[quote]Wreckless wrote:
…
Plenty of jackasses did. They were rediculed.
You were probably one of the rediculers.
But who looks stupid now.[/quote]
The person that cannot spell ridiculed or use a question mark at the end of a sentence.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
One thing that really bothers me is they are saying the invasion of Iraq was a mistake in the first place.
That is a valid opinion and it will be debated for decades but it was not Rummy’s decision.
YOU WISH! This will not be debated for decades. It’s a hughe fuck-up. It was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain then. And it’s pretty obvious to those without half a brain by now.
Rummy is a mean and tough old bird. No question he rubs people the wrong way but to blame him for invading Iraq is stupid.
It just calls into question everything else they say.
Well, don’t keep us in suspence. Who’s decision was it then? Or perhaps it was Rummy’s turn to be left “out of the loop”?[/quote]
There are millions of Iraqis that don’t think liberation was a mistake.
Do you seriously think the SecDef makes the decision to go to war?
Or are you just a troll?
Or both?
Myers made a very good point today. He stated that all of these Generals had an oopportunity to dissent but choose not too. He also stated that a General is held to a higher standard, even in retirement. Further he stated that a general officer should never count on a promotion beyond the job he has…that is the way of the military. Fascinating stuff.
Wreckless, I am basing my statemnts on comments by rhe Sec Def and the Generals themselves. Sureley one of them noted in writing they disagreed. I am sure you can find that link if it exists. One of them surely dissented before the operations were taken don’t you think…or are you that naive. Try and put your hatred of Bush aside and think clearly for a moment. Find a reference.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
g-doll:
Thank you for the time you took to write out your response.
It’s quite evident that we agree on very little.
[/quote]
No, it’s quite evident you don’t know what you’re talking about and are too blinded by partisanship to want to educate yourself.
In answer to your patronizing question, I have no idea who would replace him. A legislator with a great deal of defense experience, a Sam Nunn or a John McCain would be great, but I doubt either would take it.
Whoever it is should immediately redouble our efforts in Iraq, probably beginning with securing Baghdad (the fact that we don’t even have control over the capital is pretty stunning when you think about it).
Then make every possible effort to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps, which are both obviously too small for both their present missions and future stresses. This would take a couple of years to bear fruit, but the fact that it isn’t being done is unbelievable. Spend more on men, less on machines. This would also lessen our reliance on contractors, which has a lot of negative side effects, particularly in a war like this.
And finally, fundamentally reevaluate Rumsfeld’s “transformational” agenda (here’s just one issue symptomatic of the bigger problems: STUDY FINDS ARMY TRANSFORMATION PLAN WEAKENS COMBAT CAPABILITY by Elaine M. Grossman ).
[quote]hedo wrote:
Myers made a very good point today. He stated that all of these Generals had an oopportunity to dissent but choose not too. He also stated that a General is held to a higher standard, even in retirement. Further he stated that a general officer should never count on a promotion beyond the job he has…that is the way of the military. Fascinating stuff.
[/quote]
Geez, General Myers is gonna be your defense against the rising tide of generals blasting Rumsfeld? That’s the pot calling the kettle black right there.
And in Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor’s book Cobra II, about the Iraq War, on page 46:
"Myers once jested during a Pentagon briefing for the press that he and Rumsfeld shared a "mind meld," but there were those who had a less charitable view. After hearing Rumsfeld testify on troops levels around the world, Senator John McCain...said cuttingly there was no need to hear from Myers as well since he knew the chairman was incapable of expressing an independent view."
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Myers made a very good point today. He stated that all of these Generals had an oopportunity to dissent but choose not too. He also stated that a General is held to a higher standard, even in retirement. Further he stated that a general officer should never count on a promotion beyond the job he has…that is the way of the military. Fascinating stuff.
Geez, General Myers is gonna be your defense against the rising tide of generals blasting Rumsfeld? That’s the pot calling the kettle black right there.
And in Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor’s book Cobra II, about the Iraq War, on page 46:
"Myers once jested during a Pentagon briefing for the press that he and Rumsfeld shared a "mind meld," but there were those who had a less charitable view. After hearing Rumsfeld testify on troops levels around the world, Senator John McCain...said cuttingly there was no need to hear from Myers as well since he knew the chairman was incapable of expressing an independent view."[/quote]
Rising tide? Wow are they up to 6 now…out of thousands. If they weren’t speaking out against something nobody would pay attention to them.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has credibility. Difficult to accept since it doesn’t fit the argument but true nonetheless.
