Fantastic post, Mark. I could not agree more.

This quote from Reuters sums it up:

Retired Major Gen. John Riggs told National Public Radio that Rumsfeld had helped create an atmosphere of “arrogance” among the Pentagon’s top civilian leadership. “They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that’s a mistake, and that’s why I think he should resign,” Riggs said.

Hey minnowhead, allow me tosum it up with a quote:

All these generals waited until they were retired to publicly air their grievances with Rummy. They could've done this while on active duty.

If you, minnowhead, think that Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Rice, and Freddie, the guy who runs a hotdog cart in front of the WH, are war criminals, then you must agree that these generals are war criminals too. Hmmm?

But seriously, your post sums up one thing--that you're an idiot. Now go on back to your blog and play with your HugeWang...

There are now six traitorous generals providing aid and comfort to the enemy! Murtha was right when he said that the military was broken!

On Britt’s show today, Kuarthammer said the six generals were dissidents, and Barnes said the generals were providing aid to the enemy, and that the enemy would use this!!!

Barney,

Of course the enemy will - and the generals should know better; and as they are out of the military loop, they are not in a position to judge the military situation any more than any other informed, outside observer.

Rummy? Resign? Get Fired? Not just NO, but HELL NO!
Rummy could have cut and run on 9/11, but he actually got in there and helped in the rescue efforts! If that doesn't show REAL LEADERSHIP, what does?
YOU GO RUMMY!

Charles Krauthammer made a great point tonight.

During Vietnam the left in this country screamed about the Generals running the show and how the military needed to listen to the civilians.

Now 40 years later the left in their typical hypocritical ways now want to listen to 5 generals over the civilians.

Good grief.

It's very simple:

RUMSFAILED.

Barneyg2000 stated,
"...There are now six traitorous generals providing aid and comfort to the enemy! Murtha was right when he said that the military was broken!"

It says nothing of the kind! There are now six COWARDLY armchair generals providing aid and comfort to the enemy!

Apparently they didn't have the gonads to air their grievances when they were "in the loop," opting, instead, to wait until they wouldn't suffer any ramifications to their pensions or positions. Then they strike together with the jihad media in a coordinated attack of publicity, hoping to get maximum leverage for their cause...

It's so transparent that it's ridiculous...

The military isn't "broken." The retired axe-grinding generals are the broken part in this equation... as in, broken record...

“Apparently they didn't have the gonads to air their grievances when they were "in the loop," opting, instead, to wait until they wouldn't suffer any ramifications to their pensions or positions. Then they strike together with the jihad media in a coordinated attack of publicity, hoping to get maximum leverage for their cause...”

You make a lot of accusations there dognads. You got anything that backs it up? I guess freedom a speech don’t play with you? How do you know that some of them didn’t express their concerns? Gen Shin did and Rummy in public called him “absurd”. Way to trash the military dogbreath.

Just so yall know, we are approaching 20,000 U.S. Military casualties this month

Barney, don't bother with Dbog. He's just another parrot, you'll learn soon enough. He claims holy high ground when defending the military .. that is, only the people in the military who agree with his Cowboy President.

He calls these retired generals - *generals* - cowards, just because they disagree with Bush. There is no getting thru to people like Dbog. Their minds are made up. This administration is perfect, in their eyes - if you attempt to criticize it, you will be labeled a traitor.

This is what happens when people can't think for themselves, when they parrot the talking points straight out of the president's mouth - it's a shame, really. And we'll all use Dbog as the shining example.

The Generals know better than the most whats wrong with the efforts in Iraq. Just what exactly would their agenda be by the way? Trying to save more lives? Shame on them.

All these people saying Rummy should keep his job because of his efforts with 9/11 are missing the point.

To quote General Zinni: "honesty and performance and competence have to outweigh, in this business, loyalty"

Its Rumsfelds efforts in Iraq that have demonstrably failed the men and women under his command. Put him in charge of finding Osama Bin Laden if you want but leave the business in Iraq to real military men.

Its telling that when asked to defend Rumsfelds competence General Peter Pace (chair JCOS) instead sidestepped it by defending his work ethic!

What next? Bush saying: "Heckuva job Rummy"?

"Twenty thousand?"

clown.

.

You are so right maf53 (no pun intended).

I strongly defend these generals' right to speak their minds. I only mean to point out that they didn't do so when there might have been ramifications to their job security and/or pension. To have spoken out then would have displayed great courage. They chose, instead, to keep their mouths shut and wait until they wouldn't suffer "blowback." Now, with the jihad media behind them, they take off their masks and charge full steam ahead in their criticism of the President and Secretary Rumsfeld.

It really show a great deal of class, doesn't it?

They have every right to free speech. But the right to free speech also requires responsibility in the exercise thereof. That's where I fault them and call them cowards.

I stand by my assertion, "parrot" or not...

And for the record, I never called the retired, armchair Generals "traitors." I called them "cowards."

Barneyg2000 was the one who called them traitors. If they weren't his words, he didn't indicate whose words they were...

For the sake of intellectual integrity, let me go on the record to state that there are many, many issues I disagree with regarding OUR President (Not MY President). On this issue, Secretary Rumsfeld and the prosecution of the War On Terror, you're damned right I'm 100% behind him! I offer no apology for that.

And your immediate fallback to namecalling speaks volumes as to your ability to refute opposing arguments.

I wear your labels as a badge of honor.

Don't you have a moon to bark at, fellows? I understand it's full tonight...

The army rules indicate that if you have stayed at the same rank for a number of years, I believe it is 7, and are not promoted, you must retire. How many of these generals were passed over for promotion and forced to retire? It should be investigated. I have a feeling this is sour grapes. This promotion rule goes for all officers, and holds true for generals as well, be it one two or three star generals.

"And for the record, I never called the retired, armchair Generals "traitors." I called them "cowards." Posted by: dbogdan

Thanks for clearing that up for us. I am sure that they think highly of you.

"I strongly defend these generals' right to speak their minds." Posted by: dbogdan

Unless I oppose their opinion, than they are cowards.

Soldier: “We are dieing over here because we do not have the armor that could save our lives. Could you send us some?"

Rummy: "As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

Reporter: “Sec Rumsfeld, do you think that it is a good idea to allow the Iraqis to loot the weapon depots? They could get their hands on explosives and make IED that could kill thousands of our soldiers?”

Rummy: "Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." "stuff happens"

Reporter: “Now that the insurgency is increasing and the country is on the verge of a civil war, can you detail the militarys role in bring calm to Iraq?”

