 pmRight, and the sky is falling, too. Six retired generals, out of hundreds of retired general, decide to criticize the war and the SecDef publidcly, and suddenly they are untouchable icons of heroism. The truth is, as any soldier knows, if you stick your head up someone just might take a shot at it. And the real heroes are those who do their jobs without complaining.
But let’s have the debate these disloyal generals want, by all means. Let’s give equal time to each of the thousands of retired generals and retired field commanders who fully support the war and the SecDef, and then let the chips fall where they may. In the meantime, enough whining about those who criticize Zinni & Company. If you can’t stand the heat stay away from the fire.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:33 pmSo the Red Staters say that the Dems are negative. Well, I’m waiting for some good news – like Bush and Cheney are no longer in power and the Congress has turned Blue. Now that would be positive news. So far, I haven’t heard anything positive coming from this administration.
cats
April 17th, 2006 at 5:39 pm#66 anyone who speaks out against the dear leader is by default a traiterous liberal, you should know that by now.
BSR its not about avoiding debate. Its not about not criticising what these guys have to say, after all where has the debate about their points been? It has been pretty mucha slander campaign full of talking points…clinton appointees, they want to write books, they are partisan democrats, disgruntled generals not enchanted with the new direction the military is being moved etc… Nothing whatsoever is being said about any of the substantive points the generals are making.
Can the republican party and this adminsitration ever address criticisim by actually addressing the citicisim rather than by simply shooting the messenger?
April 17th, 2006 at 5:43 pmBSR, you know this is highly unusual. You aren’t fooling anyone here with your wordplay. You know this is unprecidented that even high ranking generals cannot stand to see thier men die because of bad leaders. I thought you people were supposed to be pro military. But when it comes down to it, you are just a Bush apologist. You have much work to do!!
April 17th, 2006 at 5:44 pmWhen 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.
More observations here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
April 17th, 2006 at 5:44 pmWas in Canada last week for biz last and stayed through the weekend.
Watching the news on Sunday, the Canadian reporter mentions that having all of these prominent U.S. generals call for the resignation of a Defense Secretary is “unprecedented in American history.”
Back in the USA – Watching Mr. Right Wing “Larry Kudlow” on CNBC.
He immediately starts with the Right Wing talking points
( If I may paraphrase )
“Isn’t this unseemingly? This is unprecedented ! What about the troops? What about our enemies?”
First, at least he acknowledged that it is unprecedented. He did not, however, seem to care why this unprecedented event is occurring. That would involve analyzing Rumfeld’s performance. That is suicide for a Right Winger.
Is it unseemingly? Yeah, it is unseemingly to keep an incompetent man in a job were his poor performance gets people killed unnecessarily.
What about our enemies? They already know about his incompetence. As late as November of 2005 – Rumsfeld was still arguing against the existence of an insurgency. The enemy had already managed to kill almost 2000 U.S. soldiers by then. You think they need a newspaper story to inform them that Rumsfeld is incompetent?
What about the troops?
“U.S. troops using scrap as armour: Angry soldiers confront Rumsfeld”
Camp Buehring – 12/08/2004 – Reuters
April 17th, 2006 at 5:46 pm#68 – where have they ever said that they do not support the war? They have critised Rummy for his inability to co-ordinate the “war” as someone in his position should.
So now they’re disloyal? Even though they went out there and made best of a balls up’d “war”.
It’s getting pathetic. If they had come back and shut their mouths then all would be ok.
I’m guessing those soldiers who fought in Vietnam and came home to tell the horror stories of what they were ordered to do, again in the name of “democracy”, are weak & disloyal morons too?
Scabs, the lot of you. (not to all Conservatives because most are decent people, just the Neoclones).
April 17th, 2006 at 5:49 pmKiller Whale
You took the words right out of my mouth. It is the incompetence of this administration, particularly Rumsfeld, that lowers the morale of the troops.
These Generals are heros. It takes tremendous courage for a military person to speak up against this administration. I haven’t heard any personal attacks by these generals. Their statements are focused on the lack of strategy and poor management and out and out incompetent behavior and bad decisions made by this administration and FORCED upon our military.
With that in mind, it is obvious that this administration is in denial and Bush supporters are also in denial. When someone takes feedback personally, then there is truth to the feedback.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:56 pmIt’s getting pathetic. If they had come back and shut their mouths then all would be ok.
