So in other words, whatever happens in Iraq, it's the military commanders' fault - isn't that the true subtext of what you're saying, Mark?

Boehner: Wolf, I understand that, but let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld.

Blitzer: But he's in charge of the military.

Boehner: But the fact is the generals on the ground are in charge and he works closely with them and the president.

Keep in mind that these are the same generals who have been elevated precisely because they have shown themselevs willing to kow-tow to Rummy's "vision". Any that disagreed with Rummy were passed over for promotion. Clearly, to get ahead in the military (or the CIA), you tell the WH what they want to hear and what they tell you to say.

To say that "the Generals are telling us we don't need any more troops" is disingenuous. It was Rummy's dictate all along what the troop levels should be. By making these decisions seem to come from the hand-picked Generals, however, the Bushies conveniently set up the military to be the fall guy for what were Rummy's and Bush's bad, politically motivated decisions.

Where is the outrage over this blaming of the military?

Mark-

These straw men are going to blow down on Tuesday.

First off, most of what goes on in Iraq isn't terrorism. It's a civil war. Many generals have called for more troops, and they get fired or asked to resign because this goes against Rummy's failed ideology.

Second, your claim that American citizens who have liberal political belief wish for the "terrorists" to claim victory puts you on the finges of political dialogue...Coulterville/Hannityland. It's absurd. What the majority of Americans believe is that the current strategy isn't working. I am a liberal and was opposed to the war on Iraq, but greatly in favor of the actual war on terror. You Mark, know well, but aren't willing to admit, that had a Democratic president done as Bush has done in Iraq, you'd be gloating over his impeachment right now. You people are so bound to the GOP that you absolve them of all wrongdoing.

Like I said, even those of us who opposed the war in the beginning want to see a reasonable resolution now that we've broken the country. There are three viable options. One is to leave immediately. That seems like a bad idea. Another is to send more troops to stabilize the country and restore order, which Bush and Rummey refuse to do and when they are asked, the generals get fired. The third option is to stay the current course and see what happens.

You tell me what the best option is. "Victory" in Iraq can't happen like Versailles or Appamattox. There won't be a time when Sadr or Ansaar al Islam or anyone else sits down and signs a treaty. You people have yet to define victory yet you're quick to accuse liberals of cheering for the defeat of Americans. That makes you look despicable in the eyes of your fellow countrymen. Liberals like me live in the city that was attacked, not by Saddam, but Osama bin Laden. We would cheer his capture or death. We liberals love our country every bit as much as you do and we will fight to preserve what we believe in.

Shame on you for suggesting otherwise. You know better, but like Malkin and others, you preach hatred of the left in hopes of making the Limbaugh Bucks. That ship has sailed. Liberals like me want real dialogue in America and we want to respect people like you. But you make it tough.

I'm still committed because at the end of the day, you are an American and so am I. Like it or not, we're in this thing together and I refuse to hate you like you hate people like me. Call me a liberal wuss all you like, but I want my country to heal from the past 14 years of partisan hatred.

If you really loved America, you would show respect for those with whom you disagree and refrain from slandering them.

Too bad you won't.

Just enough to do exactly what? Watch these people kill each other, and get our troops killed in the crossfire? Checkpoints are being lifted at Shia militia strongholds by the Iraqi government which also wants to order about American ground troops. Whose in charge over there?
Even if there were a contrary opinion on troop numbers, how would the Generals voice it without having their comments seized on by both administration supporters or critics, and getting their words twisted 6 different ways to Sunday. In this environment, it might be better to stay quiet, and do what you can to nake sure the troops are adequately supplied and protected, until somebody can figure out what to do.

Aarontime,

Spoken as one who know absolutely nothing about the military, except the lies, distortion, and half-truths you get from DU and Kos.

No one is blaming the generals for anything. It is the left who is pointing fingers for a "failure" that has not occurred.

Here's a little on the background of these "hand-picked" Generals:

Gen Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Was promoted to General and assumed duties as the Commander in Chief, United States Southern Command in September 2000. (That means he was selected for this critical command by....wait for it.....William Cohen and President Clinton)

Gen Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff. Served as Commander, United States Special Operations Command from November 1997 to November 2000. (That means he was selected for this critical command by....wait for it.....William Cohen and President Clinton)

You can say the same for the rest of the senior leadership of the services.

Yea Matt, everything's going so well in Iraq it's hard to know who to praise. Oh, wait a minute, Bush says Rumsfled's doing a "fantastic job." Now we know who's really deserving of the honor...

