For Rumsfeld critics to have prevailed, I believe it would have required a draft and a lot more body bags. What general wouldn't prefer virtually unlimited manpower? I vote for heeding lessons of Vietnam. I have more respect for Rumsfeld than this handful of generals. If Marines have and retain a primary role, let's see if any of the complainers are Marines.

good.

It's Wednesday, and it looks like the drive-by media is losing steam on this issue. Just like the scores of other unfounded attacks upon the President, this one isn't gaining any traction with the American public. Add to the mix the President's extremely strong endorsement of Sec. Rumsfeld, and it looks like the drive-by media is coming up empty-handed - again.

Now that the Administration has announced that Scott McClellan is resigning, that ought to fire 'em up. After all, he was the media's favorite whipping boy as a proxy for the President. I suppose they'll all go "nice-nice" for the remainder of Scott's tenture. Inside, though, I'm sure they're just licking their chops, waiting for his successor to come to the stage so they can pounce on him with their "cuts of a million knives" questions/accusations.

I'm certain that they are disappointed with this latest round of "gotcha" with Secretary Rumsfeld, however. The story just never grew into the "scandal" they were hoping for. In fact, it was probably quite a surprise that the Administration and Sec. Rumsfeld reacted with vigor and speed to assert their position and present an alternative side of the debate.

It's not supposed to happen that way as far as the drive-by media is concerned. They are supposed to throw the accusations out there, and the Administration is supposed to back up and demurely submit to their media bashing.

Perhaps this marks the "coming of age" for the Administration. With a new Presidential Press spokesman in the wings, perhaps they'll display some gonads for a change and cut the drive-by media no slack...

We'll see...

Changing the subject. But about these '06 elections. Shouldn't we remind voters that usama bin laden threatened all the bush voters not to vote for bush or he would send terrorist to all the red states. It was a tape he sent out a week or two before the presidential elections of '04. The point to that tape. The terrorists wanted the dems to win because they know the dems would talk the to death instead of acting like bush has.

cut the drive-by media no slack...

I don't think you have been paying close attention, dbog. It's the press that needs to display some 'nads for a change. With the exception of Helen Thomas (a female) and Seymour Hersh, there ain't a pair in todays press corps. They have all been so intimidated by the throne, that they fear never being called on again at press conferences if they ask appropriate questions.

Oops I forgot Carl Bernstein. Have you read his Vanity Fair article? Brilliant. He brought down Nix Nixon and he may just help get King George.

It appears the drive by media is taking on a reddish tinge. Sen. McCain (R-AZ) reaffirmed his opposition to Rumsfeld on Saturday. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) reaffirmed his on Monday.

"The concern I’ve had is, at a very dangerous time, (the) secretary of defense does not command the respect and confidence of our men and women in uniform,” Hagel said.

“There is a real question about his capacity to lead at this critical time,” he said.

“I have had many conversations with military leaders about their concern about what’s happening at the Pentagon and with our force structure.”

Perhaps even more telling is the fact that Hagel came out AFTER Bush's impassioned defense of Rummie. And he pretty much took the gloves off. Like I said, opposition to Rumsfeld is much broader than just a moonbat hatchet job. And to ignore that is to ignore reality. Check out what Bill O'Reilly, George Will, or William Kristol have to say, for example.

As for new-found gonads, I guess we'll have to see. Maybe it'll be different this time. Then again, maybe Bush's support for Rumsfeld will go the way of his impassioned, unequivocal support for Harriet Meyers, Michael Brown, and the Dubai Ports deal. Hard to say at this point. As dbogdan put it... we'll see.

Actually Bob,

The most prominent of the "complainers" is a marine -- Gen. Tony Zinni, USMC (ret.). This criticism of Rumsfeld cuts across all branches of service. It has been building for a long time -- for people paying attention.

I often wonder who really holds the backing of those who control the GOP -- Bush or Rumsfeld? I guess we'll see soon enough -- my prediction?

