And Bush should support Rummy! How do you like these lily-livered ex-generals actually coming out and expressing opposition to Rummy? What the hell do they know about wars!

As I've said on many occasions, right or wrong (and it's probably pretty clear that he's wrong), we need to support Bush and the Iraq war. As long as my cute-as-button white daughters, like Bush's, don't have to fight in it, let's enjoy all the advantages that come with a war, like keeping conservatives in office who'll keep our taxes lower!

So Bush supports Rumsfeld. He loves to reward incompetence. The opinions of Military leaders mean nothing to them. The Bush administration will continue their misguided mission regardless of the consequences.

The population, though, is slowly awakening from its long slumber. Change is in the air.

Donald Rumsfeld is more experienced and a better leader than any possible replacement of his.

Liberals seek to oust him by any means necessary and if and when it happens they will dance in the streets like a bunch of girls celebrating their sweet sixteen.

Its just disgusting.

Bush all but said: "You're doing a heck of a job Rummy"

I give Rummy about two weeks.

Matt or Mark, when are you going to start call the retired generals the traitorous five?

Rummy is doing a great job.

Barney Rubble, when are you going to acknowledge there are thousands of active and retired Generals but you kooks get hard ons over 5 of them?

In the Department of Defense there are:

34 - four star generals/admirals

124 - three star generals/admirals

278 - two star generals/admirals

439 - one star generals/admirals

Throw in the U.S. Coast Guard and you have 900 generals and admirals on active duty today. Given that between 12-17% of those general/admirals retire each year...there have been a lot of generals/admirals retire since Secretary Rumsfeld took over five years ago.

So warr, you agree with Matt and Mark, that the generals are traitors for speaking up against Rummy, and therefore the war, and are providing aid a comfort to the enemy?

WarriorNation, THAT is your defense of Rummy?
I don't care if there are 90,000 Generals active and retired. The fact the 5 Generals who all had something to do with Iraq is all that has to be said.
How the hell can you say these 5 General's opinions mean nothing? That is just being ignorantly blind or purposely blind. Which is it?

No, I agree that they can say anything they want.

I agree that the left and the media can prop them up and broadcast it in the vein that all of the Generals in the nation are saying this.

I believe people can be as stupid as they want and say stupid things so if that's what you want to do, fine.

In the meantime, I'm going to rely on my family members over in Iraq and my buddies over there and the vast majority of military men and women that do not conclude what you do....if that's ok with you.

I do question why these men are doing this, but I don't call them traitors. If one would examine WWII and the mistakes made by MacArthur, Patton, Bradley, etc you would be amazed. Every war has mistakes, Monday Morning Quarterbacking has it's place but this sure smells of political posturing.

Even more so when 6 generals out of 1000's of active and retired are saying anything negative yet it's on the front page of the NY Times (shocking) and blasted on the news and sucked up by the left in volumes akin to Viagra consumption for a 70 year old in a college sorority for the first time.

Sick of Lies (but wasn't sick of Clinton hypocrite):

Uhm so you're telling me if 5 generals that were "involved in Iraq" (your words) are coming out and if there are say 50 that are still involved and disagree you would value those 5 over the 50.

Is that what you are saying?

Please expand on your "involved in Iraq" comments because the guy most involved, Tommy Franks seems to have an entirely different recollection...but I guess his opinion doesn't count, he just led the entire thing.

Sigh

I love it when people say they are getting info from soldiers on the ground in Iraq as if its quality. Sure, the info based on their personal experiences is top notch, but in regards to what is going on in the command chain or the overall reconstruction? I wouldn't be suprised if the army not only censors and pumps up stories they want, but makes things up to boost morale. The military isn't grade school, they aren't taking care of their soldiers like children. The soldiers are the labor, the ground level. The CEO is the one who knows about the merger, not the guys sweeping the mail room.

Richard Belzer, is that you????

Well WarriorNation, I see where you got your talking point from:
"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," Rumsfeld told Al Arabiya television in an interview aired on Friday
--------
Where's the original thought?

"Involved in Iraq":

Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division

Former Army commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division, publicly broke ranks with Mr. Rumsfeld on Wednesday

Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired

Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military is still winning. But when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he said, "I think strategically, we are."

Gen. Jack Keane, who was Army vice chief of staff in 2003 before retiring, said in the planning of the Iraq invasion, senior officers as much as the Pentagon's civilian leadership underestimated the threat of a long-term insurgency

Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who headed the United States Central Command in the late 1990's before retiring from the Marine Corps.

Poor Barneyg2000,

When Matt, Mark, or anyone else fails to call the 6 Generals who call for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation "traitors," Barneyg2000 just attempts to put words into their mouths for them with the baited phrase, "So warr, you agree with Matt and Mark, that the generals are traitors for speaking up against Rummy, and therefore the war, and are providing aid a comfort to the enemy?"

They said nothing of the sort. No matter! When the points are made and the arguments posed, there is no need to honestly respond to them, as far as Barneyg2000 is concerned. After all, it's so much easier to avoid dealing with the points made and spout out (yet again) his clearly limited talking points.

I tried to keep this succinct, as apparently Barneyg2000 has issues with "long winded posts." It would seem that his attention span doesn't allow for any challenges lasting more than two or three sentences, all containing short, one syllable words...