Thanks for nothin' guys.

Aarontime: “Where is the outrage over this blaming of the military?”

Those on the right are not blaming the military for anything (except in individual cases where warranted) because the right sees the overall progress being made and realize our military, our allies and the Iraqi people are the reason for this success. We are proud of our military.

The left however see problems with EVERYTHING. They blame Bush and his administration for everything and always seem critical of the military. Not enough, too much, wrong place, wrong time, wrong reasons, guilty for this & that, we don’t need to wait for any investigation we just know they’re guilty… The left are always unhappy and I believe the American people are tired of hearing them whine ALL OF THE TIME!

All you have Aaron is a plate of unsubstantiated slop. You make a number of accusations and generalizations thinking they sound good but in the end you have nothing even worth discussing. When you grow up and care for a REAL discussion, feel free to come back, otherwise all you do is make the sound of a mosquito. Most people around here have no use for mosquitoes but occasionally have fun swatting them.

A (not the warthog) - 10

For whatever their other respected qualifications (which are many - nobody is doubting that), Generals Myers and Pace are well-known "yes men".

I am prohibited from posting links on this website. However, read this from an article by journalist Mark Folman:

There is another reason active-duty commanders may be less likely to dissent these days, according to Irvine. "All of the people currently in positions at the two-, three- and four-star level have been extensively interviewed and handpicked by Rumsfeld. Some people would say there's nothing unusual about that, but I think there is." Historically, Irvine said, the top generals are selected by military promotion boards. "Yes, they are political positions, and the defense secretary has final say in the appointment. But in the past there has been more deference to the boards. I don't know that there has been this level of politicization of the generals' officer corps under any prior administration."

And this piece by military analyst Joseph Galloway over at military (dot) com from 2003:

WASHINGTON - The shakeup came suddenly. Late Friday, Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White abruptly resigned without explanation after a meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz.

White's departure and the coming retirements of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki and Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane will clear the way for Rumsfeld to install his own handpicked Army leaders and put his stamp on the Army's force structure, doctrine and training.

snip

From the day he arrived in the Pentagon, Rumsfeld has been at war with the Army's top generals - veterans of combat in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Mogadishu, Haiti, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and with some of the top leadership of the other services, as well. Navy Secretary Gordon England has left to become deputy secretary of homeland security, and Air Force secretary James Roche has also had a number of bruising encounters with Rumsfeld, who Pentagon officials said has a habit of publicly ridiculing those who disagree with him.

Relations between Rumsfeld and the Army became even frostier in late February, when senators pressed Shinseki at a hearing to estimate how many soldiers he thought it would take to secure the peace in postwar Iraq. Shinseki reluctantly testified that he thought it might require "several hundred thousand," based on his experience as commander of peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz publicly called that estimate grossly exaggerated.

When White was asked about Shinseki's estimates, he cited the general's experience in such matters. Published reports at the time said Rumsfeld wanted to fire White on the spot for supporting the Army chief of staff.

And Hersh's piece in the New Yorker:

One witness to a meeting recalled Rumsfeld confronting General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, in front of many junior officers. “He was looking at the Chief and waving his hand,” the witness said, “saying, ‘Are you getting this yet? Are you getting this yet?’”

Gradually, Rumsfeld succeeded in replacing those officers in senior Joint Staff positions who challenged his view. “All the Joint Staff people now are handpicked, and churn out products to make the Secretary of Defense happy,” the planner said. “They don’t make military judgments—they just respond to his snowflakes.”

In the months leading up to the war, a split developed inside the military, with the planners and their immediate superiors warning that the war plan was dangerously thin on troops and matériel, and the top generals—including General Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, and Air Force General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—supporting Rumsfeld. After Turkey’s parliament astonished the war planners in early March by denying the United States permission to land the 4th Infantry Division in Turkey, Franks initially argued that the war ought to be delayed until the troops could be brought in by another route, a former intelligence official said. “Rummy overruled him.”

Many of the present and former officials I spoke to were critical of Franks for his perceived failure to stand up to his civilian superiors. A former senator told me that Franks was widely seen as a commander who “will do what he’s told.” A former intelligence official asked, “Why didn’t he go to the President?” A Pentagon official recalled that one senior general used to prepare his deputies for meetings with Rumsfeld by saying, “When you go in to talk to him, you’ve got to be prepared to lay your stars on the table and walk out. Otherwise, he’ll walk over you.”

