WestHawk has a pretty good article on this very issue regarding whether or not military officers should be able to choose their civilian leadership and how this can hurt the democrats more in the long run. Interesting Read

If you warmongers keep it up,not only will there be no future, there will be no planet. Happy Easter. Peace

Soon its a dem President and Iraq vets!

It is worth waiting!

Looks like you got a problem with Rummy.

If he stay, we tie him around the neck of every republican.

If he leaves, then we call for other member of cabinet to resign.

Personally I think Rummy should stay, so we can have maximum enjoyment.

Happy Easter
-Joe

The guy is a disaster and a chicken-hawk. Keep on defending him Mark.

So...

Apparently there are some within the DOD what are willing to stick their necks out while they're still in their jobs in support of their SecDef!

I thought that the 75% opposition cited by the jihad media seemed to be pushing the envelope just a bit. In my mind, had the number been accurate, there would have been some other signs of discontent before the armchair generals (all retired) made their discontent known. As I asserted earlier, I believe that airing their discontent in the manner in which they did, constituted cowardice. If they had expressed their concerns to the jihad media while they were still commissioned, or in any public forum, for that mattter, I would consider their doing so to be an act of courage. They waited until they were comfortably retired and in the private sector, then they let loose with their concerns. That doesn't take courage, it takes partisanship.

Now, at least one e-mail from a currently serving officer brings to light a dynamic within the DOD that I suspected was in place, and stated earlier in my first posts regarding this issue. So, Gen. Tommy Franks (Ret.) has offered his full support, and now an active duty Commissioned Officer has strongly offered his support of the SecDef. According to the BBC, Retired Marine Lt Gen Mike DeLong, who was deputy commander of Central Command as the US military prepared to invade Iraq in March 2003, said Mr Rumsfeld was good at his job. General Pace has supported SecDef Rumsfeld. General Meyers (Ret.) has also come out in support of the embattled SecDef.

For anyone "keeping score" on this issue, it now appears to be 7 Retired Generals for Rumsfeld to go. And 4 currently commission and retired officers (plus Pres. Bush) are offering their support. If we were to go on just these individuals' positions, it would clearly not meet the 75% threshold that was proferred earlier by one of the Generals.

On this issue, anyway, the Bush Administration has decided to come out swinging for their side. It's about time in my book, that they reacted decisively in the face of criticism. Too bad they couldn't have done the same on any number of other issues over the past 5 years or so... But better late than never! I hope this becomes the new norm, rather than an aberration...

The e-mail cited above, gives credence to my earlier posts about the sociology of bureaucracy and change... He specifically cites a concern that the media may have been over-focused on "the beltway types," to the detriment of the bigger picture. That there is a political dynamic within the DOD isn't really news. That the jihad media has (once again) chosen to focus on the sector that agrees with them while giving little or no attention to other sectors within the DOD shows once again how biased they are in their coverage. The American public should take note yet again, and respond appropriately. The range of responses could range from letters to the editor (a pointless exercise in my book), to cancelling of subscriptions and turning the TV channel.

Joe,

We've got no problem with Rumsfeld at all - the Democrats are just looking for a GOP scalp, prepatory for trying to get the next one. Its all about wrecking the Administration and the country can go to hell...Democrats want their power back and the end justifies any means, in their minds.

Thwap!!!!!

Dems and the MSM are campaigning against Rumsfeld because he doesn't let himself become a punching bag. He's able to give better than he gets when confronted; thus the stories about the retired generals, and his supposed approval of the 'torture' of terrorists. They can't take him on one-on-one, or even in a pack during press conferences, so they resort to these tactics.

These arm chair Generals like Zinni are just more Wesley Clarks and indicate there is a problem in the selection process for flag officers.

One of these retired Clintune generals must be selling a book. Usually, this baloney comes out when one Demorat is peddling a book.

I caught an interview on Cnn between my Senator Dianne "Burka" Frankenstein and Rep. Duncan Hunter. Rep. Hunter just destroyed Frankenstein. Woofy had to get involved to help out Frankestein, but he came to the same conclusion as Duncan.

Mr. Noonan, you are completely mis-reading the Democrats intentions. The bush/Rumsfeld military and foreign policy are an abject failure and time won't change that. What is required is new thinking. One new thought would be to immediately reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran. That will change the entire dynamic in the Middle East. Peace

Steve,

Re-establishing diplomatic relations with an inhuman dictators? What possible benefit can come from that?