Rummy: "I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty."

Isn't there something in the Military Code of Conduct which indicates a subordinate cannot disobey his or her superiors unless they consider the command illegal?

Likewise, isn't there a requirement in the same code that superiors must respect their subordinates?

WHERE'S BEAR!! Lol!

The problem as I see it is that it's relatively easy to tell when a command is patently illegal. But it's near impossible to require a superior to act in a respectful manner. Without taking sides, isn't it reasonable to argue that this dynamic is the crux of the problem here? At what point does one's dissent become insubordination? And how big a bet is one required to put down on the table? Or, in other words, how big a set of cajones is required?

Let me be the devil's advocate here: One thing that's notable about most of these recent "defections" is that they don't appear to have much to gain by speaking out. They're not promoting books or apparently trying to cash in or anything like that. So what gives? My guess is that they are speaking from their heart. The are genuinely and sincerely concerned about the way things are going with Rumsfeld at the helm, and they didn't feel as though they could speak out while in uniform because of the requirements of the Military Code of Conduct. Given that assumption, if a military person really truly feels that the only way he or she can speak out is to abandon the military career they spent decades building, does that necessarily constitute treason or something similar? Is it courageous? Is it cowardice? Or is it just stupid? I'm just asking.

Here's another way to look at things (and one which is largely mutually exclusive of the first perspective): they are obstacles in the way of Rumsfeld's plans to revamp and modernize the military for new threats. They simply can't adapt to the new ways of thinking Rumsfeld requires. In which case, good riddance. That doesn't make them traitors though, that just makes them resistant to change (and dedicated to their point of view). Nonetheless at least two important assumptions (and numerous corollaries) required. First, it must be assumed that Rumsfeld's new goal will ultimately prove to be successful. Second, it must be assumed that the course he has set is consistent both with those goals and stands a reasonable chance of attaining them.

With regard to the first assumption, I have NO IDEA what his goal is. I mean like none. Zero. Zip. Does anyone? That seems more than a little important to me (I've tried to contact him at DoD with very pointed questions, but all I get is stock responses back, which aren't very informative). For that reason alone I can't even begin to contemplate how successful he might be in the pursuit of his goals. With that in mind I can only address the second assumption in the most general terms. In that regard I feel that it is incumbent upon Rumsfeld to realize, and thus anticipate, that the paroxisms caused by the cataclysmic (sp?) changes he has instigated, in the way he has instigated them, are sustainable regardless of whether or not they are engineered for the result he desires. On that level I see no evidence. That's my big problem. Maybe I'm using the wrong yardstick. Then again, it's hard to apply any yardstick at all if you don't have any idea what the end-point is.

For these reasons I think it is imperative to suggest that Rumsfeld needs to explicate both his intentions and his methods. IMHO.

WHERE'S BEAR??!! Lol!

Rose colored glasses, a bunch of chicken hawks, a Cowboy from Connecticut that's never been to war OR on a horse, neocon idealism and 101st Typing Infantry vs 6 retired generals. Hmmmm...lets see who am I gonna side with???

Well well well…I come back from dinner at that new taco stand to read a post about Rumsfeld, then I find my good hetero(?)-friend Keifer sayin’ ma name in vain. I just can’t stand for that and I will pray real hard and focused like that the night shift guy stinks up the turnpike toll booth before Keifer has to park his rear in it all day.

Anyway enough about him I aim to make a point before I sling off my belt and allow my taco loaded tummy to be free.

So I read a few things in this here post that had me a bit con-fused. See everyone knows Generals are traitors. Oh it’s true. Those guys that been servin’ in the military for twenty plus years and got stars on ‘em, there aint nobody more yellow then them, yes sir. Then for these cowardly and traitoruous men to say Rumsfled is incompetent, why that’s just a load a crud. Why I bet Generals wouldn’t know the first thing about leadin a military, that’s why we need the frigid undie wearin’ superman Rummie to take charge from those inept Generals. Generals what do they know ‘bout leadership and bravery and loyalty….

You know. Sometimes it aint easy bein Republican. I havta stop and turn my opnion on a dime soon as I’m told too. Soon as someone be sayin’ Bush aint don’ something right I havta stop likin them. Once I thought these guys were heros now that they don’t agree with Rummie, I just don’t know. Can someone be heroic like and not like Rumsfeld? That’s pert deep if I say so.

Steve,

Please go look up how many US military casualties there were from December 16th, 1944 until December 31, 1944 just in Europe.

Gee....

There must be something striking a nerve with Barneyg2000, 'cause he keeps quoting me and calling me names. I guess he's run out of rational arguments. Ricorun, on the other hand, is contributing greatly to a substantive debate. He raises some good points. His take on why the Generals are speaking out is refreshing when compared and contrasted to the talking points of Barneyg2000 and his ilk.

Ricorun has hit on something that I think has been danced around so far in these posts. Rumsfeld has been tasked to modernize and streamline the DOD with an eye toward future types of conflicts. I believe that these efforts lie at the core of why these retired Generals are be speaking out at this point. I believe we can all stipulate that the DOD is a huge bureaucracy. As such, it has many bureaucrats who may be life-long career specialists. Each of them has staked out their political "turf" within their sphere of influence. Bureaucrats who are facing change - especially change that endangers control of their "turf" - are most likely going to be reluctant to bend the forces that are causing that change. Even though the military has a long tradition of politics being "off the table" in regards to their performance as military people, there is still a certain amount of politics that go into the establishment of both the chain of command in the military structure, and the chain of command in the parallel civilian administration of the DOD.

Like Ricorun, I am not certain exactly what Secretary Rumsfeld's objective are, but I am confident that he is stepping on some toes in his effort to move his agenda forward. Consequentially, those who have left the military in the recent past, might view some of this change in a negative manner - especially if there were forced out, as I am led to believe the case was with Gen. Zinni. These changes can be unpleasant and highly negative to a bureaucrat or a military leader who is used to running things "the way things used to be."

When I was in college, I took a Sociology course that dealt with bureaucracy and the dynamics of change. One of the issues I remember discussing and analyzing was how sudden or impactful changes effected those people who were used to the status quo. There were a variety of responses to those changes that were discussed. One of them was the "go along with the flow of things" without rocking the boat. Another response was to rock the boat wildly to attempt to cut off the chances for the expected change to occur. I believe that this is what we are witnessing in the current debate by the Generals who are now calling for the ouster of Sec. Rumsfeld. Some might oversimplify it by stating that they have an axe to grind. So be it. Change can sometimes be difficult.

