Bush Admin Word Change

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Now, as far as touting Keane to replace Shinseki. That came from the Washington post, which quoted “Pentagon Officials,” not named. It’s never been established where the information actually came from, or that it was factual. In the end, as it turned out, Keane wasn’t “tapped” for the job. Peter Shoomaker was, Keane wasn’t. General Shinseki finished his full term, and was succeeded. That is the overwhelming precedent for the position.

Dude, you need to understand a little bit more about power and politics before believing all the flat little reports that come out.

Of course everything will always supposedly be done “by the book”, that’s the way it works. There are statements backing up everything from the “person in charge” no matter how fucked up things are going with this situation or any other in the government.

It’s not a conspiracy theory, it is a reality of life. There is a difference. I’m just saying, try to consider the way people actually do things, not the way they try to present things.

The Bush administration has been very heavy fisted about silencing internal opposition and presenting a solid front, and people here and there with dissenting opinions have felt the consequences of that.[/quote]

Vroom, I understand your point. But, because one doesn’t like Bush, one shouldn’t assume what they’ve heard is true.

I pointed out that only two generals have ever stayed past the 4 year term. Ever. Was his leaving after four years, knowing the precedent, unusual? Yes or no?

Has anyone ever been able to identify the source for the Washington Post, or in some other way verify the claim?

For all we know, the “Pentagon officials” we’re going off of water cooler talk (speculation) and took it for fact.

“Hey, who do you think will get the job after Shinseki?”

“I’m betting Keane, he’s pretty sharp.”

It eventually get’s passed down to a reporter as “Yeah, It’s known that Keane is going to get tapped for the position.”

Speculation? You bet. There’s no verification either way.

Did Keane actually get “tapped?” Or did someone completely different?

Shinseki is retired, has he claimed this?

We can both speculate, or we can look at verifiable facts. Shinseki served his full term. The guy that succeeded him is not Keane.

62

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
General Shinseki disagreed with the WH and Pentagon and he got S canned:

"The Army’s top general said Tuesday a military occupying force for a postwar Iraq could total several hundred thousand soldiers.

Iraq is “a piece of geography that’s fairly significant,” Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he said any postwar occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with “ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm

General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied

The Iraq war started in March 2003 and Shinseki is on the record for requesting more troops long before the start of the war.

Stick a fork in this thread because it is done!

The premise is false. Shinseki was not canned for his suggestion. His four year term was up. Only two have served longer than the four year term. Generals McArthur and Marshall. That’s over the entire 103 year history of the position.
[/quote]

Uh-oh…there you go with those FACTS again!!

63

[quote]Sloth wrote:
About the cheering. While I do appreciate if someone feels like I’ve made a good arguement, I’d rather attempt to stay more civil. [/quote]

First of all, you are one brilliant person and very well-read. Your input is stellar!

Secondly, it WOULD be cool if we were all more civil. I am going to follow your example. Takers?

64

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
The whole “Rumsfeld Doctrine” is based around the idea of operating in a theater with reduced troop numbers, using technology to make up for the deficit. It calls (or called) for fast, nimble units to scout for enemy, who are then hit via precision airstrike.

It doesn’t work so well for urban guerilla warfare.

In fact, if you look at Iraq and Afghanistan, the two places where the Rumsfeld Doctrine was implemented, I’d say it’s currently 0 for 2.

Rumsfeld wish was to be able to operate in 4 or 5 worldwide theater without having to recruit and support a massive number of troops.

Turns out it’s barely feasible to operate in 2 theathers; even when one of the two has a large contingency of NATO members (Afghanistan).

If only Rumsfeld was half as smart as he think he is…

Actually, we went in to Iraq with the troop levels General Franks asked for.[/quote]

Which is different entirely from troop levels wanted by the military…Rummy’s initial want was 75,000, and Franks is an idiot who didn’t listen to his subordinates either, most of whom already disliked him after his strategic blundery in afghanistan. Throughout 2002 Rummy and Franks ignored military planning at the constant dismay of subordinates, and of course you don’t mention, Franks would bring war plans back from his meetings with Rummy.
So no, it’s not true that troop levels were always on the table, anymore than any other planning was.