Here's to the intellectually challenged among us!

Steve

Some of my friends just came over and we went out. Do you think the military had a secret chip inside their head and were somehow stifling what they could tell me?

They say things are going quite well and they are sick of the media coverage when they return home to the states. But hey, I guess their words coming directly from them don't mean a thing.

But hey, remember you support the troops...just not what they say or the policy they enforce. Amazing hypocrisy and no wonder why so many troops despise the left.

Rumsfeld is doing a good job during a tough time. People are simply trying to make him the scapegoat. It is all too obvious..

Ames Tiederman

If Rumsfeld is doing a good job, why all the questions about his competence? In any business when the employees start to dispute the boss's ability, there is usually a sound reason. Take a good look at the job he has done so far, it's not a pretty sight.

Yes, PRESIDENT Bush (for all you libbies out there) should absolutley support Mr. Rumsfeld! He is doing this country a great service and all those leftist NUTBALLS should get their heads out of SILLY HILLY's butt and wake up!

In the proud tradition of Barneyg2000, I'm going to post the following statement:

Rumsfeld is doing a good job during a tough time. People are simply trying to make him the scapegoat. It is all too obvious..

That's what I think. (wink! wink!)

Joanne,
You obvious hatred of all things Clinton just popped its ugly head.

Exactly what great service is Rumsfeld doing for us?
Sending the troops into battle without a valid gameplan? You don't go to war basing everything on best-case scenarios. You make assumptions. But you damn well better have a plan B if those assumptions don't work out as expected. That is where he dropped the ball.
Did he do a great service by going in without enough troops? Not giving those troops enough armor to succeed?
Really... I am trying to figure out where he is actually doing such a great service.

These 6 Generals speaking out against Rummy tells me Rummy did not listen to the Officers on the Ground. He did not listen to what they had to say, instead he continued on with his assumptions even as they were crumbling down around him.

Remember when he said he believed the war could last (paraphrasing) "six days, six weeks... I doubt six months". Remember that? Well... maybe it only took that long to take Bahgdad, but he wasn't planning, nor was he prepared for a 3 year occupation.

The only service he has given is DIS-service.

If you want to back Bush all you want, go ahead... but don't blow smoke and say what a wonderful job Rummy has done. Brownie almost did a better job with Katrina.

We can say all we want - pro and con - on the issue of Secretary Rumsfeld. But, in the final analysis, what matters is what the President says.

"...Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation."

It doesn't sound like change is imminent on this issue, does it?

No it doesn't sound like change... unfortunately.

My comment was in response to the quote of what a great service Rummy has done for the US.

Bush's comment about Rummy tells me that Bush puts saving face in front of the good of the country. He would rather show that loyalty to his team and not upseting the Neocon base takes precedence over what common sense should be telling him. He sees the Dems and some Repubs saying Rummy should go. He says screw you all, I'm keeping him. That screams... no common sense.

With a Rummy gone and new blood in there maybe we could make some better headway in Iraq. (I know Noonan, things are going perfectly out there and everything is beautiful... what color is the sky in your world by the way?).

But really... as I mentioned above, how does the man go into this war on best-case scenarios and not have a plan B or plan C????

Sick of yourself

So let me get this straight...because Rumsfeld listened to those 6 and many others and didn't go with their direction it means he didn't listen to them?

Are you kidding? Do you have any kids sick? Do you listen to them? Do you do everything they ask or suggest? How about your wife? How about your employees?

Any good boss, father, spouse listens and evaluates and then makes the best decision they can. Sometimes it's unpopular. Sometimes it's wrong. But my goodness you are sure are giving a lot of credibility to 6 generals and ignoring all of the others that didn't feel that way...why is that?

Matt or Mark, when are you going to start call the retired generals the traitorous five?

Actually, Baloney, there's seven now. However, yo're gonna have to come up with another title for them, because here's the "traitorous five:"

1) Barneyg2000, aka Baloney; 2) maf53, aka mf;
3) Sick of Lies, aka Sick of Facts; 4)
Tom Shipley, aka Tom Shi*breath, and 5) Wade, aka Barney's twin in every way.

Note: Canadian Observer was left off this list; in his sorry-arse country, he's a mainstream thinker, well-liked at the local shooting galleries/bath houses...

WHAT a JOKE !!
We beat the 5th largest army in the world in hours with basically no casualties.
Liberated 2 countries with a population of 50,000,000 people and you want him to resign??

If you took from the general population the same amount of people that are presently, and have been in Iraq and Afganistan im sure you would find more deaths per capita, than those killed by enemy action.

We lose 50,000 people a YEAR to auto accidents, and KILL 1,000,000 American citizens in abortion mills, but we are going to toss Rummy aside for 2,000 deaths in a 3 year war in two countries ?

Like Michael Savage says, "LIBERALISM is a MENTAL DISORDER".

Sick of Lies stated,

"...Bush's comment about Rummy tells me that Bush puts saving face in front of the good of the country. He would rather show that loyalty to his team and not upseting the Neocon base takes precedence over what common sense should be telling him..."

Right. Just like Bush was so afraid of upsetting his Neocon base that he nominaed Harriet Meyers to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court late last year... and we all saw how that turned out "for the good of the country."