Steve wants to surrender to Iran alerady?

By the way since when was Rumsfeld ever considered a "chicken-hawk?" If memory serves me right he served in the Navy.

66.8% of all Statistics are made up. :)

Seriously though, saying 75% is just making up numbers out your butt because you can't find out. The only way to see if that were true would be to ask every single "senior officer" what they think, or take a poll and we all know how much I believe in those!

Personally don't we all wish we could choose our bosses? Have a voice in who they are? Unless we are our own bosses I think most of us have griped about them from time to time or complained about them but what can we do about it? Unless they do something totally illegal or against policy they're not going to go no where, I don't see it any different here with Rummy.

I like Rummy because I like his style with the press. I don't know enough of his "Management style" to really comment on his job performance.

Mark

It is not about scalps rather it is about accountability.

How do we reward failure? What do we tell our children? See kids, people can make gigantic mistakes which cost thousands of innocent lives, require hundreds of billions of dollars and there is no accountability.

In business and in life you are held accountable for their actions. Poor results should not be rewarded.

Rummy is a disgrace. He, solely is responsible, or if you prefer (and most Americans seem to believe) his excellency GW is responsible.

Iraq is a failure and it is either your buddy Rummy or it's the failure of congress. Probably both.

I believe the Shah killed more people then the "inhuman dictators", who also hold elections which the Shah never did. But then, you warmongers on the Right are trying to gin up another war to take the heat off bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney,aren't you? Peace

I nominate Steve to go be diplomatic with Iran. Wait until I get my catcher's mit though, for when his head comes rolling back down the street.

"Soon its a dem President and Iraq vets!"

So, those soldiers that are fighting in Iraq now - you know the ones you're all calling misfits and incompetent - you're going to find a way to use them to your benefit later? Good luck with that cuz they're going to come back and kick you in your stupid ass.

As I've posted before.........
How can you say how well Rummy is doing/has done when his plan for Iraq was solely based on best-case scenario. If those scenarios did not come true (as they failed to do), you MUST have a plan B and even a plan C, D, E and F. Rummy had none of the above.
Does everyone remember Rummy saying something to the effect of this when talking about how long the war will last...
"I don't know... 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months" (paraphrasing).

How do you put our troops in harms way with no backup plan?

The guy is either a bafoon or too arogant to really listen to the professionals on the ground.

Either way, the guy is a disgrace.

Sorry for the mis-spelled words... I know how you righties with nothing else to say will just pick on anything mis-spelled or if my grammar was off.

By the way, the actual quote was this:

Feb. 7, 2003
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

I have to wonder if the lefties on this thread have ever read a book about warfare. Well, I don't have to wonder about Joe, as comic books and coloring books don't count. But the total abject ignorance about war in general would be funny, if it were not so pathetic.

Pick a battle, guys, in any war you choose. Any battle, any war. And tell us how organized, how predictable, how simple, how accurately predicted, that battle was. You can't, because you are not talking about real opinions based on real information based on real facts...you are parroting Randi's blatherings, or Al's mumblings, and are too ignorant to know---or care---that the only thing more bizarrely ignorant than Air America is the mindless sheep who fall for their puke.

No military person in history has been able to accurately predict any conflict. Ever. The general outcome has sometimes been predictable, but not the details.

Every war and every conflict has had its surprises, its ups and downs, its victories and its defeats. As long as our own side is composed of human beings, and theirs is, too, there will be mistakes, errors, confusion, surprises, and some serendipitous uh-ohs as well. It would be nice, I guess, if Planet Lefty existed, where everything was really simple. But we are on Planet Earth, where the only things that are simple are the lefties.

If you are so convinced that the "right" person in charge would be able to tell exactly what was going to happen once the first shot was fired, then how do you explain Waco?

The seething rage that "Sick of Lies" has for our men and women in uniform is stunning! We all know that the military was heavily involved in the planning but to make sure that we don't find out how much hatred he has for our military he pretends that everything is Rumsfeld's fault. Sad and pathetic but not really surprising.

Almiranta,
Before you go trying to diminish people's opinions, please reread my post and compare to what you say.

I said Rummy made assumptions and didn't have any backup plans should those assumptions not come true.