[quote]hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Myers made a very good point today. He stated that all of these Generals had an oopportunity to dissent but choose not too. He also stated that a General is held to a higher standard, even in retirement. Further he stated that a general officer should never count on a promotion beyond the job he has…that is the way of the military. Fascinating stuff.
Geez, General Myers is gonna be your defense against the rising tide of generals blasting Rumsfeld? That’s the pot calling the kettle black right there.
And in Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor’s book Cobra II, about the Iraq War, on page 46:
"Myers once jested during a Pentagon briefing for the press that he and Rumsfeld shared a "mind meld," but there were those who had a less charitable view. After hearing Rumsfeld testify on troops levels around the world, Senator John McCain...said cuttingly there was no need to hear from Myers as well since he knew the chairman was incapable of expressing an independent view."
Rising tide? Wow are they up to 6 now…out of thousands. If they weren’t speaking out against something nobody would pay attention to them.
[/quote]
By all accounts they represent many more, both retired and active duty. And I’m not sure what that last sentence means, obviously they wouldn’t be in the news if they weren’t speaking out against Rumsfeld’s disastrous performance. Point being?
If you want to attack these guys as being political generals, Myers is far more in that mold than they are. And, he is Rumsfeld’s creature, so naturally leaps to his defense.
And you’re still ignoring the substance of what they’re saying to attack the fact that they’re saying it at all.
When Bush is finally out of office, I predict a lot of speaking up and dirty laundry will come to the surface… from all quarters (not just defence).
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Myers made a very good point today. He stated that all of these Generals had an oopportunity to dissent but choose not too. He also stated that a General is held to a higher standard, even in retirement. Further he stated that a general officer should never count on a promotion beyond the job he has…that is the way of the military. Fascinating stuff.
Geez, General Myers is gonna be your defense against the rising tide of generals blasting Rumsfeld? That’s the pot calling the kettle black right there.
And in Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor’s book Cobra II, about the Iraq War, on page 46:
"Myers once jested during a Pentagon briefing for the press that he and Rumsfeld shared a "mind meld," but there were those who had a less charitable view. After hearing Rumsfeld testify on troops levels around the world, Senator John McCain...said cuttingly there was no need to hear from Myers as well since he knew the chairman was incapable of expressing an independent view."
Rising tide? Wow are they up to 6 now…out of thousands. If they weren’t speaking out against something nobody would pay attention to them.
By all accounts they represent many more, both retired and active duty. And I’m not sure what that last sentence means, obviously they wouldn’t be in the news if they weren’t speaking out against Rumsfeld’s disastrous performance. Point being?
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has credibility. Difficult to accept since it doesn’t fit the argument but true nonetheless.
If you want to attack these guys as being political generals, Myers is far more in that mold than they are. And, he is Rumsfeld’s creature, so naturally leaps to his defense.
And you’re still ignoring the substance of what they’re saying to attack the fact that they’re saying it at all.[/quote]
But the point is that the Generals are speaking out NOW. That’s the point I have been making all along. You’ve argued that it is a “mutiny” which it clearly is not. A “rising tide” which also does not seem to be building. You’ve attacked Rumsfeld’s competence over and over…but the point is why are the General’s speaking out now when they had ample opportunity to do so in the past and why would any one admire them for doing so. The majority of their peers are no doubt offended by it.
My point is nobody would pay attention to what they are saying if they were not bashing the administration. The media is desperate for bad news and are all over this.
The substance of their argument is they do not like Rusmsfeld. OK so what. Many more in the military do, then don’t. They then state they knew better but choose not to say so because they were scared of Rummy and feared for their careers. That’s a sad reflection on their command presence if nothing else.
Finally we are asked to make the enormous leap of faith that all of these guys coodinated their thoughts and comments and made the rounds of the media circus all about the same time, with no outside direction. Then we are cautioned that is the government who is trying to smear them with it’s spin machine when in reality they are simply responding to the generals comments.
