More than 20 retired generals speak out against Iraq war.
By on Sep 24th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
More than 20 retired generals speak out against Iraq war.
“In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.” Most “were political conservatives who had voted for George W. Bush,” but “they felt betrayed by Bush and his advisers.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Shhh don’t use the word betrayed, you will upset the right wingers.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:41 pmThe Reich will just call them Surrender Monkey’s.
∞
September 24th, 2007 at 12:43 pm“they felt betrayed by Bush and his advisers.â€
oh my, this will just get the Reichwingers undies all in a bunch.
Actually the Bush crime family has betrayed America so many times that people have just given up counting them.
Buck Fush
September 24th, 2007 at 12:44 pmSo I’m guessing it’ll be okay to criticize these generals for their ideas and opinions because they’re not active, so you wouldn’t be betraying the troops by bashing them….
September 24th, 2007 at 12:45 pmBut Bush doesn’t listen to legislators he listens to the Generals, oh, wait …
September 24th, 2007 at 12:47 pmThis will present an interesting conundrum for the right wing. How do you bash, deride, and insult all of these generals, and still say that Petraeus is above reproach? Will Malkin be on Fox news talking about how terrible these generals are?
September 24th, 2007 at 12:47 pmThey should have been speaking out from the time they learned that we were being sent to War on the secret information given to them by a drunk that goes by the name “Curveball”.
Ask GOOGLE about it.
.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:50 pmSo, when the right-wingers begin attacking these generals (as we all know they will), will the Congress (including the spineless Democrats) and the so-called liberal media go after them with the same fury that they went after moveon.org??
I’m not holding my breath.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:52 pmGeneral Tommy Franks will go down in history as one the worst generals ever for sucking up to Bush and not insisting on a proper post invasion occupation plan.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:03 pmSadly, it won’t matter to Bush how many generals speak out against the war, just as it won’t matter to him how many of any group of people speak out against the war.
Bush considers himself to be enlightened far more than any of the rest of us, so he dismisses everyone else as ignorant. He’s like the guy at the racetrack betting his entire life savings on a hot tip, despite others telling him it’s not a wise thing to do.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:05 pmThe time is ripe for a military coup in this Country. It need not be a military overthrow of the bushco. It need not be a bloodletting among friends and family members. It need not be flamboyant nor publicized. All is necessary is for the Generals to start a quiet redeployment. The bushco cannot put GPS locaters on all the troops on the ground or count the number in Iraq. The bushco does not monitor troop movements on a daily basis. The military could have 75% or more of our troops returned home before the bushco would even know. After it a fiat accompli the Joint Chiefs could just tell bushco to go piss up a rope, and refuse to send them back.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:10 pmTwenty retired Generals? Gee, this must be another one of those “focus groups”. Remember how George Bush described the massive demonstrations in the United States and throughout the world against the Iraq war in 2003 as just a focus group? And 70% of the American public is just a mere focus group, too, I guess.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:12 pmThe twentieth retired general to trash Bush’s war should be the straw that broke the camel’s back don’t you think?
September 24th, 2007 at 1:26 pmAs I noted the other day in re Petraeus, you either salute and go forward or retire before you can speak out. Even retired, coming from that culture, it is very hard for most to speak out any way! It requires great courage and morality to do so.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:26 pmSo Betrayus is the only one who is worth his weight in salt? The rest are all wrong? I don’t think so…I think Betrayus is a water carrying, boot licker, out to get promoted and the rest disagreed with the chimp and got fired.
Moveon.org was spot on and the reichwingers have attacked the messenger, again, because they have no information to prove them wrong.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:36 pmEven retired, coming from that culture, it is very hard for most to speak out any way! It requires great courage and morality to do so.
Comment by Doc Rock — September 24, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
AWWW! “Courage” … that word that is so elusive to the BushCo Chickenhawk Brigade. When someone shows courage and speaks out, they are wiped off the board.