These Generals have their opinions borne of their personal experience. If they feel that strongly about their opinions, I'm glad that they are expressing them. What I have a problem with, and have attempted repeatedly to show, is that it can't possibly be a "coincidence" that they are all being quoted in the jihad media within a one week time frame. It is clearly an attempt by the jihad media to leverage their dissent to the President and Sec. Rumsfeld's policies so as to drag down the Presidency. These Generals are not dumb individuals. They must certainly understand the ramifications of their dissent. They are being used like pawns (can somebody say Cindy Sheehan?) by the jihad media as they seek - yet again - to gain traction with the American public. It's shameful of the media, but it's nothing unusual or unexpected. What's cowardly on the part of the Generals, in my opinion, is that they have embraced this "gotcha" tactic so often used by the jihad media with open arms.

To their credit, these Generals have visited with President Bush today to personally convey the reasons for their dissent to him. For that, I applaud them. Publically airing internecine "dirty laundry" in the jihad media is specious and deliberate on both the Generals' part and the part of the jihad media. The Generals should have known better, but it's just business as usual for the jihad media. Had the Generals gone to the President first, then allowed themselves to be quoted by the jihad media, I would have a greater level of respect for them. Since they did the opposite, by going public first, then trekking up to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., is where I find cowardice. Yes, they have a right to their opinion. And just because I disagree with it doesn't make them "traitors" in my book. It is the process through which they voiced their dissent that is disingenuous at best. And whether Barneyg2000 or his crowd will ever admit it, it DOES give aid and abettance to the enemy. They might not have meant it to have that effect, but it DOES have that effect.

Where Rumsfeld wants his changes to occur, and toward what end is a valid question. He may not be fleshing out his objectives clearly enough for us to understand. To that extent, his lack of skills at public relations reaffirms my growing unease with a fundamental weakness with the Bush Administration. They have often clearly established a goal and a yardstick by which to measure success in their own minds. But when it comes time to communicate those goals and means toward accomplishing them, they are often seen as weak and ineffectual. That's been one of my major peeves since day one with this Administration. The other pet peeve of mine is that, when vigorously questioned or attacked for their policies or actions, they often scramble around for a while as they try to thrash out some sort of explanation, often relying on their associates in Congress, in Talk Radio, or elsewhere (such as blogs like this), to come to their defense. It's not very "leader-like." It doesn't elicit wild enthusiasm. It may be the Achilles heel that causes the most damage to the Administration in the long run. The American public give a great deal of deference to our President as he attempts to forward his agenda. But he's not a great communicator sometimes, and people such as myself find that disconcerting.

Are these Generals speaking out in the interest of moving our national debate forward or are they simply grinding their personal axes? I don't know. That they have a right to air their dissent is not questioned. I'm not attempting to kill the messenger because I disagree with their message. I'm simply convinced that the means through which they delivered the message was flawed. They are being used by the jihad media, who will latch on to anyone with any amount of credibility to attack the President or anyone in this Administration.

With that said, I agree with Ricorun that Sec. Rumsfeld should attempt to better communicate where he wants to take the DOD, and how he expects to get it there. He should also make an effort to establish for the American public where the opposition to his goals is occurring, and why that opposition doesn't deserve the public's support.

it will go a long way not only in the short-term, but in the long term as well to ensuring that his efforts are successful long past his tenure as Secretary of Defense...

Gee....

There must be something striking a nerve with Barneyg2000, 'cause he keeps quoting me and calling me names. I guess he's run out of rational arguments. Ricorun, on the other hand, is contributing greatly to a substantive debate. He raises some good points. His take on why the Generals are speaking out is refreshing when compared and contrasted to the talking points of Barneyg2000 and his ilk.

Ricorun has hit on something that I think has been danced around so far in these posts. Rumsfeld has been tasked to modernize and streamline the DOD with an eye toward future types of conflicts. I believe that these efforts lie at the core of why these retired Generals are be speaking out at this point. I believe we can all stipulate that the DOD is a huge bureaucracy. As such, it has many bureaucrats who may be life-long career specialists. Each of them has staked out their political "turf" within their sphere of influence. Bureaucrats who are facing change - especially change that endangers control of their "turf" - are most likely going to be reluctant to bend the forces that are causing that change. Even though the military has a long tradition of politics being "off the table" in regards to their performance as military people, there is still a certain amount of politics that go into the establishment of both the chain of command in the military structure, and the chain of command in the parallel civilian administration of the DOD.

Like Ricorun, I am not certain exactly what Secretary Rumsfeld's objective are, but I am confident that he is stepping on some toes in his effort to move his agenda forward. Consequentially, those who have left the military in the recent past, might view some of this change in a negative manner - especially if there were forced out, as I am led to believe the case was with Gen. Zinni. These changes can be unpleasant and highly negative to a bureaucrat or a military leader who is used to running things "the way things used to be."

When I was in college, I took a Sociology course that dealt with bureaucracy and the dynamics of change. One of the issues I remember discussing and analyzing was how sudden or impactful changes effected those people who were used to the status quo. There were a variety of responses to those changes that were discussed. One of them was the "go along with the flow of things" without rocking the boat. Another response was to rock the boat wildly to attempt to cut off the chances for the expected change to occur. I believe that this is what we are witnessing in the current debate by the Generals who are now calling for the ouster of Sec. Rumsfeld. Some might oversimplify it by stating that they have an axe to grind. So be it. Change can sometimes be difficult.

These Generals have their opinions borne of their personal experience. If they feel that strongly about their opinions, I'm glad that they are expressing them. What I have a problem with, and have attempted repeatedly to show, is that it can't possibly be a "coincidence" that they are all being quoted in the jihad media within a one week time frame. It is clearly an attempt by the jihad media to leverage their dissent to the President and Sec. Rumsfeld's policies so as to drag down the Presidency. These Generals are not dumb individuals. They must certainly understand the ramifications of their dissent. They are being used like pawns (can somebody say Cindy Sheehan?) by the jihad media as they seek - yet again - to gain traction with the American public. It's shameful of the media, but it's nothing unusual or unexpected. What's cowardly on the part of the Generals, in my opinion, is that they have embraced this "gotcha" tactic so often used by the jihad media with open arms.