What about the substance of their comments? More troops. Sure 20/20 hindsight is very clear. None of them felt strong enough to go to the mat over it but we should consider their opinions as gospel now?
As I have said before if you are taking a Division into battle and you disagree with Centcom or the civilian leadership then you better have voiced that concerned loudly, broadly and often to your superiors and if you still are ignored AND chose to carry out the plan you better have a written document outlining your concerns, at the very least.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The military is not an organization that encourages voiced dissent…[/quote]
Perhaps, however they do instill honor and courage.
Taking the personal courage to stand up for what you believe (when it counts regardless of circumstances) is part of what honor is all about.
Had these former leaders had the personal courage and honor to stand up for what they believe when it counted, their now “opinions” would maybe have merit.
[quote]hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Myers made a very good point today. He stated that all of these Generals had an oopportunity to dissent but choose not too. He also stated that a General is held to a higher standard, even in retirement. Further he stated that a general officer should never count on a promotion beyond the job he has…that is the way of the military. Fascinating stuff.
Geez, General Myers is gonna be your defense against the rising tide of generals blasting Rumsfeld? That’s the pot calling the kettle black right there.
And in Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor’s book Cobra II, about the Iraq War, on page 46:
"Myers once jested during a Pentagon briefing for the press that he and Rumsfeld shared a "mind meld," but there were those who had a less charitable view. After hearing Rumsfeld testify on troops levels around the world, Senator John McCain...said cuttingly there was no need to hear from Myers as well since he knew the chairman was incapable of expressing an independent view."
Rising tide? Wow are they up to 6 now…out of thousands. If they weren’t speaking out against something nobody would pay attention to them.
By all accounts they represent many more, both retired and active duty. And I’m not sure what that last sentence means, obviously they wouldn’t be in the news if they weren’t speaking out against Rumsfeld’s disastrous performance. Point being?
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has credibility. Difficult to accept since it doesn’t fit the argument but true nonetheless.
If you want to attack these guys as being political generals, Myers is far more in that mold than they are. And, he is Rumsfeld’s creature, so naturally leaps to his defense.
And you’re still ignoring the substance of what they’re saying to attack the fact that they’re saying it at all.
But the point is that the Generals are speaking out NOW. That’s the point I have been making all along. You’ve argued that it is a “mutiny” which it clearly is not. A “rising tide” which also does not seem to be building. You’ve attacked Rumsfeld’s competence over and over…but the point is why are the General’s speaking out now when they had ample opportunity to do so in the past and why would any one admire them for doing so. The majority of their peers are no doubt offended by it.
[/quote]
I’d say when more of these men step forward every day it certainly looks like a rising tide. It’s obviously not a literal “mutiny”, they’re all retired, no reason to play with semantics. Richard Holbrooke, for one, thinks they speak for many serving officers:
No, the substance of their argument is not that they “do not like Rumsfeld.” Are you ignoring any and all critiques of the direction of this war?
And I sincerely doubt the majority of the Army and Marine officer corps like Rumsfeld. For evidence, just look at how many more Iraq veterans are running as Democrats versus Republicans in Congressional races this fall, it’s something like 12-1. The fact that the GOP is losing these men to the Democrats in the middle of a war it has directed speaks volumes about military faith in the Pentagon and White House.
So wait, they’re all pawns of who then? The Democrats? Not a chance in hell that career military men, all with 30+ years of service to their country, decided together that this war is being run by an incompetent Pentagon and that they had to speak out before defeat becomes inevitable huh? No chance they’re honorable men deciding to continue trying to serve their country by pushing for a change in leadership at the top?
More troops is not 20/20 hindsight, Shinseki was one of many to call for more men before the war. It’s also not a small mistake. The amount of wishful thinking at the top was and is incredible. Rumsfeld planned to have the vast majority of U.S. troops out of Iraq by that August. Unbelievable.
Even worse, there wasn’t a coherent U.S. counter-insurgency strategy until an article in Foreign Affairs on the topic appeared this past September. Two and a half years after the invasion. Obviously the Army is responsible for that, but it all comes back to the Secretary of Defense, particularly one who is a renowned micromanager like Rumsfeld.
Tell me something, are these small mistakes, or 20/20 hindsight?