65

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sloth appears to have FACTS and administration quotes, while those arguing with him have their opinions.

Sloth is kicking your asses.[/quote]
He actually appears to be factually incorrect–at least on the premise of:

MYTH: Secretary Rumsfeld ignored military advice to increase troop levels in Iraq.

FACTS: The opposite is true. Rather than ignoring the recommendations of senior military commanders, civilian leaders have relied heavily on their advice.

I mean this is totally,totally false.

66

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:

The fact is Shinseki was the top general and Franks was not.

Shinseki is on the record stating that many more troops were needed and we did not send more troops.

Shinseki’s replacement (Keane) was announced 15 months before Shinseki’s term was up which is unprecedented.

Iraq was on the WH radar screen in January 2001 and Shinseki was telling Rumsfeld and anyone who would listen that 400K to 500K troops were needed.

Keane was touted as the go to guy after Rumsfeld announcement.

If that is not being fired than I don’t know what is.

From everything I’ve ever read, Gen. Franks was the top commander. My understanding is that Gen. Shinseki was US Army Chief of Staff. A specific branch. While, Gen Franks was the Commander-in-Chief of US Central Command. Leader of the Armed forces in total, during the war and post war. Note that the top commander of forces, General John Abizaid, succeeded him.

That has always been my understanding. Any military folk want to clear that up?

Now, as far as touting Keane to replace Shinseki. That came from the Washington post, which quoted “Pentagon Officials,” not named. It’s never been established where the information actually came from, or that it was factual. In the end, as it turned out, Keane wasn’t “tapped” for the job. Peter Shoomaker was, Keane wasn’t. General Shinseki finished his full term, and was succeeded. That is the overwhelming precedent for the position.

Yes, Shinseki did say that, but as I’ve already outlined General Franks reasoning, see above.
[/quote]

Not the precedent, the successor is normally announced at the very last minute, not 14 months before the end of term…this is totally unprecedented and an obvious calculated insult(one of many), it in effect made Shinseki a lame duck.

67

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
General Shinseki disagreed with the WH and Pentagon and he got S canned:

"The Army’s top general said Tuesday a military occupying force for a postwar Iraq could total several hundred thousand soldiers.

Iraq is “a piece of geography that’s fairly significant,” Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he said any postwar occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with “ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm

General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied

The Iraq war started in March 2003 and Shinseki is on the record for requesting more troops long before the start of the war.

Stick a fork in this thread because it is done!

The premise is false. Shinseki was not canned for his suggestion. His four year term was up. Only two have served longer than the four year term. Generals McArthur and Marshall. That’s over the entire 103 year history of the position.
[/quote]

So Rummy didn’t announce his successor 14 months early because he testified accurate troop levels and financial costs?

68

[quote]100meters wrote:

Not the precedent, the successor is normally announced at the very last minute, not 14 months before the end of term…this is totally unprecedented and an obvious calculated insult(one of many), it in effect made Shinseki a lame duck.[/quote]

Could you link the announcement?

69

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
General Shinseki disagreed with the WH and Pentagon and he got S canned:

"The Army’s top general said Tuesday a military occupying force for a postwar Iraq could total several hundred thousand soldiers.

Iraq is “a piece of geography that’s fairly significant,” Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he said any postwar occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with “ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm

General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied

The Iraq war started in March 2003 and Shinseki is on the record for requesting more troops long before the start of the war.

Stick a fork in this thread because it is done!

The premise is false. Shinseki was not canned for his suggestion. His four year term was up. Only two have served longer than the four year term. Generals McArthur and Marshall. That’s over the entire 103 year history of the position.

So Rummy didn’t announce his successor 14 months early because he testified accurate troop levels and financial costs?[/quote]

Could you link this announcement?