To their credit, these Generals have visited with President Bush today to personally convey the reasons for their dissent to him. For that, I applaud them. Publically airing internecine "dirty laundry" in the jihad media is specious and deliberate on both the Generals' part and the part of the jihad media. The Generals should have known better, but it's just business as usual for the jihad media. Had the Generals gone to the President first, then allowed themselves to be quoted by the jihad media, I would have a greater level of respect for them. Since they did the opposite, by going public first, then trekking up to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., is where I find cowardice. Yes, they have a right to their opinion. And just because I disagree with it doesn't make them "traitors" in my book. It is the process through which they voiced their dissent that is disingenuous at best. And whether Barneyg2000 or his crowd will ever admit it, it DOES give aid and abettance to the enemy. They might not have meant it to have that effect, but it DOES have that effect.

Where Rumsfeld wants his changes to occur, and toward what end is a valid question. He may not be fleshing out his objectives clearly enough for us to understand. To that extent, his lack of skills at public relations reaffirms my growing unease with a fundamental weakness with the Bush Administration. They have often clearly established a goal and a yardstick by which to measure success in their own minds. But when it comes time to communicate those goals and means toward accomplishing them, they are often seen as weak and ineffectual. That's been one of my major peeves since day one with this Administration. The other pet peeve of mine is that, when vigorously questioned or attacked for their policies or actions, they often scramble around for a while as they try to thrash out some sort of explanation, often relying on their associates in Congress, in Talk Radio, or elsewhere (such as blogs like this), to come to their defense. It's not very "leader-like." It doesn't elicit wild enthusiasm. It may be the Achilles heel that causes the most damage to the Administration in the long run. The American public give a great deal of deference to our President as he attempts to forward his agenda. But he's not a great communicator sometimes, and people such as myself find that disconcerting.

Are these Generals speaking out in the interest of moving our national debate forward or are they simply grinding their personal axes? I don't know. That they have a right to air their dissent is not questioned. I'm not attempting to kill the messenger because I disagree with their message. I'm simply convinced that the means through which they delivered the message was flawed. They are being used by the jihad media, who will latch on to anyone with any amount of credibility to attack the President or anyone in this Administration.

With that said, I agree with Ricorun that Sec. Rumsfeld should attempt to better communicate where he wants to take the DOD, and how he expects to get it there. He should also make an effort to establish for the American public where the opposition to his goals is occurring, and why that opposition doesn't deserve the public's support.

it will go a long way not only in the short-term, but in the long term as well, to ensuring that his efforts are successful long past his tenure as Secretary of Defense...

Whether you like him or his leadership thus far, he IS the Secretary of Defense and he DOES have the backing of our Commander-In-Chief. So for all our bloviating, he's still calling the shots...

From dbogan’s long winded post defending the Generals rights to speak-out:

“..just because I disagree with it doesn't make them "traitors" in my book…” AND THAN “it DOES give aid and abettance to the enemy…” Posted by: dbogdan at April 15, 2006 12:08 AM

Definition of Treason: Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, Treason against the United States shall consist of, … giving aid and comfort to the enemy..

Dbogdan, keep digging that hole deeper. Thanks for the laughs you America hating commie.

General Richard Myers, retired and former Joint Chiefs of Staff called of this complete nonsense tonight.

It's interesting, he was the most powerful General out there and the left doesn't want to listen to his thoughts or Tommy Franks, but 5 guys that they agree with.

Isn't that always the case. Sigh.

"...doesn't make them traitors IN MY BOOK..."

But perhaps it does in the Constitution, Article II, Section 3...

And your point, Barney?

Perhaps one day, when and if you grow up, you'll be able to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the big boys... but I'm not holding my breath!

More to the point, to quote Bill Clinton, a convicted perjurer and adulterer,

"It doesn't matter what they call you... it matters what you answer to..."

Succinct enough for you now?

Barneyg2000,

I noticed that you never responded to any of the points raised in my "long-winded" post. Perhaps because you don't have anything of substance with which to respond. Certainly, your record so far doesn't indicate that you are ready, willing, or able to engage in substantive debate. You seem, instead, intent on bashing your opponents and repeating a series of statements that have failed miserably to resonate with the American public. But keep on trying!

Perhaps one day you'll hit a home run. Until then, just keep on whacking at your straw man arguments.

Oh and - by the way: Cindy Sheehan sends her best!!

Mark,

Do you really think Iraq's army compares to the Wermacht?

Dbogdan,
Never again will I take it seriously when I am accused of being too wordy, lol!

But let me parse (and I hope I preserve your context in doing so: if you don't think I do, please say so)...

You say, "I am not certain exactly what Secretary Rumsfeld's objective are". Well, illuminate us to the extent that you can. I'm totally clueless. More to the point, I'm guessing you are too. In fact, I'm guessing that many generals don't have a clue either (I'm being somewhat coy in that assessment). And if there's a single, simple, take-home message in what I have said or am about to say on the subject, that is it. If you don't want to consider anything else, consider that. In fact, maybe I'll break up my comments...

Mark said:

"The only thing I can think of is that the right wing critics are actually believing MSM gloom-and-doom about the war and are casting about for a scapegoat."

So generals who have actually served in Iraq don't know what's going on there and you do?

Okay, I'm back.

dbogdan, when you say...

"Had the Generals gone to the President first, then allowed themselves to be quoted by the jihad media, I would have a greater level of respect for them."

What evidence do you have that they didn't try? Further, what access do believe they had, individually, to the White House in any way, shape, or form? You're probably going to hate me for asking this, but I'll ask it anyway -- When Bush met with some of them today, who saved more face? Who had the most to gain? Who had the most to lose? Depending upon your answers to those questions, who deserves more respect as a result? Call them difficult, dissuasive, even disrespectful if you must. But do not call them cowards. And certainly do not call them traitors! To do so disrespects the entire fabric of the military.

"What I have a problem with, and have attempted repeatedly to show, is that it can't possibly be a "coincidence" that they are all being quoted in the jihad media within a one week time frame. It is clearly an attempt by the jihad media to leverage their dissent to the President and Sec. Rumsfeld's policies so as to drag down the Presidency."

Could I offer another alternative explanation? In a word: Iran.

"These Generals are not dumb individuals. They must certainly understand the ramifications of their dissent."

Yes, you can definitely count on that. Without exception the generals I know are very, very bright people. They all have their own points of view, but to suggest any of them are being used as Cindy Sheehan level pawns suggests a breathtaking level of naivitee. They know very well the ramifications of what they are doing.