As virtually everyone else on this thread has noted, you have no idea what these men said before and during the ground campaign. I also don’t think Newbold should be held in complete contempt for realizing belatedly that he was wrong, that he should have spoken up earlier, the same mistake made by generals in Vietnam.
[quote]RHINO928 wrote:
vroom wrote:
The military is not an organization that encourages voiced dissent…
Perhaps, however they do instill honor and courage.
Taking the personal courage to stand up for what you believe (when it counts regardless of circumstances) is part of what honor is all about.
Had these former leaders had the personal courage and honor to stand up for what they believe when it counted, their now “opinions” would maybe have merit.
[/quote]
In the military, you don’t get to pick and choose what orders you will follow and which ones you won’t unless those orders are illegal.
GD
Do you really think, for one moment, that if even one of these guys spoke up beforehand, that they would not be trumpeting it now?
I mean ,seriously, pointing out that I “don’t know what they said” when the Generals themselves admit to not speaking out before the war is simply trying to create an argument against me instead of debating the topic at hand.
Your hatred of Rumsfeld speaks volumes unfortunately and I don’t think that will change.
You may note then many more retired generals are now speaking out in favor of Rumsfeld then against. The Wall St. Journal opinion page for example just quoted four of them.
And no I don’t think the Democrats overtly had anything to do with coodinating them. Did I say that? I think it was the media. Do you think, in all sincerity, it was random?
Mind if I post an opinion piece that disagrees with you, Real Clear politics linked it today:
An Officer Responds To David Ignatius
A Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army sent the following email in response to David Ignatius’ assertion in the Washington Post yesterday that 75%+ of senior military officers want to see Rumsfeld gone:
"I would beg to differ with that assessment by Mr. Ignatius. I am a combat arms officer, a combat veteran of the Global War on Terror, currently serving on the faculty of one of the Staff Colleges.
My assessment from extensive and continuous contact with young field grade officers, most of which are combat arms branch, combat veterans, is that Secretary Rumsfeld is considered the finest Secretary of Defense of the last forty years. This is in addition to my “peer group”, of which many of us maintain contact with each each other regardless if we are in CONUS or SW Asia.
Maybe Mr. Ignatius has limited his conversations to Officers assigned in the Beltway. Yes, “beltway types” unfortunatly also exist in the military.
However, I can tell you that beyond the Beltway in dusty and dirty places like Ft. Benning, Ft. Stewart, Ft. Hood, Ft. Campbell and Ft. Bragg, where officers wear BDUs instead of Class Bs that there are tens of thousands of Officers, Commissioned/Warrant/Non-Commissioned, that would go to hell and back for this Secretary.
He pushes us to what we “think” is our limit, then shows us we have another ten percent to give. Secretary Rumsfelds nickname among many is the “110% Secretary.” Former Secretary Cohen, a good man whom I respected, would have been considered the “90% Secretary” as he never was able to get us to give “all.”
It’s only one email, of course, but it does provide a perspective on how Rumsfeld is viewed by the officers’ corps that stands in stark contrast to the one Ignatius gave yesterday. My hunch is that it’s also a lot closer to the truth. "
It’s about as conclusive as Ignatius’s opinion.
[quote]hedo wrote:
GD
Do you really think, for one moment, that if even one of these guys spoke up beforehand, that they would not be trumpeting it now?
I mean ,seriously, pointing out that I “don’t know what they said” when the Generals themselves admit to not speaking out before the war is simply trying to create an argument against me instead of debating the topic at hand.
[/quote]
Who are you referring to with another one of your blanket statements here? From one of the articles I linked to in the very first post on this thread:
“Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon’s top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war.”
Catch that “internally” part? And Zinni was making noise and trying to help internally before the war even broke out, he was the one who had CENTCOM dust off his old “Desert Crossing” contingency plan for Iraq, which the Pentagon had dismissed as being “too negative,” another example of a war run on wishful thinking.
So “the Generals themselves admit to not speaking out before the war”? Doesn’t look like it, certainly not in at least half of the cases I originally cited.
I don’t “hate” anyone in American politics, I’d say John Edwards is the closest I get. I think it’s a scandal that Rumsfeld is still Defense Secretary though.