70

[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:

Not the precedent, the successor is normally announced at the very last minute, not 14 months before the end of term…this is totally unprecedented and an obvious calculated insult(one of many), it in effect made Shinseki a lame duck.

Could you link the announcement?

[/quote]

for context:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/03/sprj.irq.white.iraq.troops/

Hilarious snark in this one
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-babbin030603.asp
"As soon as the war began, Shinseki began trying to keep the Army from having to fight it. When the Army was asked what it would take to destroy the terrorists in Afghanistan, Shinseki responded that the entire XVIII Corps ? about 50,000 men ? would be needed, and would require several months of training, mobilization, and deployment. As a result, the Afghanistan campaign began without the Army. In November 2001, Rumsfeld asked Shinseki what it would take to defeat Iraq. Shinseki assured him it would take a huge number of troops ? a number, in fact, that actually exceeded the active-duty strength of the entire Army. Instead of finding ways to support the president’s policies, Shinseki has repeatedly resorted to obstruction and delay. Last week, he did something much worse.

On February 25, Shinseki testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Levin asked him to “give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army’s force requirement for an occupation of Iraq?” Any general officer ? especially one as political as Shinseki ? would have corrected the question before answering it, because the very premise of an extended “occupation” is antithetical to President Bush’s policy of liberation. (It also plays right into the hands of opponents in Europe and the Middle East who claim that our real objective is only to occupy Iraq and seize its oil.) Instead of correcting Levin, Shinseki answered that “something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers” would be required. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were both angered by the response, and the next day Wolfowitz issued a pointed statement noting that Shinseki’s estimate was “wildly off the mark.” According to one report, Wolfowitz went out of his way to repudiate Shinseki, adding that “Shinseki’s prediction came at a delicate time when the Bush administration is trying to piece together a broad-based coalition to support an invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.” And still Shinseki remains."

I love the indignation at the suggestion that we would be occupying Iraq…ah, the credibility at National Review: ZERO.

71

Ok, let me make this easy. You claimed Shinseki’s replacement was ANNOUNCED 14 months early. You’ve linked refrences to the repeated unverified story, without a known source, which claimed Keane had been tapped. Yet, as we know, Keane didn’t get the job. This is a point that’s been argued here.

Again, I ask for a link to an ANNOUNCEMENT of Shinseki’s replacement.

72

We don’t have an extended occupaton policy. We will not be staying en masse. Iraq doesn’t have a constitution forbiding a robust military and police force, for example. It will not rely on the US to be it’s military defense. This is, and has been, the policy. Train up those forces while turning over securtiy responsibilites. Get out.

73

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We don’t have an extended occupaton policy. We will not be staying en masse. Iraq doesn’t have a constitution forbiding a robust military and police force, for example. It will not rely on the US to be it’s military defense. This is, and has been, the policy. Train up those forces while turning over securtiy responsibilites. Get out.[/quote]

Dude, you need to relax a little bit on the official declaration of this and that as if it is all that matters.

The US has bases in many places, such as Germany, Japan, South Korea and so on. The US is not occupying those countries either!

However, given the nature of the propaganda that is being used in the Middle East, they are being told that the US never leaves… and they can point to such bases in other countries as “proof”.

Yes, I know, it’s bullshit, they are friends and the bases are there because they want them there.

However, the way the world works is not based on fully informed opinions. The populations in many countries are fed propaganda and have very little access to information that would allow them to understand issues more accurately.

Similarly, in Washington, a lot of things happen that aren’t handled via official channels. Yes, I know it’s hard to imagine, but sometimes leaks are done for a political purpose.

I agree, use of the word “announced” implies it was official and you are saying it wasn’t, and in that sense you would be correct, but whether or not something was officially done isn’t really the important point here.

I know everyone wants the world to be a simple and easy to understand place, where the official word is the last word on everything. I’m afraid it has never been that way in the past and will probably never be that way in the future.

We are playing chess and not checkers… even though the board happens to look exactly the same.