You said:
"...Pick a battle, guys, in any war you choose. Any battle, any war. And tell us how organized, how predictable, how simple, how accurately predicted, that battle was...
No military person in history has been able to accurately predict any conflict. Ever. The general outcome has sometimes been predictable, but not the details."

So..... you are correct saying that although the outcome may be known, you can not predict the ups and downs of a war.
What I am saying is you have to have various plans. If A happens, do this. If B happens, we may have to do this. There are probabilities of certain things occurring. There are plans to be made.
In Iraq, it was like there was no idea anything was going to happen other than we were going to take Baghdad.
There were no plans for an insurgency.
There were no plans when the various areas of Iraq couldn't come together to form a government.
There were no plans to get the Iraq military to stand up themselves quickly.
There were no plans of what parameters had to be met before we could start drawing down troops.

With every war, before even one of our brave troops get thrown into battle plans, backup plans and more contingency plans must be made. If they weren't, then that is incompetence and a failure. Even with us winning the war.

So as a typical rightie, go ahead and start saying Dems are idiots and morons. It is typical, especially on this site.

CJ, don't talk like a fool.
I, nor do any Democrat hate the troops. We would like every single one of them home safe. We do not want perpetual war. We do not want them in harms way with no plan.

Saying I have seething for the troops is just idiotic. I have friends in the military. How dare you say I have anything but hope for each and every troops safety.

Don't say sh*t you don't know you jackass.

I'll bet steve would have advised the girls handcuffed in Ted Bundy's VW to just TALK TO HIM. Why didn't the Kurds just try to TALK to Sadaam? Gee, maybe those sailors on the Cole should have had banners hanging over the side saying "Let's Talk!"

Those in the know, regarding Islam, believe almost to a man that the leader of Iran truly believes his Higher Purpose, the reason for his very existence, is to become the catalyst for the worldwide chaos and suffering that will make it possible for the return of the 12th Imam, and the subsequent victory of Islam over the entire world.

How, steve, would you appraoch a man such as this? Threaten to cut off food or medicine? Good---that would just hasten the onset of anguish, suffering, and mass death, which is his goal. It would just kill more Muslims, which is, after all, in his mind, their real purpose anyway---to die for the advancement of Islam. Threaten to bomb him? Better yet. Kill more, kill 'em faster, get this show on the road, accelerate the carnage, because it's all about creating the most pain and killing the most peopleso the Iman can get here that much faster. Just how would you NEGOTIATE with a man who believes the more of his own people are killed, the closer the world will come to salvation, Islam-style? How would steve-plomacy deter a man from nuking us, or anyone else, if the suffering of millions is what he wants in the first place? Just what kind of diplomacy would influence a man who believes that he is destined to become a true hero of Islam, if only he can bring about the conditions necessary for the worldwide domination by Muslims of all other peoples?

Because you are obviously SOOO much smarter than we are, SOOOO much more educated and savvy and on top of it all---syntax and spelling aside. You seem to have access to secret information denied to the rest of us, which allows you to feel smug about trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, which allows you to identify a man who served honorably in the military as a "chicken hawk", which justifies redefining terms and misstating facts. In other words, you are a liberal, skilled only in not letting yourself be confused by the truth. But thanks for what you evidently DO believe is a "new thought"---diplomacy. Bet ya claim to have invented the wheel, too---or at least the Internet.

Sickie, just how do you KNOW that Rumsfeld did not have, as you put it, a Plan B or a Plan C? What is your source for this insight?

I have watched the military in Iraq shift gears to adapt to new forms of attack, new government, nnew weapons, everything they have had thrown at them. I have aeen a formerly moribund dinosaur, the kind with its head so far from its tail that it could not wag it, become a tightly organized fighting machine that has had no equal in history. I have seen an instution known for its resistance to change become agile and modern and equipped to adapt to types of warfare it could not have foreseen decades ago, and have seen this happen just since Bush was elected and Rumsfled appointed.

Now, if YOU can't recognize the agility and flexibility of the Rumsfeld Military, don't blame Rumsfeld---he didn't lock those blinders in place.

You are clearly working backward, from a conclusion to a theory. It doesn't work in science, and it doesn't work here.

But you can't merely claim to have some cosmic knowledge of what Rumsfeld thinks, or what his plans are or have been, and then expect us to simply say "Oh...OK". Because you are just inventing this stuff, or licking up the puke served to you by the propagandists who know they don't have to back up what they feed you because you simply don't care.