So, the only medals these A$$klowns can give each other, is the Medal of Freedom, with as much credibility as the sheepskin sold to Daddy Bush by Yale to give to Sonny Boy Dubya.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:37 pmThey all need to openly criticize General Petraeus for being a toady.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:41 pmDid anyone see what the ratings were for that fluff piece on Petreous on Faux this weekend? Just wondering.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:45 pmI notice the Media and the White House never say a word about all these Generals they speak out against Bush/Cheney policy and the fake report by General Petraeus. Only MoveOn.org get the attacks. Now what makes Petraeus all that when Bush/Cheney/Rummy didn’t pick this so called best of all the best at the beginning of the Iraq invasion. So many Generals have been replaced and all were said to be the best to the best. Sounds like Petraeus is willing to spread the propaganda while others wouldn’t. Now after thousands of more US soldiers are dead by March, Petraeus will give his Bush written report of how great we’re doing. Let’s hope PM Maliki hooks up with other Middle East leaders and kick Bush/Cheney out and take Connie with them.
We need a new President now.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:48 pmNow here’s a real opportunity for Move On.
Instead of running another puerile college-newspaper level “oh, look, we can rhyme” ad, why not write a statement that all 20 of these retired anti-Iraq Generals can sign…and create a full-page ad of this?
I know, I know..I’m gonna hear from ALL those folks who thought the “Betray-us” ad was brilliant.
Well, there’s an old saying: if you want to know if what you did was right, look at what’s left. Move On handed the Republicans an issue: “Dems/progressives/liberals hate the military.”
Yeah. Fookin’ geniuses!
Now HERE’s an opportunity to leverage our military to genuine effect.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:53 pmI hope that some or all of the generals will join us at the veteran’s contingent in this Saturday’s demonstration at the White House
September 24th, 2007 at 2:00 pmbut…but…liberals hate the military!
points to the first troll who says the obvious: this must mean that these generals hate the military, and, in fact, themselves.
i wonder if any of these generals has ever written an op-ed in favor of a presidential candidate during an election like petraeus did for bush in 2004?
if the brave, strong, honorable general wanted to avoid politics, he should’ve stayed out. but the brave, strong, honorable general is fine for all the chickenhawks to shriek in horror at how BADLY he’s been treated. one wonders if the brave, strong, honorable general couldn’t just step forward and say, “no big deal — i’ve taken a bullet, i can certainly take AN AD!”
i guess the brave, strong, honorable general is just a political tool. wonder if he’s going to make that run for president in 2012 or 2016?
September 24th, 2007 at 2:48 pmwish those 20 would go visit that other 1 with a sock full of “D” batteries.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:52 pmThe time is ripe for a military coup in this Country. It need not be a military overthrow of the bushco. It need not be a bloodletting among friends and family members. It need not be flamboyant nor publicized….
Comment by Clyde the Ripper — September 24, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Are you being sarcastic or serious?
September 24th, 2007 at 2:53 pmI knew there were many who spoke out but I did not know there were as many as twenty generals who spoke out against Bush’s war.
I expect Bush will dismiss them as “retired” and therefore irrelevant, old and dotty, not to be heard.
The Republiscum sycophants will claim the generals are fair game because they are not in service at this moment, and they’re old and worn out anyway, so they can freely disparage them and their comments.
The twenty generals validate the rest of us, but unless and until we get congress to listen to them and to us, we can only comisserate with one another, because nothing will change.