No, I think Holbrooke’s probably close to the truth, that retired officers keep in touch with each other and decided something had to be done. Did you read that article?
Fair enough, although I still doubt the majority of officers love Rumsfeld.
Care to address the complaints against him though, or are you just gonna keep shooting the messengers?
[quote]I mean ,seriously, pointing out that I “don’t know what they said” when the Generals themselves admit to not speaking out before the war is simply trying to create an argument against me instead of debating the topic at hand.
[/quote]
I think what you have Hedo is a right wing twisting of their statements.
They did not speak out PUBLICLY, which does not imply that they did not speak out at all.
Apparently, people in the upper echelons of the military retire before speaking out PUBLICLY.
Here’s a good excerpt from the WSJ article by the four generals that Hedo referenced above:
[i]Moreover, despite the frustration of the current situation in Iraq, military morale remains high, as evidenced by the high re-enlistment rate of active-duty forces. This fact belies the contention that there is rising military discontent.
The notion that Secretary Rumsfeld doesn’t meet with, or ignores the advice of, senior military leaders is not founded in fact. During his tenure, senior military leaders have been involved to an unprecedented degree in every decision-making process. In addition to the Senior Level Review Group, Defense Senior Leadership Conference, and Quadrennial Defense Review, in 2005 Secretary Rumsfeld also participated in meetings involving service chiefs 110 times and combatant commanders 163 times. Gen. Myers correctly describes these meetings as “very collaborative” with a free flow of information and discussion. Gen. Tommy Franks, U.S. Central Command Commander during the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, echoes Gen. Myers’s comments and supports Secretary Rumsfeld as collaborative in the decision-making process. Gen. Franks has stated recently that he is a tough collaborator and demands sound thinking and recommendations from the senior military leadership and staff.
Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld’s military critics appears to stem from his efforts to “transform” the military by moving to a joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in nature to meet the nation’s current and future threats. Many senior officers and bureaucrats did not support his transformation goals – preferring conventional weapons of the past like the Crusader artillery piece and World War II war-fighting strategies, which prove practically useless against lawless and uncivilized enemies engaged in asymmetric warfare. It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93.[/i]
BTW, I should note the four authors are retired as well:
Lt. Gen. Crosby (ret.) is former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Lt. Gen. McInerney (ret.) is former assistant vice chief of staff, U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Moore (ret.), U.S. Air Force, was director of Central Command during Operation Desert Storm. Maj. Gen. Vallely (ret.) is former deputy commander of the U.S. Army, Pacific.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
GD
Do you really think, for one moment, that if even one of these guys spoke up beforehand, that they would not be trumpeting it now?
I mean ,seriously, pointing out that I “don’t know what they said” when the Generals themselves admit to not speaking out before the war is simply trying to create an argument against me instead of debating the topic at hand.
Who are you referring to with another one of your blanket statements here? From one of the articles I linked to in the very first post on this thread:
“Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon’s top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war.”
Catch that “internally” part? And Zinni was making noise and trying to help internally before the war even broke out, he was the one who had CENTCOM dust off his old “Desert Crossing” contingency plan for Iraq, which the Pentagon had dismissed as being “too negative,” another example of a war run on wishful thinking.
So “the Generals themselves admit to not speaking out before the war”? Doesn’t look like it, certainly not in at least half of the cases I originally cited.
Your hatred of Rumsfeld speaks volumes unfortunately and I don’t think that will change.
I don’t “hate” anyone in American politics, I’d say John Edwards is the closest I get. I think it’s a scandal that Rumsfeld is still Defense Secretary though.
You may note then many more retired generals are now speaking out in favor of Rumsfeld then against. The Wall St. Journal opinion page for example just quoted four of them.
And no I don’t think the Democrats overtly had anything to do with coodinating them. Did I say that? I think it was the media. Do you think, in all sincerity, it was random?
No, I think Holbrooke’s probably close to the truth, that retired officers keep in touch with each other and decided something had to be done. Did you read that article?
Mind if I post an opinion piece that disagrees with you, Real Clear politics linked it today:
An Officer Responds To David Ignatius
A Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army sent the following email in response to David Ignatius’ assertion in the Washington Post yesterday that 75%+ of senior military officers want to see Rumsfeld gone:
"I would beg to differ with that assessment by Mr. Ignatius. I am a combat arms officer, a combat veteran of the Global War on Terror, currently serving on the faculty of one of the Staff Colleges.