And finally, here's what General John Batiste testified before congress a couple months ago:

Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. He knows everything, except “how to win.” He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq, or the human dimension of warfare. Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build “his plan,” which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace, and set Iraq up for self-reliance.

Here is what else Hersh has said about the Bush administration and the military, and he cant chalk it up to an anonymous 'witness'. No bias here, nosir.

“The bad news,” investigative reporter Seymour Hersh told a Montreal audience last Wednesday, “is that there are 816 days left in the reign of King George II of America. The good news? When we wake up tomorrow morning, there will be one less day.”

"If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans"

“In Washington, you can’t expect any rationality. I don’t know if he’s in Iraq because God told him to, because his father didn’t do it, or because it’s the next step in his 12-step Alcoholics Anonymous program,”

"there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”

"First off, most of what goes on in Iraq isn't terrorism".

Thanks to Mark and others who run this site that allow dissenting opinions. It opens the window to the mind of the truly misinformed.

DougW. I can tell by the above quote that you are unfortunately a by-product of your spoon fed education. Good luck with the rest of your life.

npfl-

Back your post up.

What goes on in Iraq isn't the same as 9/11 or Madrid or Bali. What goes on there is people who hate the US blowing up an occupying force. Like it or not, that's what we are. Then there is sectarian violence. Them's the facts, and I didn't even use a spoon!

Spoken as one who know absolutely nothing about the military, except the lies, distortion, and half-truths you get from DU and Kos.

Posted by: A-10 at November 2, 2006 03:55 PM

This tune is wearing thin, A-10. It's getting old. Many who voice opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq have served and know what they are talking about. Please don't assume that everyone is being brainwashed by DU and Kos. These individuals have the ability to think for themselves, unlike those who buy hook, line & sinker anything coming from Fox & Co. and the like.

Aarontime,

Don't know why you can't post links, everyone else can. Do you know how? If not, I can give you a few quick tips. Just let me know.

The problem with your thesis is that most, if not all, of the 3 and 4 star Generals now serving rose to that rank before Secretary Rumsfeld became the SecDef. So that sort of blows your "hand-picked by Rummy" theory.

You are also ignoring (or perhaps you didn't know), that all of these general selections have to be confirmed by the Senate. DoD Instruction 1320 provides the guidance. It is required under law (Title 10, US Code.)In fact, every promotion above O-3 or O-4 (that's promotion to Major or LTC) requires Senate action. For the junior ranks (O-4 to O-6), the nominations go in bulk. For Generals, the recommentation goes individually to the Senate for a vote. By the time it gets to the Seante, it has been nominated by a Service Secretary, forwarded by the SecDef, and signed off by the President. The SecDef doesn't just pick and choose who he wants. The Senate has a say in the selection process.

Having said all that, I guess you have to balance the opinions of a retired two-star with those of 3 and 4 stars still serving. Sure MG Batiste was the Cdr of the 1st ID in Iraq. He was also thought highly enough to be recommended for promotion to LTG, but he declined.

In closing, let me say that it is easy to play "Monday-morning Quarterback" from the sidelines and take potshots at the SecDef and the President. You notice, hoever, that the SecDef and the President have enough class not to blow these "Monday-morning Quarterbacks" out of the morning. They have bigger fish to fry. Like fighting and winning the War on Terror.

morning = water

A-10: "Aarontime, Don't know why you can't post links, everyone else can."

Actually, I can't either. Anything more than a few lines or so with more than one html embedded link and I get a message indicating that I haven't signed into typekey (which I have) and my comment will be posted after review. But of course it never does get posted. I've tried putting links in parentheses too, but the same thing happens. So I've pretty much given up.

A-10,
People that mix metaphors aren't batting with a full deck.

They didn't blow Monday morning quarterbacks out of the water because they have bigger fish to fry?

Wait, what was that middle thing again?

More troops will not solve any problems.

We do not need more sitting ducks in Irag.

Bane,

You like mixed metaphors I see. Batting with a full deck?

Geez. At least I put a period between the sentences and didn't run them together.

I guess that's what you get when you try to keep up with comments on 3-4 threads on 2-3 blogs. Hurried responses.

And keep you eyes off my middle thing. I don't know you well enough.

Ricorun & Aarontime,

Maybe its a conservative plot against liberals.