Bush is recalcitrant, beligerent and stubborn. The closer he comes to the end of his term and his ability to affect history, the more dangerous he becomes.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pmspell check: commiserate.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:06 pmKeltoi,
I am totally serious. We have a motto for our kids and drugs: “Just say no.” If that approach is good enough for our kids to keep them from getting killed by drugs why is it not good enough to protect our kids from getting killed in an illegal and immoral invasion of a foreign Country. The Generals, i.e. military, have a very firm legal grounds for refusing to remain in Iraq. These grounds were established following World War II when the “Nazi” defense of “I was only following orders” was denied. Bush has issued illegal orders to the military, if the military chooses to follow those orders they are equally guilty. Congress has the same authority and responsibility in their appropriations acts. In a post above it is stated that Bush will ask for 200+ BILLION DOLLARS to kill our troops. Congress can and should adopt the old Navy term I cited earlier.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:07 pmBush has issued illegal orders to the military, if the military chooses to follow those orders they are equally guilty. Congress has the same authority and responsibility in their appropriations acts.
Comment by Clyde the Ripper — September 24, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Illegal orders? How do you figure? If they are illegal, specifically what law has been broken? It seems that advocating a military coup is far and away more outside the Constitution than anything Bush has done.
Suppose Hillary wins, orders the troops to leave, and they refuse to recognize her authority. Would that kind of coup be okay with you, too?
We may be far apart on the political spectrum, but ANY talk of a military coup is just chilling stuff.
Bush will be gone in 15 months. I can’t believe you seriously think a coup would serve America’s interests. That strikes me as beyond radical.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:17 pmKeltoi,
Please explain the difference me between Bush’s “Signing Statements” declaring he is above the law and a letter from a Military Officer telling Bush that he will not obey the order to kill our troops. If that is beyond radical there should be a hell of a lot more of us.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:30 pmkelt; military coup- see 7 Days in May.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:53 pmPlease explain the difference me between Bush’s “Signing Statements†declaring he is above the law and a letter from a Military Officer telling Bush that he will not obey the order to kill our troops. If that is beyond radical there should be a hell of a lot more of us.
Comment by Clyde the Ripper — September 24, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
It is different because there is a process detailed in our Constitution for removing the Executive if they commit crimes. Congress has not seen grounds for impeachment in Bush’s signing statements. I think your rhetoric is a little overheated. The signing statements don’t say “I am above the law”, anymore than Bush is ordering the Officer Corps to “kill our troops.” CIVILIANS make policy; the military carries it out. Inviting the military to over rule civilian policy decisions is asking for military dictatorship.
Again, I CAN’T believe anyone really wants the military running this country – I am beginning to feel like the liberal on this particular thread.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:15 pmkelt; military coup- see 7 Days in May.
Comment by Uncle Ho — September 24, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Googled it – sounds interesting.
You guys do realize that any military coup is far more likely to come from reactionary forces in this country and not Progressive ones, right? (I hearby premptively strike at the almost certain chance somone will say it has already happened – ha, ha). It seems like 7 Days in May posits such a scenario, I just can’t see a forcible liberal revolution coming from the US Army.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:22 pmkelt; 7 Days in May is a fictional story about a military plot to overthrow the US Government by RIGHT-wing fascists. It’s anything BUT a liberal revolution. Read the book before making such assertions.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:59 pmkelt; 7 Days in May is a fictional story about a military plot to overthrow the US Government by RIGHT-wing fascists. It’s anything BUT a liberal revolution. Read the book before making such assertions.
Comment by Uncle Ho — September 24, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Yeah, I think that is what I said….anyway, hows about we have NO military plots to overthrow the Government whether they come from the Left OR the Right? That is my point.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:14 pmthe military won’t revolt, they’ll just all quit, unless forced by conscription, in which case their families will revolt.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:36 pmHey BARTLEBEE –
Jonathan Swift, you are not. But thanks for indicating with your post #39 that your post #38 was sarcastic. It would not have been evident otherwise.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:52 pmNotice how this thread is troll free. Ignored by trolls claiming to seek serious debate. This is how they deal with the reality..they choose to ignore it.
The Bush cultists and thier leaders will attack these generals in the same way, by ignoring them, and instructing all thier bought and paid for puppets in the media to do the same. They persist with the lie that they support the military, so they cannot be seen as attacking members of the military. Those who dont say what they want are just ignored.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:20 am