Almiranta, Are you saying bombing should start immediately??????
How intelligent is that?

Absolutely the President should align with as many countries as at all possible to handle this diplomatically. They should get as many allies as possible to work this out.
Sounds like you are advocating we should just start being cowboys and attack. You have got to be kidding me. Are you looking for World War 3? What is wrong with diplomacy in your world?

As for the Rummy comment... you obviously don't understand or don't want to hear my beliefs.
I never said the military hasn't done an amazing job. It is the best armed forces in the world, I am proud of the way they have adapted.
What I am ashamed of is the dangerous positions they have been put in because Rummy and his civilian planners couldn't forsee the remote possibility of a strong insurgency. Look... war is dangerous, nobody questions that. This has been significantly more dangerous than what was planned for. I guess you just can't comprehend the difference.

"Sick of Lies"

I bet you have "Black" friends too huh? Look, your irrational hatred for our military is transparent. you're not fooling anyone by trying to lay all this on Rumsfeld. It is entertaining though to watch you military haters try and defend yourselves. I can't wait for you to say you love your country too. We all need a good laugh.

*****
"In Iraq, it was like there was no idea anything was going to happen other than we were going to take Baghdad.
There were no plans for an insurgency.
There were no plans when the various areas of Iraq couldn't come together to form a government.
There were no plans to get the Iraq military to stand up themselves quickly.
There were no plans of what parameters had to be met before we could start drawing down troops."
*************

This is the most bizarre list of allegations I have heard in a long time.

No one can possibly believe that the administration did not look beyond Bahgdad, or foresee a resistance. No one, that is, except one well-practiced in anti-Bush gullibility. To make these claims is, simply, insane.

Gee, I wonder what Bush meant when he warned us that this would be a long and bitter war, one that could last for generations, if he and his military thought that taking Bahgdad would be all they had to do, and if they did not expect the radicals to fight to retain control.

You can blithely claim that you, somehow, have knowledge of the lack of plans for so many things...training the Iraq military, for example, or dealing with religions factions when establishing a new government.

Were you HERE, Sick? Were you IN THE ROOM? Every single person who paid the slightest bit of attention in the YEAR leading up to the Iraqi invasion knew about these things, discussed them ad nauseum, analyzed them, wondered about them. We all knew there were warring factions. Most of us knew the religious and historical basis for most of the hostilities. But you, somehow, are quite confident in claiming that the Pentagon, the military, the Department of Defense, just didn't know a thing about them, or didn't care?

You have absolutely no idea of what parameters the administration had in mind for making a single one of their decisions---except for when the told us, which they have, over and over again. Too damned inconvenient to pay attention, I guess.

You know, there is genre of movie which depends on the utter stupidity of the characters to last more than five minutes. You know, if the teenagers aren't so stupid they split up and wander around in the woods, the movie would be over almsot as soon as it begins. If the new wife would just call the police to find out of her mysterious husband is a crook, the whole thing would be resolved before the popcorn gets cold.

Movies like that remind me of liberals. Because liberalism is totally dependent on believing the stupidest things possible---and then bragging about believing them.

But I am sure you take great pleasure, as well as pride, in believing the unbelievable. Good for you.

Every now and then it is revealed that the Pentagon had a (gasp!!) SECRET PLAN to do something that gets liberal knickers in a twist. And it is explained that the Pentagon routinely assigns the development of plans to deal with all sorts of possible---and sometimes highly unlikely---threats. It is an excercise in agile thinking, in preparedness, in creative approaches to new problems. But Sickie chooses to believe, and then preach, that this same Pentagon somehow just overlooked the most obvious elements of the Iraqi invasion---in spite of the fact that these are the same elements that have faced every invading army in history, in one form or another.

*****
"Almiranta, Are you saying bombing should start immediately??????
How intelligent is that?"
***********

Thank you so much, Sickie, for making my point for me. Your grasp of what I say is equal to your grasp of what the adminstration says.

Ppparently muirgo believes that people that served in the air force can are chicken hawks.

Woops, the navy.

**************
"This has been significantly more dangerous than what was planned for. I guess you just can't comprehend the difference."
***************

It appears to me that the extensive use of unmanned patrol and attack aircraft made this war far LESS dangerous than others in the past.

It appears to me that a strategy of moving quickly from one target to another was an excellent way to keep the enemy off balance and to reduce the danger to our fighting forces.