As for your last paragraph, all I can suggest to the Bush administration is... tell it like it is. Your mandate was to bring honesty and integrity back to the White House.

The Generals know better than the most whats wrong with the efforts in Iraq.

Of course you mean the active Generals actually involved in it, not the cowardly six retired Clintonistas, I hope.

As far as I'm concerned, this was all planned to be timed to the 06 elections in another shameless Democrat effort to sieze power. There is no caring about how it emboldens the enemy and costs even more American lives.

After all, the anti-war left ended up adding several thousand American names to the Wall and to regain the power they feel is rightfully theirs, they will add several thousand more from Iraq and Afghanistan, if need be.

Ricorun,

You raise a good point that perhaps the Generals are worried about Iran. I actually hadn't thought about that aspect until you mentioned it.

As to whether or not they tried to make their points of view known to the President before they went to the jihad media, you're right. I have no way of knowing whether they did or not. The tone of your post suggests that you think that they did. I might be inferring too much on that count, however. But it is reasonable to assume that if they had engaged in a previous meeting with the President and made their points known to him before going to the media, no purpose would have been served by going to him again, after the media disseminated their points of view. It would have simply been a re-hash of an already stated position, right?

You seem to suggest that there exists some degree of access to the President on these individuals' part. Given their rank and positions of leadership, it's plausible that they did or do still have some level of access. If they did meet with the President prior to the publication of their comments (and I'm only speculating at this point), then the course of events surrounding their comments in the media would have a remarkable parallel to the Cindy Sheehan saga. She met with the President after the death of her son. She stated a position to him. Whatever it was, she did meet with the President. Then, months later, she made her way into the American public's consciousness via the jihad media with her markedly hostile opposition to the war. Then, she demanded to meet with the President - again. Now, I understand that Cindy Sheehan and a 2, 3 or 4-star General do not share an equivalent degree of access to the President. But 5 retired Generals who oppose the administration's policies is not representative of the hundreds of retired military officers who have not voiced the same concerns, just as Cindy Sheehan does not represent the vast majority of Gold-Star Mothers who don't share her point of view. As for "saving face," I don't think that is important, in the final analysis. That's just a political posturing move, nothing more. What more should we expect out of Washington, D.C.?

As for calling them "traitors," I did not, despite Barneyg2000's assertion that I did. He just keeps repeating that I did (or alternatively Mark or Matt or WarriorNation did), in order to advance his unsupported point of view. He has not substantively refuted or even addressed the majority of points I raised in an effort to engage in honest debate. Therefore, I consider anything that he states to be bogus and akin to trolling... I strongly disaqree with their opinion, and said so. I also stated that I support their right to free expression. Barneyg2000 has twisted my endorsement of that right by bringing in the issue of treason via a citation of the Constitution while parsing my statement that their words - whether intentional or not - are aiding and abetting the enemy. But treason has a component of deliberate and conscious effort behind it which I clearly went out of my way to state that I give them the benefit of the doubt that they don't actually INTEND to aid or abet our enemies. Notwithstanding their motivations, the words (in my opinion) stand by themselves and, as such, have the effect of aiding and abetting. That doesn't rise to the level of treason in my mind, because the component of intent is not clearly present. But Barneyg2000 can't seem to make that distinction. Or he doesn't care to. It's easier for him to characterize my statement as an indictment of treason on their part, rather than to follow the sequence of reasoning behind my words.

I still assert that these individuals have displayed a degree of cowardice and complicity with the jihad media by reason of the manner in which they introduced their thoughts to the American public. I meant to single these individuals out for their specific actions in this specific situation. By no means did I intend to paint the entire military with the same brush. I hope you are able to differentiate between the two, because I certainly do. And since my discussion on that topic, it has come to my attention that General Tommy Franks has gone out of his way to disavow their comments. But the media (and our leftwing associates) don't give his opinion any significant coverage or credibility. Why not? Is it because it runs contrary to their preconceived template of our President as the warmongering cowboy, engaged in a war of choice against an innocent, non hostile government? His opinion is worth something, too, isn't it?

In any event, I believe that we are on the same page as regards to the challenges that this administration has in communicating its policies and objectives appropriately to the American public. They haven't done a very good job in many instances, and I believe that it accrues to the detriment of the administration. (For the benefit of Barneyg2000 that means - "it sucks.")

I hope Barneyg2000 and his ilk aren't too put off by my "long winded" post. It can be challenging to people who don't understand big words.

Thanks for your comments, Ricorun. I appreciate the fact that you've obviously given some thought to the issue.

It's very simple:

RUMSFAILED.

It's ever simpler than that--Wadie's an idiot.

Barney, who's "kuarthammer?"

It's very simple:

Barney and Wadie are twins, and their total IQ is lower than my golf score...

Mark started this with:

-we've liberated two nations,

-we've knocked the terrorists down in Iraq to the point where the mostly don't dare take on armed enemies,

-we've built up both an Iraqi and Afghan army

1. We and our allies are still fighting in both nations...we haven't liberated anything yet. The production of herion in Afghanistan is significantly higher now than before our intervention. It is quiet payment to their warlords for their support.

2. Terrorists usually don't want to take on standing armies. See definition of terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

3. If we have built up their armies-more effective than any other in the Moslem world- Then what the F are we still doing there?

As for the purpose of the post, to criticize the Generals who are criticizing Rumsfeld, I most definately support their duty to the country to try and alter the failed policies of this administration.

Mark also argued that changing Rumsfeld wouldn't change the policy of the DOD, because the policy is set by the President. Well, we had our chance to change him in 04, no such luck.

Bush keeps saying that he fights the war with the advice of the Generals. Rumsfeld gets to pick the Generals who give that advice. At some point in time it will become apparent for all to see, even serial sectarians, that the execution of this war wasn't a success.

Dbogdan, you are wrong again as usual.
” it has come to my attention that General Tommy Franks has gone out of his way to disavow their comments. But the media (and our leftwing associates) don't give his opinion any significant coverage or credibility.”

Gen. Franks was on Hardball for 30-minumtes last night. Is that significant enough for you? Also, his comments were hardly glowing. He called Rummy cantankerous, and difficult. He said no comment on the current dissent from the other generals other than that is their opinion.

I love the way you keep black-sliding on your original post that the generals were “armchair” and “cowards”, but than you write this: “I still assert that these individuals have displayed a degree of cowardice and complicity with the jihad media” so now it is “degrees” of cowardice? Quit flip-flopping and take a stand you coward.