Rummy follows Scotty down the road in fairly short order. As Ricorun noted -- that has been the pattern.

It occurs to me that it's worth mentioning that in any debate a common tactic is to ignore the full range of issues at hand and to concentrate on the one aspect of it that is easiest to destroy. For example, in the case of the Plame investigation, there is a concerted effort to conflate the entire thing into a question of whether Plame fit the strict definition of a "covert agent", as if no other issue was worth consideration. The idea is that if you can argue effectively on that one point you can influence attitudes on the broader issue. It's a common tactic, and a very effective one to the extent that people aren't paying close attention.

The same thing is going on with the Rumsfeld controversy. In his case I have previously identified four contentious points:

1. Force reorganization

2. People skills and micromanagement

3. Strategy and tactics applied to Iraq

4. Party drag.

Rumsfeld claims that the dissatisfaction largely revolves around #1: force reorganization. That figures, because that's the argument that's easiest to refute. After all, no one that is not heavily steeped in military practice and theory is likely to understand the nuances involved -- but lots of people have some kind of general experience with management reorganization on one level or another, and realize there's always some inherent friction.

But the fact is, most of the generals argue largely on the basis of #2 and #3, not #1. As far as I know, only Batiste has said anything about #1, and even then it was ancillary to his main points. Likewise, politicians and pundits tend to stress #3 and #4 (either explicitly or implicitly).

As a result, the different sides are talking past each other. A single candle may help to penetrate the darkness. But a whole candelabra is often necessary to see the big picture. Everyone needs to consider everything in a more wholistic fashion, IMHO.

When I saw Weaselly Clark in the list of disgruntled ex-generals, I found that significant.

As someone pointed out on another thread, in the military, if you don't move up, you move out. So it would be interesting to know how many of these 'retired' generals 'retired' on their own, and how many were asked not to let the door hit them in the a** on the way out.

Merely achieving rank is no proof of competence, or ethics, or integrity. Look at Weaselly for proof of that. He screwed up royally in Eastern Europe, in every possible way, got fired, went shopping for a party that would have him and then sold out to the only one that would---the Dems---and proceeded to contradict his earlier comments and positions. The man never met a camera he didn't love. He would lick the boots of anyoone who scratched his ears and would put a knife in the back of anyone who ignored him. Yeah, let's take Weaselly's word for anything!

I look at the demoralized mess the military was in at the end of the Clinton regime, after eight years of being told their own Commander In Chief "loathed' the military, after catastrophic spending cuts, after humiliation after humiliation as Clinton tried to use the military to distract the world from his shenanigans and ended up merely making them look like buffoons, and I compare it to the proud, effective, modern, efficient (by comparison) force it is today.

How easy do you think it is to almost totally turn around a lumbering behemoth like the US military in about two years? But between January of 2001 and March of 2003, the military has made changes some thought it could never make---and some never WANTED it to make. And it took Donald Rumsfeld at the helm to make that possible.

Who can be surprised that some feel their toes were stepped on? Who can be shocked to learn that big egos don't like being overlooked, or their advice ignored? Most of us can figure out that if there or opposing points of view, those on the losing side are going to be disgruntled. Duh. But the Left swarms to the losing side to hail them as heroes and appoint them their spokesmen. Oh, yeah, that DOES sound familiar.

Yeah, rico, the generals are going to say "We are ticked off at Rumsfeld because he didn't kiss our butts." They are going to be candid about being on the wrong side. They are going to admit their noses are out of joint because the other guys had better ideas, or argued better. Or were smarter.

There has never been a conflict in the history of military where every general/admiral has been in agreement on how to do anything. It is just that some have the integrity to shut up and let the winning side do its thing, and some prefer to be ankle-biters. History will tell who was right, but in the meantime it is an interesting view of character to watch the disgruntled try to actually CHANGE history so their side will look better.

Dems rush to the losers, take them in, hail them as heroes, and make them the spokesmen for their cause. That is hardly news.