I belive that the extensive use of humint and Special Ops has dramatically decreased the danger to our military. Wrong???

I'm trying to think of any invasion, anywhere, any time, of a country with a large trained military, and a subsequent three-year occupation of that country while enduring violent resistance, with a total casualty count of less than 20,000. And before you get the vapors over that number, remember that of the approximately 2000 mortalities in Iraq, about a quarter of those were not from combat or contact with the enemy, but from accidents or illnesses. Of the remainder, a significant number are also from accidents or illnesses----and very large numbers of military die or are treated right here in the United States every year, while in training. But even without accurate numbers for deaths and injuries as the result of actual enemy action, the numbers are amazingly low for a war, a war in which many many thousands of the enemy were killed, amny thousands more captured, and two entire countries liberated and set in the roads to independent self-government.

In other words, as wars go, this has been the "safest" war in history---due to the advances in military training and strategy and the development and use of new equipment. Pretty hard to separate those features from the Secretary of Defense. Unless you just want to.

I comprehend that the realists expected casualties in this war---mostly because it is a war. I comprehend that the casualities in this war are far fewer than in any other similar conflict in history. I comprehend that only the liberals are shocked, stunned, and totally taken aback by the fact that people die in wars. I also comprehend that the narrow tunnel vison of liberals prevents them from speculating about how many people would have, or might have, died if we had not invaded and stayed on. I comprehend that Osama himself said, on the record, repeatedly, that his confidence in attacking the United States was based on the cowardly retreat of that same United States every time it had been attacked in the past. I comprehend that if an enemy is emboldened by retreat and failure to act, it is reasonable to believe it may be afraid to act against a country which proves itself to be unafraid to retaliate, to take the war to the other side instead of just sitting passively waiting for it to be brought home to them.

Oh, and I comprehend that the only way to deal with a madman bent on destruction of all he can possibly destroy is to deprive him of weapons, not to meekly request that he not use them. And I comprehend that a country which stupidly or naively placed nuclear weapons in the hands of one madman ought to be able to learn from its mistakes and do whatever it takes to keep those types of weapons from the next loony in line.

****
"go ahead and start saying Dems are idiots and morons. It is typical, especially on this site."
************

'Cept when we let the Dems do it for us

Donald Rumsfeld's only military experience was 3 years as a Naval Aviator (54-57). His main problems are that he majored in Politics and spent a good part of his life as a businessman. Until joining Bush's cabinet, he had not been in politics since the mid 70s.

I would say that his main flaws are that he tried to run the war like a business. He took the fewest troops possible, did not equip the troops with sufficient body armor (did not allow sufficient time for this to happen), and was too arrogant to listen to the commanders in the field who told him otherwise prior to the start of the invasion. He is also taking commands from someone who God only knows how much time and to what capacity he spent in the military, as he decided to have his records destroyed. Hmmm, kinda makes you think doesn't it?

I also highly doubt the 75% number. However, you will never know for sure since any currently commissioned officers will never denounce Rumsfeld publicly. The officers are "welcome" to share their opinions with the Secretary of Defense, but they do not have a choice whether to listen to his decisions. The job of military personnel is to follow orders. If the orders don't make sense, tough, you do it and keep your mouth shut.

I personally think that the worst of the damage has already been done, however, I do not forsee him as being considered a hero in the history books. The government should use this as a learning experience and the best thing to do would be to appoint future Secretaries of Defense that were actually generals in the military so they better understand what goes into running a war properly.

Well I admit it. I just don't like that fool Donald Rumsfeld and would love to give him an old fashion ass whoopin'.

Well I admit it. I just don't like that fool Donald Rumsfeld and would love to give him an old fashion ass whoopin'.

SOL, would you please take a few moments to enlighten us on your "Backup plans"! You guys do alot of criticising with out any kind of "Backup plans"! I would be (seriously) very interested to hear your back-up plan for dealing with an insurgency, I mean other than what is already happening on a day to day basis in Iraq, I would be extremely interested in some of your ideas! Please Share with us!

Captain Ron,

That is about the most foolish thing I've ever seen written - have SecDef who is a former general? Totally negates the concept of civilian control of the military...your idea is downright un-American.

Aside from that, we once upon a time had a SecDef with large military experience...a certain former Lt. Colonel in the Air Force name Robert McNamara. You want to claim he did a better job than Rumsfeld is doing?