Give me one name of any person who would take Rumsfeld's job today. Who would want that mess? Peace

dbogdan: "But it is reasonable to assume that if they had engaged in a previous meeting with the President and made their points known to him before going to the media, no purpose would have been served by going to him again, after the media disseminated their points of view. It would have simply been a re-hash of an already stated position, right?"

I'm reasonably confident that Zinni, Eaton, and Batiste have tried. I don't know about the others, but it wouldn't surprise me. In fact, I would find it very surprising if they did not at least try to talk to Rumsfeld and/or Pace. After all, their dissent isn't directed at Bush, it's directed at Rumsfeld (unless you conflate the two like Mark). And the operative word here is "tried". I don't know how successful they were in their efforts. I did not intend to "suggest that there exists some degree of access to the President on these individuals' part." I'm suggesting the contrary. It should be kept in mind that these are career military guys -- generals, in fact. There is every reason to believe that they are very responsible individuals, not a bunch of wingnuts.

dbogdan: "As for calling them "traitors," I did not."

I know you didn't. I apologize for the way that came out. I was jumping the gun a little bit too, because no one (except for Barney and Wang being sarcastic) has yet specifically said that. But in his preamble Mark came mighty close. Be that as it may, you then go on to say that the only element missing for a charge of treason is intent, or "adherence to the enemy". Your point of view is that by speaking out these generals are in effect aiding and abetting the enemy. The contrary point of view is that Rumsfeld's mismanagement has, in effect, aided and abetted the enemy. I don't mean to put words in their mouths, but I think that's pretty close to what these generals are saying.

Additionally, there is at least an implicit assumption among some that this is just a handful of disgruntled generals. But as Mark pointed out, thier numbers are increasing. Also, there are reports that there is growing discontent among the military brass. Batiste has pointed it out, as have these guys:

"A lot of them are hugely frustrated," in part because Rumsfeld gave the impression that "military advice was neither required nor desired" in the planning for the Iraq war, said retired Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, who until last year commanded Marine forces in the Pacific Theater. He said he is sensing much anger among Americans over the administration's handling of the war and thinks the continuing criticism from military professionals will fuel that anger as the November elections approach. He declined to discuss his own views.

Another retired officer, Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs, said he believes that his peer group is "a pretty closemouthed bunch" but that, even so, his sense is "everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out."

I assume Gen. Riggs is exaggerating. I certainly hope so. A certain level of discontent has to be expected when you're attempting to change something as large and entrenched as the entire freakin' US military. Nonetheless, the sentiments he expressed are ominous. That suggests that Rumsfeld hasn't communicated his goals and means to his subordinates very effectively. And that's an element of what I had in mind when I said "In that regard I feel that it is incumbent upon Rumsfeld to realize, and thus anticipate, that the paroxisms caused by the cataclysmic (sp?) changes he has instigated, in the way he has instigated them, are sustainable regardless of whether or not they are engineered for the result he desires."

And now we are involved in stare-down with Iran with deepening implications. Very disturbing.

Barneyg2000,

Is a little bit of cowardice, cowardice? Yes.

Is a lot of cowardice, cowardice? Yes.

Therefore, any degree of cowardice is cowardice.

That's consistent.

I don't see how that's "backtracking" or "flip flopping."

I said they were cowards. I said they displayed a degree of cowardice. A degree of cowardice is cowardice.

It's simple Aristotilean logic. Try is sometime. You might find it useful if you ever decide to construct an intelligible and persuasive argument.

I'm trying not to get to wordy for you here, buddy.

Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who established the foundations for our culture in terms of philosophy and debate. You might not know that, since our mainstream government schools tend to brainwash, rather than hand down our cultural legacy, so I can't really blame you if you have no idea who he was or why he was important. Clearly, you're a product of our government schools. Practice a bit of Aristotilian logic and see if you can find the sequence of logic in this paragraph...

So far, in the course of debating this topic, you haven't managed to refute anything I've said. You simply keep going back to your original talking points and snidely reasserting them.

it doesn't make for a very convincing or compelling argument. But hey! Why should you start doing that now? You haven't done so in any of the crap - err - posts you've created on any topic that I've seen thus far...

Hardball with Chris Mathews is mainstream in name only. Look at the audience ratings. They're at the bottom of the heap, but hey! I"ll accept that it's "mainstream," if it will make you feel like you got me on that point. Woo hoo! for you!

I hope I didn't get too "long-winded" or use words that are too long or difficult for you to understand...

Ask your mommy if you need any help.

"Twenty thousand?"

clown.

Yea, 20,000. Did you not know that casualty means injured too? Did you not know there are 17,000 injured? Are you completely ignorant?

Mark,

We were fighting an ARMY with supplies and gunnies and little wittle bombies. They even had taaanks and airkwaft, aww kinds of weapons. Do you need me to explain to you difference between WWII and Iraq? How about the Axis attacked us? Still going to try to connect 9/11 to Iraq? You are like a little child with your absurd comparisons. Priceless. Your response to 20,000 casualties is to say "Look how many people died in WWII"

Steve,

You are the one absurdly asserting that some particular casualty number should make us quit...what I'm asking is for you to tell me how many died in that few week period in 1944...and keep in mind that the battle in question was a both-job by the US military...screwed up big time; placed small number of inexperienced troops opposite the largest concentration of German military power ever faced by an American army...

Steve,

It seem to me that the point Mark was trying to make is that you people on the left keep harping on numbers, without putting them into a context of time or struggle. Yes, 20,000 is a lot of people, and makes for a very sad and troubling statement. By comparing these 20,000 to a battle in WWII, he was attempting to show that 20,000 spread over a period of 3 years is not of the same magnitude as 20,000 in - say - a weekend or a week's battle. The degree of bloodshed is still 20,000, but the rate of bloodshed was enormously higher in WWII.

Today, we are fighting an enemy who is not part of an organized army. You're right on that count. But today, we also have radio-controlled remote triggers. Our technology has developed so that smaller, more deadly weapons are the norm. It doesn't take as much gunpowder to inflict a casualty as it did in 1945. It also doesn't take as much strictly controlled military chain-of-command on the enemies' part to participate in a battle.

The 20,000 figure arrived at in this instance has been arrived at in more numerous, yet smaller skirmishes. Does that make any of the deaths any less important. No. They are dying and getting injured in today's battles in 2s and 3s as opposed to thousands of people swarming at each other, directing their weapons, and mowing down hundreds per hour.