Weaselly Clark has been a loser for years. He botched his Eastern European gig so badly he was publicly removed and hauled home in disgrace. Did he retire? Or was he asked to retire?

As someone pointed out on another thread, in the military, you either move up or you move out. So you have to wonder just how many of the Whining Generals really 'retired' or were merely asked to try to avoid having the door hit them in the a** on the way out.

Got an error message trying to post and when my first post did not show up after ten minutes I redid it---sorry

Salvelinus,

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was a pattern. It's not. Sometimes Bush digs in his heels (NSA spying, ability to declassify info, ability to defy the McCain torture bill, and a few others), sometimes he doesn't. I don't know of which alternative this is an example. We'll see.

I suppose it's also important to point out that I don't consider Bush, Rumsfeld, or anyone else to be either a monster or a saint. People are people, all with unique strengths and weaknesses. I argue on the basis of principle first and foremost -- on the ideas, strategies, tactics, words, and behavior of the people involved and the logic inherent therein -- rather than on the basis of what I think of the people themselves or their ideology. Sometimes I will claim that something someone says is ludicrous, stupid, insightful, brilliant, or something along those lines, but it's a judgement made on the basis of what they say, not who they are or the perspective from whence they come. Granted, there are occasions when I'll claim someone is a wingnut or a moonbat, but it's always done in an attempt at humor. It might not alwasy succeed, but that's the intent. In the end it's the message that matters far more than the messenger.

Almiranta,

At times I have been tempted to respond to your posts. But I haven't because they are so free-ranging and so heavily laden with personal attacks, while at the same time so thin on any sort of real substance. You never offer any references, and rarely offer anything in terms of relevant, solid facts or logic to back up your case. But your most recent post was a particularly sterling example of what I was talking about -- by virtue of your personal distaste for "Weaselly Clark" you have conflated the entire issue into a false forum on Clark as opposed to Rumsfeld. Apparently you think that if anyone opposes Clark they must, by extension, support Rumsfeld or vice versa. I don't see the connection, or where it's the least bit relevant. In what sense should one's conclusions about what Clark has done, or his later decision about party affiliation, bear in any way on one's conclusions about what Rumsfeld has done or is attempting to do?

Similarly, you attempt the same sort of selective conflation when you suggest that "the generals are going to say "We are ticked off at Rumsfeld because he didn't kiss our butts." That may be very true to one extent or another, but it's not the only issue involved. Argue the issues, all the relevant issues, on the basis of facts and logic first and foremost, not on the basis of your impressions of the ideologies of the personalities involved first and foremost.

Hey, donk-turds, a news flash for ya: Three more generals have jumped on the get-Rummy bandwagon. Their last names are Mills, Electric, and Tso's Chicken. Captain Crunch and King Vitamin tried to join in--they told Crunch no thanks, generals only, and they told Vitamin no thanks, they're trying to get rid of a king and don't want one on their team.

Tomorrow, General Confusion and General Fu*kup may join the ranks, but Major Malfunction was asked not to apply.

As Rush said yesterday and today, "This story is headed for the drive-by graveyard."

Thousands of Generals, Admirals, and flag officers, active and retired, and you donk-turds hang your hats on these seven.

With the exception of Helen Thomas (a female) and Seymour Hersh, there ain't a pair in todays press corps. They have all been so intimidated by the throne, that they fear never being called on again at press conferences if they ask appropriate questions.

hahahahahaha!!! Ash-face live in an alternate universe. Helen Thomas is an old leftist hag, and Sy Hersch, once again, has shown his arse to America with his b/s attack Iran story. Bernstein is a lefty dinosaur.

Helen Thomas could do the country, and the world, a great service by making a video. In this video, she could address OBL and Zawahiri, threatening to come over to whatever cave they're hunkered-down in, and have her way with them unless they surrender. One look at that video, and those two would give up instantly.

Ash-hole face, you're a jewel. Too bad you have none...