My assessment from extensive and continuous contact with young field grade officers, most of which are combat arms branch, combat veterans, is that Secretary Rumsfeld is considered the finest Secretary of Defense of the last forty years. This is in addition to my “peer group”, of which many of us maintain contact with each each other regardless if we are in CONUS or SW Asia.
Maybe Mr. Ignatius has limited his conversations to Officers assigned in the Beltway. Yes, “beltway types” unfortunatly also exist in the military.
However, I can tell you that beyond the Beltway in dusty and dirty places like Ft. Benning, Ft. Stewart, Ft. Hood, Ft. Campbell and Ft. Bragg, where officers wear BDUs instead of Class Bs that there are tens of thousands of Officers, Commissioned/Warrant/Non-Commissioned, that would go to hell and back for this Secretary.
He pushes us to what we “think” is our limit, then shows us we have another ten percent to give. Secretary Rumsfelds nickname among many is the “110% Secretary.” Former Secretary Cohen, a good man whom I respected, would have been considered the “90% Secretary” as he never was able to get us to give “all.”
It’s only one email, of course, but it does provide a perspective on how Rumsfeld is viewed by the officers’ corps that stands in stark contrast to the one Ignatius gave yesterday. My hunch is that it’s also a lot closer to the truth. "
It’s about as conclusive as Ignatius’s opinion.
Fair enough, although I still doubt the majority of officers love Rumsfeld.
Care to address the complaints against him though, or are you just gonna keep shooting the messengers?[/quote]
One of my blanket statements? This entire thread is covered in them don’t you think?
Kind of getting circular isn’t it? As I explained before I don’t have a problem with the message but the timing is all wrong and suspect. These messengers are dead to their peers now anyway.
Since you asked I’ll give my two cents on the “warplan”. Initially I liked it. The Thunder Run to Baghdad worked as planned. The military was defeated quickly and without a lot of civilian deaths. The population however was not defeated. The insurgency came from the population.
They should have been much more firm, martial law should have been tougher. An occupied people will never love you. They need to respect you however. They will respect you out of fear. The military would never support such actions anymore. The civilian leadership would never propose it.
YOu can be tough and then reward the population for good behavior. You can’t ratchet things up once control is lost. One way or another they have to feel defeated and that resistance is hopeless.
I think the situation has now been blown way out of proportion and the country divided needlessly. A strong military leader could fix these issues but I don’t see one on the horizon. I’m talking on the order of a MacArthur or an Eisenhower. Maybe a Stormin Norman in his day. I don’t think the civilian leadership has the support right now for further action and that will cost us in the Middle East in the long run.
fyi - the proper way for a retired general to voice his concernes is to the secretary directly. He could also speak at one of the war colleges, in front of his peers, and have his ideas debated by other leaders. Experienced Generals are always welcomed at these types of forums. These men are hardly worthy of praise. The media is hardly the proper forum.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The media is hardly the proper forum.
[/quote]
Gee, Hedo, the media is where the entire war has been waged from day one. NOW it isn’t the proper forum? You have no problem with the message but the timing is suspect? If the message isn’t wrong, who cares about the timing? If the goal is to get rid of someone who is making mistakes before they make more, the time would be…right now.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
hedo wrote:
The media is hardly the proper forum.
Gee, Hedo, the media is where the entire war has been waged from day one. NOW it isn’t the proper forum? You have no problem with the message but the timing is suspect? If the message isn’t wrong, who cares about the timing? If the goal is to get rid of someone who is making mistakes before they make more, the time would be…right now.[/quote]
War shouldn’t be waged in the media. I’ve stated from the beginning these guys had ample opportunity to draw the line but chose not to.
I have no problem with them dissenting. Not that I agree 100%. It’s simply too late to fix a problem that happened, two years ago. Speaking out now, too the media, serves no purpose other then self serving.
Rumsfeld is not the issue. He, by most accounts, defers to senior military leaders when they make a call. The problem is our fixation on being popular and politically correct. That’s institutional and isn’t going to be fixed by the SecDef.