You're the one who brought up the numbers, without any sense of historical context. He was just attempting to put a context to the figure by comparing and contrasting it to previous conflicts.

For that, you call him childish. Oh well. There are none so blind as those who look, but refuse to see...

In response to Ricorun's posts, at 3:10 am, I stated, in part,

"...And since my discussion on that topic, it has come to my attention that General Tommy Franks has gone out of his way to disavow their comments. But the media (and our leftwing associates) don't give his opinion any significant coverage or credibility. Why not? Is it because it runs contrary to their preconceived template of our President as the warmongering cowboy, engaged in a war of choice against an innocent, non hostile government? His opinion is worth something, too, isn't it?..."

I know he's got a bunch of stars to his name, and within the past several hours, he qualified his view of the generals who are speaking out right now against Secretary Rumsfeld.

"They should shut up."

And Retired General Wesley Clarke (another Clintonista appointee) has also joined the fray to state that he thinks Sec. Rumsfeld should step down.

So come on you leftist kooks. Give us the latest scorecard!

Is it 7 for resignation/firing squad and only 1 with a vote of confidence?

Since this seems to be some sort of game of keeping score, I thought you'd be right on top of it...

dbog, “Hardball with Chris Mathews is mainstream in name only” Who said MS? You said media, see.. “But the media..” posted by dbog

dbog, “So far, in the course of debating this topic, you haven't managed to refute anything I've said. You simply keep going back to your original talking points and snidely reasserting them.”

Why should I? You are doing a great job all by yourself.

Sorry that is not true. You posted this: “General Tommy Franks has gone out of his way to disavow their comments.”

And I posted this per Frank,s interview on HB: “…He said no comment on the current dissent from the other generals other than that is their opinion.”

Mark

1944 was a WORLD war, not a Bush-manufactured war.
Before the U.S. even decided to enter, the war was being fought by other countries who were fighting to ensure Hilter's lunacy was stopped.

Barney

That is because Tommy Franks isn't going to bring down the services like these other clowns are.

General Myers said it for him, he doesn't get why these 6 guys out of thousands went that direction but they did. That's their right.

Of course, you guys congregate to those 6 like flies on crap and oh how ironic is that.

Sick of Lies and Barney:

General Zinni seems to have amnesia or perhaps Alzheimers. Dug this up today....oh my

-------

Anthony Zinni Flashback: Saddam the Biggest Threat

Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who now complains that President Bush cherry-picked pre-war Iraq weapons intelligence and misled the country into going to war, warned six years ago that Saddam Hussein's WMD program was the biggest threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East.

"Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," Zinni told Congress on March 15, 2000.

"Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased," the general-turned-war critic said, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW [chem-bio-weapons] payloads," Zinni said, in quotes unearthed Friday by the American Thinker blog.

Gen. Zinni is currently leading to charge to get Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign - a campaign he began two weeks ago on NBC's "Meet the Press."

During the same broadcast, Zinni addressed the issue of Saddam's WMD threat - sounding like someone who'd developed acute amnesia about his earlier testimony.

"What bothered me," Zinni told host Tim Russert, "[was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn’t fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD.

"Now, I’d be the first to say we had to assume he had WMD left over that wasn’t accounted for: artillery rounds, chemical rounds, a SCUD missile or two. But these things, over time, degrade. These things did not present operational or strategic level threats at best."

In fact, Zinni's flip-flop was so acute he should be suffering from a case of rhetorical whiplash. Here's more from the old Zinni - here telling Congress that Saddam would remain a threat even if he gave up his WMDs:

"Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."

The old Zinni even warned of a potential collaboration between Osama bin Laden and Iraq, telling Congress:

"Extremists like Osama bin Laden and his World Islamic Front network benefit from the global nature of communications that permits recruitment, fund raising, and direct connections to sub-elements worldwide . . .

"Terrorists are seeking more lethal weaponry to include: chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear components with which to perpetrate more sensational attacks . . . Three [Iraq, Iran and Sudan] of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism are within this potentially volatile area, and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council for its harboring of Osama bin Laden."

Now Zinni wants Bush to apologize and Rumsfeld to resign for taking his advice in the first place.

Woo hoo! Score on for Barneyg2000!

He got me big time. I forgot to put "mainstream" in front of the word "media." Surely that must undermine any legitimacy on everything I have ever uttered, right!?

And today, on Fox News, General Franks said, unequivocally, in response to a question about how he viewed these dissenting Generals,

"They should shut up."

Last time I checked, Fox News mops the floor with ratings compared to Hardball with Chris Mathews. Not that this is a ratings war, but.... since you and your ilk seem so intensely focused on "keeping score," I thought I'd update you, since I suspect your head would probably blow up if you attempted to watch Fox News. After all, it's like sunshine to a vampire for you leftists, isn't it?

dbog..thank you for pointing out that Rumsfeld is a real threat to the old-time military. The military is not what you would call a flexible entity, and many old-timers are really entrenched in what makes them feel comfortable.

Rumsfeld showed an incredibild amount of courage and wisdom when he went up against the Old Guard regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and listened to the new hot shots who understood that we could not fight new wars using old methods. He knew then he was making some enemies, but he did what he thought was right and best for the country. And he was right.

Read Thomas Barnett to learn about the differences between Old Wars and what we face now. He is a Pentagon constultant and he laid it out for them, years ago. It took vision, courage, and intelligence to recognize the changes in the world and to understand the need to keep up with them.

Even in what we now think of, somewhat notagically, as "conventional warfare" the primary axiom was "no war plan ever survives contact with the enemy". But when we are dealing with an entirely new type of enemy, using unpredictable tactics and weapons, and remaining agile enough to keep up with the changes they are throwing at us, the ignorant whine and complain that we don't have a rigid battle plan and then adhere to it under every circumstance. There is absolutely no conprehension of the skill and intelligence and breadth of knowledge and expertise it takes to be able to transform a lumbering behemoth like the US military into a lean, mean, fighting machine, abile to switch gears and accomodate previously unimaginable cjhanges in direction by the enemy. And they have no clue regarding the dedication, courage, and foresight it takes to stay focused on the real goals while the ankle-biters are yipping away.

Who can be surprised that some fossils in the military resent being left behind, left out, and just plain left?