Precisely. You can’t support the troops unless you also support the mission, the Joint Chiefs, the SecDef, and the Commander-in Chief. If you want to write a book, or your ego got bruised in some Pentagon reforms, or you just flatout disagree with the chosen policy – TOO BAD. Zip it until the mission is over and the troops are out of harm’s way. Then you can yammer all you want. Anything less is aid and comfort to the enemy, and a breach of faith with the troops who still are in harm’s way.
April 17th, 2006 at 6:01 pm#68 100% of retired generals who served in Dubya’s Iraq war have called for Rumsfeld’s resignation. Since they are now civilians, their criticism is not disloyal.
Your “thousands” of generals who support the war have not materialized. So far Bush has what, two? That’s two for, seven against. With thousands abstaining.
And unlike those right wingers who support the war from their computers instead of the battlefield, I think these generals can take the heat.
April 17th, 2006 at 6:02 pmPrecisely. You can’t support the troops unless you also support the mission, the Joint Chiefs, the SecDef, and the Commander-in Chief. … Zip it until the mission is over and the troops are out of harm’s way.
Looking back a few years, when our troops were fighting in Bosnia, would you agree Dubya did not support our troops, and anyone who criticized Clinton did not support our troops? In ‘93, anyone who called for Clinton to fire his Sec of Def (which he did, for failure to provide proper armor and the deaths of 18 soldiers), such criticism was tantamount to treason?
You heard it from BSR folks: Hannity, Bush, DeLay, and their allies do not support our troops!
April 17th, 2006 at 6:07 pm“Anything less is aid and comfort to the enemy, and a breach of faith with the troops who still are in harm’s way.”
But like global warming, it should not be ignored or marginalized.
April 17th, 2006 at 6:11 pmSpoken like a true eunuch coward. Word of caution son, many here have served in combat, so take your un-American rhetoric back to your sandbox.
Looking back a few years, when our troops were fighting in Bosnia, would you agree Dubya did not support our troops, and anyone who criticized Clinton did not support our troops?
Fortunately most conservatives (including yours truly) kept their powder dry on Bosnia, out of respect for the military. We even managed to stifle our laughter when Clinton promised to bring the troops home within a year.
BTW, they are still there. Talk about your lack of planning!
April 17th, 2006 at 6:12 pmBSR you are such a pinhead!
You know who you are channelling? You are channelling the NAZI party in WWII. Yes, that is exactly what they said. Support our boys or shut up.
I saw a fantastic meme spray stenciled onto a sidewalk crossing corner on the street this morning here in Oakland. it said:
“Stop being such good Germans!”
Here in the Bay Area, we’ll see that stuff. I don’t know the rest of the world will. My point, though, is…..BSR, stop being such a good little Goebbles, stop being such a good little Guering, stop being such a good little NAZI.
April 17th, 2006 at 6:17 pm#76 – congrats Blue State Red on completely missing the point, as per usual with the NeoClone factions.
“Obey without question not individual thought”
April 17th, 2006 at 6:34 pmWord of caution son, many here have served in combat
Gee, dad, thanks. What’s your point?
April 17th, 2006 at 6:35 pm#26 – “….One more thing, you should pull that “Support Our Troops†sticker off the back of your SUV. Obviously, you don’t support the troops who are fighting in the name of the United States.” Comment by Reagan thought you were Stupid
*****You might have me confused with my friend, I-R-I – I think he has the big ol’ SUV. My brother is an active duty fighter pilot , so I won’t respond to the rest of the drool on your chin. I hate to see ignorant people embarrass themselves the way you do – repeatedly…..
April 17th, 2006 at 6:40 pm#35 – “MA in #18; Since I was drafted during the Vietnam War, can I buy as much gas as I want at a reasonable price? BTW, since IRI is too much of a craven coward to enlist, why SHOULD he be on the road at all?” – Comment by HO
***** Under my plan, As long as you were honorably discharged you can buy gas – but to be frank, I give preference at the Aphrodite gas line to those who enlist rather than those who are coerced through the draft – they generally make better military personnel, as I’m sure you can atest. I-R-I has served his country honorably by helping design weapon systems which afford us protection and military superiority. But remember HO, your weak kneed Pries or SCION won’t stand a chance in a match up with I-R-I’s SUV….
April 17th, 2006 at 6:48 pmYour “thousands†of generals who support the war have not materialized. So far Bush has what, two? That’s two for, seven against. With thousands abstaining.