Have you sent the moderators a message about the html problem? I haven't had any problems with embedded links, although I still get an error page once in a while and lose a brilliant commentary. I have learned to copy my comments to the "clipboard" before posting to ensure I don't lose everything.

Some folks type their comments offline in Word and copy them to the comments box. Have you tried that?

The proper html code should be (substitue the "less than" sign for * and the "greater than" sign for $)

start of link: *a href="put your url here"$

Then type in the plaintext of the link, such as

David Copperfield

Then the end of the link: */a$

Let me know if it works.

Thanks A-10, I'll try that and let you know.

These individuals have the ability to think for themselves, unlike those who buy hook, line & sinker anything coming from Fox & Co. and the like.

Dont you mean 'Fox and Co.' or 'Fox and the like'?

Anyhoo, who would be the 'Co.', all those staunch conservative MSM outlets such as the NYT, LAT, WAP, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR and PBS?

Face it, when liberals try to counter claims that the MSM isnt biased, they say "Fox and others", but they can never, ever specify who the others are. Its ALWAYS Fox and..uh..those other guys. Why do you think that is?

A-10

"You are also ignoring (or perhaps you didn't know), that all of these general selections have to be confirmed by the Senate."

Right. Uh, in case you haven't noticed, all Senate committees have been in Repub control. Senate Repubs have shown themselves to be little more than rubber-stampers for Bush.

Thanks for the offer of instruction, but I do know how to do embed links. If you look through any of my past postings, I used to put lots of embedded links to document sources. Then, starting about 2 weeks ago, everytime I put in a link, I get the message that my post has to be reviewed - and then it never gets posted. So when you whine at me to provide a source link, please realize I'm a little ham-strung over here. The same thing seems to be happening to all of the regular posters who are not Bush cultists.

I would appeal to Mark - who has been quite fair in the past in allowing dissenting posters - to rectify this. (But in the end, I realize it's Mark's site to do with as he pleases!)

Democrats are so short-sighted. They have no idea how to fight a war.

Freedom1 -

"Democrats are so short-sighted. They have no idea how to fight a war."

As opposed to that far-sighted war-fighting genius, Donald Rumsfeld?

Call me a liberal wuss all you like, but I want my country to heal from the past 14 years of partisan hatred.

You're a liberal wuss who posts a bunch of talking points, Douggie, and then acts as if you're not exhibiting partisan hatred.

You stupid ass. We didn't "break Iraq," as you put it--it was already broken, you moron!!!

A-10, Errortime knows nothing about the military, neither do CO--axass and Canuckgay's toyboy--or Douggie the TP parrot. They all sound like their heroes--Alan Colmes, BJ Clinton, and Susan Esterich.

I was in the military for 20 years--the guy who sits as SecDef is an executive. He's not the sole decision-maker. That's what the JCS, and the officers who serve under the JCS do. All these people are pretty smart people; unlike your normal, run-of-the-mill government job where everyone gets promoted over time, generals are appointed, and each star is earned.

I know you trolls are drinking the kool-aid; your posts reek of groupthink. But contrary to what you've been brainwashed to believe, Rummy didn't pull the strings without help.

I should also add that Democrats are myopic. They focus on the controversy du jour and can't see the big picture.

VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

Aarontime,

"Right. Uh, in case you haven't noticed, all Senate committees have been in Repub control. Senate Repubs have shown themselves to be little more than rubber-stampers for Bush. "

Back to school. Under the Senate's "holds" practice, any senator can block action indefinitely and anonymously on a nomination, promotion or legislation. So if a Democrat Seantor has a problem with a promotion, he can put a "hold" on it.

They go through the Senate Armed Services Committee, but any Senator can effectively stop a promotion if he/she sees fit.

Freedom1, I must take issue with your statement that democrats do not know how to fight a war.

They most certainly DO know how to fight a war, in the best French tradition, no less; beg for mercy until the the shooting starts, then drop the guns and run like hell.

Its the liberal way.

4th Light Horse,

Bwahahaha!!!
:)

Ha. Too true. Thanx for the laugh!
:)

A-10 -

"Back to school. Under the Senate's "holds" practice, any senator can block action indefinitely and anonymously on a nomination, promotion or legislation. So if a Democrat Seantor has a problem with a promotion, he can put a "hold" on it.

They go through the Senate Armed Services Committee, but any Senator can effectively stop a promotion if he/she sees fit.