And who can pretend that the entire military establishment, in every war, was in agreement? Read a little, folks. Ike was second-guessed all the time. Churchill and Montgomery were denounced by generals and admirals whose noses were out of joint because they didn't get the respect they thoght they deserved. Merely achieving rank is no indication of military prowess. The Peter Prinicple operates there, too, and many just manage to hang on long enough and game the system well enough to get their stars---just as it always has been. So a handful of disgruntled armchair generals who are bent out of shape because they weren't put in charge are dissing those who were...more headline news, there.

Remember, according to wild-eyed alarmists like steve, we were "...approaching 20,000 U.S. Military casualties..." at the moment we had the first one. He did come back and point out that "casualties" includes wounded, but only after being called on the goofball effort to creat a false impression.

stevie, do you happen to know how many "casualties" are from actual enemy combat? Because at about 2000 miltary deaths in Iraq, approximately a quarter were not due to combat, but to accidents and illnesses. Gotta figure that accidents and illnesses are going to injure more than they kill. And you might look into how many in the military are either killed, injured, or treated for illness while in training stateside.

dbog, you were too kind by far when you passed up the opportunity to point out that Wesley Clark was fired in disgrace for screwing up his appointmment in Bosnia, and then hustled both political parties for attention, settling for the Dems when the Republicans wouldn't even talk to him. But the Dems have to take their "war heroes" where they find them, don't they. And they can always jazz up their resumes and trash anyone who laughs at their faked-up credentials, as Kerry did.

Who knows better?
a. War-tested generals
b. AWOL Bush
c. 5 deferment Chaney
d. never served Rumsfailed

Almiranta: Touché!

I forgot about Wesley Clark's "issues" with his command in Bosnia. But it's irrelevant, because he's just another ankle-biting naysayer intent on having his Cindy Sheehan moment.

Your point about fighting new wars with the previous war strategy is right on point. Can anyone say "Magenot line?" That was France's answer to the threat of WWII. They built a series of concrete bunkers, walls, and fortifications across the line where Germany invaded during WWI. Only, when push came to shove, Germany simply went around it. Such is the challenge facing Sec. Rumsfeld. I'm glad you understood my point on resistance to change within a huge bureaucracy. I was hoping I didn't wax too pedantic...

Steve,

RE: "Just so yall know, we are approaching 20,000 U.S. Military casualties this month."

The really pathetic thing is that liberals view this as just more fodder for their propaganda machine. Liberals are not really concerned about those American soldiers who were killed or injured fighting in Iraq. Liberals are self engrossed in their own anti-America, anti-Bush war in the media around the world -- the same one that is providing hope and encouragement to those terrorists our troops are fighting and dying to stop.

AAR

Who knows better?
a. War-tested generals

Current war tested generals and several others seem to have no problem with what is happening, only the six Clintonistas that helped shape what is going on.

b. AWOL Bush

Please document Bush was AWOL, besides the phoney Dan Rather memos.

c. 5 deferment Chaney

As opposed to 4 deferrment Kerry?

d. never served Rumsfailed

Hmmm, maybe Draft Dodging Clinton? No one seem to mind as his adminstration supported Muslims in Kosovo while turning a blind eye to Rwanda.

AAR,

I share your sentiment that - despite their piteous bleating about casualties - it's really all about using the numbers to advance a political agenda. I don't feel that they really care about the individuals who make up the statistic. They seem to care more about the statistic than anything else. It is something they can throw at the President and Sec. Rumsfeld to embarrass, humiliate or - if things play out the way they secretly hope - impeach them.

It's pretty pathetic, really, but nothing new.

RE: "The Generals know better than the most what's wrong with the efforts in Iraq.

Does this mean all generals are always right, always infallible, and always make the correct decision? If so, why do some lose battles and wars? Does this mean that all generals agree? No. Does this mean that all generals are going to agree on all matters relating to Iraq? No. Ever been around a group of generals? They all have their own opinions, ideas, and strategy.

It's very easy for a general or anyone else to "second guess" and make great "Monday morning quarterback calls" and on historical events. After all, they can state with 100% accuracy what did happen, and knowing that, state with certainty and unequivocally what they would have done differently if they had been in charge. Who's to prove or say otherwise? It isn't so easy, however, to be the one making those decisions in real time before they become history and are judged by all of the "experts".

RE: "Just what exactly would their agenda be by the way?"

Does anyone believe that all generals are Republicans and Conservatives? No. There are liberal and Democrat generals too. And just who's views are they likely to support? Are all of them going to say positive things about President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld? No.

Generals have egos too. They like to be in charge and make the decisions. They have their own opinions and don't like to be overruled. Ever served in or worked with the military? Ever noticed how many military officers do not like having any civilian as their boss or in their chain of command? Many will disagree on different issues with Secretary Rumsfeld, with President Bush, and with their military superiors.

How many generals and retired generals are alive today who could express their opinions on Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld, and President Bush? Many more than most readers might think. Many hundreds for sure. Thousands likely. Perhaps someone has access to the actual number and can keep a running tally of just how very small the percentage is of those who speak out against Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush compared to those who don't.

When Democrats finally regain the presidency, they will need people with military experience to staff high ranking positions, including a secretary of defense, secretaries and undersecretaries of the various military services, etc. What better way to gain the trust and eye of potential Democratic contenders than to openly speak out against those who liberals and Democrats hate most? What better way to establish their credentials with Democrats as contenders for upcoming elections and appointments?

And yes, even Republican and Conservative generals are going to disagree on various issues.

I think America has been very fortunate indeed to have someone of Secretary Rumsfeld's caliber, intelligence, dedication, and qualifications as Secretary of Defense. I enjoy listening to his news conferences and find them to be quite informative. I think, however, that many people miss the point or meaning of what he says. It is not enough to hear the words he speaks -- you often have to think beyond those words to understand what he actually meant.

I don't know what Secretary Rumsfeld's political views are, but I could even vote for a Rumsfeld-Cheney ticket!!!

AAR

Dave Sloane,

Do you mean Donald Rumsfeld, the current and former Secretary of Defense? The one who was commissioned in the Navy in 1954, then served three years on Active Duty as an aviator and flight instructor? The one who then joined the Naval Reserve and served an additional 18 years in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975? The one who then transfered to the Standby Reserve (as he had been appointed Secretary of Defense) until 1989 when he retired from Naval service at the rank of Captain? Is that the "never served Rumsfailed" you are talking about, or are you talking about someone else? You must be because by my count, Secretary Rumsfeld served 34 years in the Navy. That hardly qualifies as "never served".

Dave Sloane...you IDIOT.

Donald Rumsfeld did serve. He was in the Navy. What a complete moron you are.