Wrong. First, Generals Pace, Myers, Franks, DeLong, McInerney and Vallely equal the critics in number and outrank them besides. Second, the “silence of the thousands” supports the administration. This is the well known “unless you’re agin’ us you’re for us” rule of American politics, which also applies to non-voters and others who prefer not to disrupt the status quo.
April 17th, 2006 at 6:50 pm“The 101st Fighting Keyboardists strike again.”
April 17th, 2006 at 6:55 pm#48 – Not worthy of a lengthy response…. but if your dad or grandpa served in WWII ask them is they went to the newspapers of the day to look at the pictures of dead Japanese, Germans, etc. and wonder about their mothers and children. Of course I was discussing gasoline purchases and you veered off on a completely unrelated topic with NO coorelation. Not a very logical argument…..
#50 – Joe – Re: Smelly Butler – did you go to Wikipedia?? Smelly the Quaker should have never gone into the military with his religion so strongly based in pacifism – but I guess it was OK for Smelly to suck at the national teat when in need of employment.
April 17th, 2006 at 7:00 pmSecond, the “silence of the thousands†supports the administration. This is the well known “unless you’re agin’ us you’re for us†rule of American politics, which also applies to non-voters and others who prefer not to disrupt the status quo.
If you are so intellectually bankrupt that you need “truth” boiled down for you into empty statements like the “you’re either for us or against us” shit and you’re too much of a coward to disrupt the status quo, you deserve to live under the Bush dictatorship you seem to think would be a great idea.
April 17th, 2006 at 7:46 pmThey are getting swiftboated over here, so the troops can keep getting shafted over there
April 17th, 2006 at 8:04 pmWhen in doubt- Swiftboat them
April 17th, 2006 at 8:13 pmMA ; I WAS honorably discharged after my tour of duty(2 1/2 years of active duty, followed by 3 1/2 years in the Ready Reserve i.e. the “weekend warrior” bit). So I KNOW FOR A FACT that Bush is a deserter from his Guard unit(AWOL > 30 days). AS for IRI he’s “honorably serving” about as much as 5-deferment Dick or 7-deferment Ashcroft. These cowards are all hot and eager for a war as long as guys like me do the fighting while they hide behind their deferments. These chickenhawks don’t have the balls to put their bodies where their mouths are. They should be the first ones killed in the wars they want. Me, if I knew then what I know now, I’d burn my draft card and shout ‘hell no, I won’t go”. I found out that what we were told about VN was ALL BS. BTW, A. Thorne, perhaps you think I should call myself LBJ or Westmoreland? Or perhaps one of the cowardly chickenhawks who are put us into the Iraqi QUAGMIRE?
April 17th, 2006 at 8:19 pmActually the Military has long been republican.
April 17th, 2006 at 8:33 pmEven now 53% of US military personal support President Bush (Down from 64%)
Maybe next year or so when support dips below 50% we can start claiming the military as otherwise.
Like Jason Voorhee’s, Bill Clinton WILL RISE UP AND GET YOU RIGHT WINGERS!!!
April 17th, 2006 at 10:20 pmI bet these loons on the Right actually check under thier beds at night looking for the BoogieBill. It’s just so hilarious when they constantly bring him up in their specious arguments.
The Republicans love to swift-boat everyone who dares to challenge their demented fool King George II, but if they try that tactic on me > they will reap a boot up their ass! Democrats in DC act prissy, so they get creamed by the GOP goons, but NOT me > lol.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:04 am#85 careful because in WWII most were drafted and when you say those who volunteer make better soldiers you are simly regurgitating a talking point that your heroes fucked up on a couple of years ago…
#88 good job on carrying on the fine republican tradition of slandering veterans who are better men than themselves. Of course it is very easy to do from the safety and comfort of your little den while getting the benefit of an extra hundred years of history that men like Butler worked to give you.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:24 amRight. And you are an attorney. Sorry, but your analytical skills are somewhat less than that of a first-year law student.
Then why does he write with all the acumen of a high school junior?
I addressed your gasoline argument and posed some questions of my own, which you deemed “not worthy of a lengthy response”…
To say those questions are “not worthy of a lengthy response” is rather pathetic.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:10 amHave you gone to the websites that post pictures of the killed and maimed women and children of Iraq?