Please. Wouldn't you Repubs just love that. You know very well that if the Dems did that, they would be seen as "military hating" obstructionists. You would only block a nomination in the most extreme circumstances. In these cases, the Generals in question are all fit commanders, but they were also chosen specifically to tow Rumsfeld's line.

Crapola like "The Dems could have blocked their nomination", and "the Generals could have asked for more troops", are all part of the disingenuous and diversionary tactics that everyone is finally starting to see through.

All,

The NYT (I know, that taints the news) is confirming in an article tomorrow that in 2002 Saddam Hussein’s “scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.”

While the NYT is condemning the Bush Administration for posting translated documents on the internet, it is also confirming that Saddam was much closer to building a nuke than previously thought.

Aarontime,

You flunk.

In 2004, Senator Larry Craig blocked hundreds of Air Force promotions for 18 months (and he was a Republican!)

In 2005, Democrats threatened to block all military promotions if Republicans used the "nuclear option" to force through judicial appointments.

There have also been instances of Senators blocking individual promotions.

"Crapola like "The Dems could have blocked their nomination", and "the Generals could have asked for more troops", are all part of the disingenuous and diversionary tactics that everyone is finally starting to see through."

Dream on. Your "everyone" is the small group of liberals you hang out with.

So you don't believe the President, the SecDef, the Chair of the JCS, and the Combatant Commanders when they all say that if the Commanders in theater want more troops, they will get them. Oops.....I forgot......everything Bush and his cronies say are lies.

I must believe what DU and KOS say. I must believe what DU and KOS say. I must believe........

Good Stuff Matt! Your right. We'll just keep on doing what we have been doing. The progress is spreading over Iraq like the fog on a San Francisco morning. Stay the course? We never have. We'll keep adjusting and keeping those Al Quedas off track. 250 million dollars a day is a mere pittance when you look at the big picture. Our humanitarian efforts are not going unrecognized. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet they say. Yes, I say yes this war of fighting against angry islamist extremists is going on 5 years, just as long as the last big one. But nobody said peace comes overnight. Our iraqi friends are almost ready, almost to the point of taking over for us. Leading the middle east in a model of our democratic way. Peace, and stability for the region.

Can't you just feel it? The air is thick with triumph. Just a while longer. We don't need any more soldiers. We fight with the military we have. Not the military we want.

Bravo Rummie! You're doing a heck of a job.

Well now, I just have to disagree. Nope, we don't have enough people in Iraq. You know who's missing?

Queer Eye for the Iraq Guy!

I mean... well burkas and robes? They are so 9th century. They definately need a new wardrobe! And AK-47's? Sooooo last year. No self-respecting gang-banger would carry one. I recommend a nice Glock in 9mm darling.

And whats up with disguising the roadside bombs as curbings and stuff! Where's the pride in that? PINK! They should all be PINK! Oooooo I wish we could get some liberals into the military to give Iraq what it REALLY needs - a complete and massive makeover! Nothing would make those sunnis and shiites behave like a little leather jump suit would!

The less Democrats and liberals serve - the more out of touch you are. Really, we don't care much about your opinions about military and diplomatic affairs. Nice nails though.

npfl-

Back your post up.

What goes on in Iraq isn't the same as 9/11 or Madrid or Bali. What goes on there is people who hate the US blowing up an occupying force. Like it or not, that's what we are. Then there is sectarian violence. Them's the facts, and I didn't even use a spoon!

Posted by: DougW at November 2, 2006 06:13 PM

Oh yah, you backed that one up real good there doug.

Tis amazing, you libs won't even have conversation with the MAJORITY SOLDIER on the actual ground in Iraq(maybe cause they don't support your opinions), but the NYT & CNN are the law when it comes to what is happening in Iraq. You guys are fools & it WILL catch up to you one of these days.

Good Stuff Matt! Your right.

Hertofore, any troll who misuses the words "your," "yore," and "you're," is totally discredited.

Of course, raper13year-old was discredited long ago, back when the abortion failed...

Heretofore, I will proofread my own posts for spelling errors.

It wasn't a spelling error--it was a botched joke, and I apologize to noone!!!

OK, keefer, how did you do that? It's 8:16 AM, Friday morning, November 3rd EST, and your last 2 posts are stamped 11/3/06 at 4:56 and 4:57 PM. Did you finally get that time machine working? Heh, heh. Have a great weekend.

Retired Spook,

Looks like someone has conquered the time/space continuum.

Gotta get me one of them time machines. Want to go back to 1975 and invest some money in Microsoft.