Anybody that relies on Rush limbaugh for his analysis of events surrounding these generals statements is a "ditto head" and unable to think for himself. It is now over 4 months since the elections in Iraq and still no government. How many more lives and how much more tresure do we have to waste before there's a change in policy.Please quit drinking that Rush coolaid.

Keefer,
What happened to General Consternation?
Re: Thomas; I thought ObL and Zawahiri liked camels.
Thanks for the laugh!

.

Rico says **
"Apparently you think that if anyone opposes Clark they must, by extension, support Rumsfeld or vice versa."
*********

It's pretty hard to respond to something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Apparantly you feel free to tell me what I meant no matter what I said. I said that Clark was not a competent general, has shown questionable ethics, has shown himself to be available to the highest bidder (becoming a Dem poster boy after offering himself to the Republicans and being turned down) and is, therefore, not a very credible voice on any topic, anywhere, any time. As a failed general, a sour-grapes failed political wannabe, and a generally (pardon the pun) unreliable kinda guy, his opinion carries no weight with me. A far cry from claiming that opposing Clark equals supporting Rumsfeld, or vice versa, or any such thing. I merely said that Clark adds no credibility to any list of anyone saying anything about anyone.

*******
".....you suggest that "the generals are going to say "We are ticked off at Rumsfeld because he didn't kiss our butts."
**********

Actually, what I MEANT was that it would be highly unlikely for any of these generals to admit to such a petty reason, even if it were true. I said it in a highly sarcastic manner, but that was the gist of it---yeah, sure, these guys are going to 'fess up to such petty motives....when pigs fly. The point was, the generals, no matter what the real reason their noses are so far out of joint, are going to try to make it look like they are doing something noble and courageous by speaking out against the SecDef, because they know how little credibility they would have if they were to admit they were just ticked off because their suggestions were not taken, and some other guys' were.

The Straw Man approach rarely works, though I can see it is tempting to try it every now and then. As I merely pointed out that Clark is not a reliable source of information on military tactics or ethical behavior, and that the other generals would not admit to petty motives even if that was all that was driving them, clearly you had no rebuttal for either opinion. But you had a rebuttal against something I did not say, so you selectively chose words and phrases out of context, applied your own erroneous meaning to them, and then produced a rebuttal to THOSE statements.

I guess this is just one of those mutual non-admiration societies. I am not so impressed with your psuedo-erudite meanderings as you might think, and am certainly not inclined to look to you for validation or approval. Mark has talked about not wanting a cut-and-paste type of dialogue, so I merely offer opinions. When asked, I give links or references.

Certainly, if anyone wanted to argue whether or not Clark was fired from his Eastern European gig, I could cite references to back up my assertion. Ditto for his overtures to the Republican Party, his eventual adoption of the Dems, and repudiation of the party he first offered to represent. My conclusions based on those actions are my own. And so on.

But people who know the facts, know the facts. And people who don't care about the facts wouldn't care if I cut and pasted pages and pages of references and citations. So I respect Mark's desire to have this a discussion group, and not an annotated lecture series.

It has been a whole four months since the election and Iraq still does not have a government...
In 1776 the people of the United States broke with foreign clerics, kings, customs and traditions. In 1791 they ratified a Constitution. In 1860 they had a civil war. In 1960 a movement for civil rights finally offered equal opportunity for all.
So what's the big deal about four months?
Perhaps there are some leaders (like Rumsfeld) who can see past MSM headlines and sound bites. Thousands of years of tribal hostilities may take considerably more time than a few months to heal.
In the mean time, the people of Iraq benefit while someone provides order and allows non violent voices an opportunity to be heard. Remove the protection and the history is that the non violent voices will be silenced forever.

Almiranta,
As I look back on it, you're right -- I did misinterpret your comment about Clark vis a vis Rumsfeld. You merely indicated that your disregard for Clark led you to question the other general's motives. I stand corrected and I apologize.