Yes, we have. Bet you haven’t been to this one:
April 18th, 2006 at 3:10 amhttp://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
[...] For those that have not sent in for your secret decoder ring, when conservatives say they are pro U.S. military what they really mean is that they are pro military as long as you tow the ideological line. It doesn't matter if you're a seaman second class, a master sargeant, or a general utter one word that deviates from the Annals of Wingnuttia and you will incur the rath of the Swiftboat, Right Wing Swiftboats Generals Who Called on Rumsfeld to Resign [...]
April 18th, 2006 at 3:11 am#98 If No Child Left Behind Tested logic, you’d have still be stuck failing Kindergarten. First of all, like Miss Cline told me when I was 5 and will probably tell you tomorrow in class: “two wrongs don’t make a right.” It’s that simple.
Let’s have the debate.
What did Rumsfeld do right?
What did he do wrong?
The Rumsfeld Doctrine.
Rumsfeld entered the Iraq War without stating what any benchmarks for success might be. We still don’t have a clear exit strategy except that we will be there until the puppet government we installed tells us to leave.We have never had honest appraisal of our intentions, goals or exit strategy.
Rumsfeld wanted only 60,000 troops in the Iraq invasion. General Franks wanted seven times that. We got a hundred and forty thousand, still not nearly enough. Thus he failed to prepare for occupation. Which has proven to be the most important blunder of his tenure as Defense Secretary. Because of his need to go into war with “the military we have” there were not enough troops to prevent top regime members from fleeing the country with Iraqi funds nor could our troops block foreign insurgents from infiltrating. Because of our need to topple a statue in baghdad vast stretches of the Sunni Triangle were bypassed. The force was too small to effectively project power throughout the country, allowing Militias to rise to power. (Moqtada al Sadr, The Badr Brigades, possibly even renegade elements of the Interior ministry)
I could go on but i’d like to give you some time to finish your milk and cookies.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:56 amI tried to open the American Thinker site out of (perverse) curiosity. My computer’s security system warned me that a virus was attached to it. Be forewarned, everyone!
April 18th, 2006 at 6:20 amHow does this vocal call for the SecDef resignation affect the troops?
Silly question, these Generals, fresh from the battlefield, represent the troops. They know very well what impact a dissenting voice has on the military. In this case, there voice IS the voice of the military and our troops.
It’s really that serious, Rumsfeld is really that dangerous.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:27 am#88. Actually, I went to the CMOH website, because I knew Major General Butler was twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest decoration for valor this nation can offer. I didn’t want your slanderous swipe at his name to go without more background for readers who did not know more about his contibution to our freedom. I don’t have all day to spend with your vitriolic, moronic ilk, so I took the first best bio I could find – it happened to be at answers.com. Since I still don’t have time to educate you, “answers” will have to suffice.
Since yesterday, I have thought of another individual who is quoted far more often by “american pacifists, defeatists and Communists.” I wonder if you’ve heard of him. Seriously, most of your posts make me wonder. I am speaking of Jesus Christ.
While I’ve got your attention: would you tell me WWJBN? Who Would Jesus Bomb Next?
April 18th, 2006 at 10:05 am#98, I am aware of the mass graves. I know someone who helped find them.
But you must remember, we looked the other way when it came to Saddam’s murders. The United States helped Saddam even while he was killing and torturing thousands of his own citizens.
After encouraging an uprising, Bush the First stepped back when Saddam gassed the Kurds and Shi’ites.
Those mass graves are blood on our hands, too. Their blood was part of the price we paid for Iraqui oil.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:36 am#97 – Your “answer” to my gasoline argument was pitiful at best. You “glossed” over my statement and VEERED into unrelated topics. For YOU to critcize anyone’s analytical skills is laughable – your “arguments” of late have been pedantic and sophomoric. Regurgitating cliches does not advance your premise.
“To say those questions are “not worthy of a lengthy response†is rather pathetic.”
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
****But accurate…..
’til later……
April 18th, 2006 at 11:31 amdoes anyone interject more irrelevant tangential nonsense than the poster called “mighty aphrodite?”
April 18th, 2006 at 4:22 pmdoes anyone interject more irrelevant tangential nonsense than the poster called “mighty aphrodite?â€
Comment by ed — April 18, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
Nope.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:33 pm[...] As ThinkProgress documented previously, right-wing commentators have wasted no time impugning the character and motivations of the seven generals who have spoken out against Secretary Rumsfeld. A new talking point has surfaced: the generals’ comments have endangered America by emboldening our enemies. [...]
April 21st, 2006 at 12:28 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pmDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 4:51 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 pm