Joe,

But Iraq is a stunning success...its just too bad that your Bush hatred prevents you from seeing it as it is.

CJ,
Again, in absence of any kind of arguement, you say I am un-American and hate the troops. Yes, I have two good friends whose sons are in Iraq as we speak. One is 20 and the other is 21.
And yes, I do have black friends a good number of them too. Obviously you are too closed to understand things.
I'm done with you.

Bearman,
I'm sorry, was I in the running to be Sec of Defense? I didn't know war planning was my job.
Is Rumsfeld doing that bad of a job that you need me to do the planning?

Mark,
Keep saying to yourself what a stunning success Iraq is, one day you'll believe it.
You, Almiranta and your other war monger rightie friends can take that success right into Iran.... Korea, Syria, China, and everywhere else that you feel is your right to go into.

You're much worse than "un-American," your vicious hatred of this country is stunning! I wish people like you were "only" un-American. When you side with the enemy on just about every issue is when you become dangerous.

Captain Ron,

Three years on Active Duty, then 18 years in the Naval Reserve as a pilot and in administrative billets, then 14 years in the Standby Reserve until retiring at the rank of Captain. That would be 35 total years of military service.

Additionally, did you know he served in the following capacities after leaving public service in 1977?

Member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control (1982 - 1986);
Special Presidential Envoy on the Law of the Sea Treaty (1982 - 1983);
Senior Advisor to the President's Panel on Strategic Systems (1983 - 1984);
Member of the U.S. Joint Advisory Commission on U.S./Japan Relations (1983 - 1984);
Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East (1983 - 1984);
Member of the National Commission on Public Service (1987 - 1990);
Member of the National Economic Commission (1988 - 1989);
Member of the Board of Visitors of the National Defense University (1988 - 1992);
Member of the Commission on U.S./Japan Relations (1989 - 1991); and
Member of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission (1999 - 2000).

Sen. McCain (R-AZ) said Saturday:

“I was asked a long time ago, I think a year and a half or two years ago, if I had confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld. I was asked that directly. I said, ‘No,’ ” the Republican senator said during a news conference at his Phoenix office."

Libbie moonbat! Lol!

But he's not the only one. The fact is that several Republicans have expressed dissatisfaction with Rumsfeld over the last couple of years -- Trent Lott, Susan Collins, Norm Coleman, and Chuck Hagel, to name the just Senators I know about. Criticism of Rumsfeld isn't exactly new, nor is it a particularly moonbat one. Although according to the "guilt by concurrence" argument that seems all the rage these days, one could argue that because McCain, Lott, Collins, Coleman, and Hagel were all senators back when Clinton was president, they are "Clintonistas" just like the generals.

It seems to me that people who have problems with Rumsfeld do so on the basis of some combination of four issues:

1. Force reorganization. This is mostly military folks -- uniformed officers, strategists, theorists, and the like -- who disagree with his ideas on how things should be changed. Transformation isn't necessarily the issue in their eyes, it's the nature of the transformation and whether it will benefit the military.

2. People skills. As Franks, pointed out, he's an ornery sumnabitch who accepts nothing but perfection as he defines it. Nothing wrong there. But he also tends to micromanage with what he calls his "8000 mile screwdriver".

3. Iraq. As the central figure in the development and execution of the war, many people take exception to his role in some of the major decisions made -- small troop footprint, complete de-Baathification, completely disbanding the Iraqi armed forces, and Abu Ghraib, to name the biggies. It's not going to help that Franks said the other day that in the "14 months" that he and Rummy (and others, of course) were hard at work on planning the Iraq campaign. Let's see... 14 months means they began intensive planning for the invasion in January 2002. You can expect that revelation to get some play once people do the math. And that brings us to...

4. Party drag. Some politicians in his own party believe that he has become the symbol of the continued difficulties encountered in the Iraq campaign and the perceived intransigence of the president to change anything. I pointed out a few in the Senate. There are many others.

Personally, I have problems with issue #3. Also, whether it's fair to Rumsfeld or not, I have concerns about issue #4 as well. The fact of the matter is that in order to be fine with Rumsfeld you have to find a way to be fine, at least to an acceptable degree, with all four issues. In order to have problems with him though, you only have to have significant problems with just one.

dbogdan: "As I asserted earlier, I believe that airing their discontent in the manner in which they did, constituted cowardice. If they had expressed their concerns to the jihad media while they were still commissioned, or in any public forum, for that mattter, I would consider their doing so to be an act of courage."

I guess you could say that would constitute courage. It would also be pointlessly stupid, because going public against a superior while still in uniform would be grounds for courts martial. They can protest to their superiors until the decision is made and the order is given. Then their only options are to execute the order or abandon their career.

Almiranta, the only way to have Peace is to not have war. Think about how to not have war. How many ways can you think of? Peace

Mark,

Must you call me un-American on a daily basis? A former general IS a civilian. I just figure a former general might know more about how to run the military than maybe a stripper, or Bill Gates, or some construction worker...who are also civilians.

You know, part of being an American is being able to think, say, and feel whatever the hell I feel like, without the government stepping in and saying I can't. If anyone is un-American, it is YOU Mark for trying to tell me I can't do those things.

Mark,

Must you call me un-American on a daily basis? A former general IS a civilian. I just figure a former general might know more about how to run the military than maybe a stripper, or Bill Gates, or some construction worker...who are also civilians.

You know, part of being an American is being able to think, say, and feel whatever the hell I feel like, without the government stepping in and saying I can't. If anyone is un-American, it is YOU Mark for trying to tell me I can't do those things.

Ricorun wrote,
"...I guess you could say that would constitute courage. It would also be pointlessly stupid, because going public against a superior while still in uniform would be grounds for courts martial. They can protest to their superiors until the decision is made and the order is given. Then their only options are to execute the order or abandon their career..."

But the way they've gone about criticizing was cowardly and pointless stupid. Speaking out when there is actually something on the line of substance sure beats retreating to an armchair and cozying up to the jihad media, who is using them only to unseat Sec. Rumsfeld AND by proxy, President Bush...

So let's update the "scorecard" for everyone at this point...

7 Generals have come out against Sec. Rumsfeld
Wesley Clark
John Batiste
John Riggs
Charles Swannack
Anthony Zinni
Paul Eaton
Gregory Newbold

7 Generals have come out in support of Sec. Rumsfeld.
Tommy Franks
Richard Meyers
Michael DeLong
John Crosby
Thomas McInerney
Buren Moore
Paul Vallely

So it appears that we're at a "Mexican standoff" on this issue, with 7 for, 7 against.

So now what will the jihad media do to up the ante?

I'm glad the Administration has also come out swinging in defense of Sec. Rumsfeld. This should make for an interesting week of back and forth as the media's ability to set the tone and agenda on this debate is clearly slipping away...

Captain Ron,

If you don't want to be called un-American, then stop advocating un-American things...a retired general, by definition, still has a lot of friends, enemies and favorites among active officers...its like setting the fox to watch the hen house...my view is that the SecDef should be a civlian executive with little experience of military matters...we need someone in there who will ask "why", a lot. I've been in the military, I've seen it from the inside...we need a man who will ask the generals tough questions and who has no knowledge of, or concern for, the various social and professional cliques that build up in any organisation over time.

As was once famously said, "war has become too serious a business to be left in the hands of generals"...I respect the men and women who serve in our armed forces, but I'm entirely un-awed by a man or woman simply becaus they have a star or two on their shoulder.

It's funny how the liberals keep bashing Iraq....just like they've been bashing the economy the last few years until now they simply can't do it anymore without people laughing at them.

Soon this will be the case with Iraq as well. Until then, we have to put up with their nonsense.

Can you believe a guy actually has the peanuts on this board to call himself "Sick of Lies" and he's a liberal Democrat. I mean really, the hypocrisy of that moniker is quite amazing.

Nice duck & dodge Shut outta luck!! Like I've said, you guys are full of hatred & criticism, but you lack integrity & honor to back it up with solutions! You libs make me sick! At this very moment in my all but rotten day, I could very well ban liberals from this great country! well, I guess I'll feel better tommorrow.......or will I?

Mark,

I see your point and I have no problem with you having a different opinion than me. Calling my patriotism into question all the time just irks me. I really want what is best for this country, just like pretty much everyone in here.

That said, I have no military experience. I attempted to get into ROTC in college but was rejected. I don't know how things run. All I know is that I have a buddy fighting over there. He believes he's doing the right thing. It's hard for me to believe that, and it's hard for me to sit here, listening to death reports every day, and hoping and praying one of them isn't him.