From The Washington Times:
Several retired generals who worked with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, including a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, yesterday decried calls for the secretary’s resignation from other retired officers.
President Bush repeated his support for his point man in the war against terrorists.
“I think what we see happening with retired general officers is bad for the military, bad for civil-military relations and bad for the country,” retired Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Mr. Bush, said in an interview with The Washington Times. He said he would elaborate his views in an op-ed essay.
“I’m hurt,” said retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Michael P. DeLong, who was deputy commander of U.S. Central Command during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and briefed Mr. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.
“When we have an administration that is currently at war, with a secretary of defense that has the confidence of the president and basically has done well—no matter what grade you put on there, he has done well—to call for his resignation right now is not good for the country,” he said.
The White House this week expressed continued support for Mr. Rumsfeld, and Mr. Bush, responding to the continued resignation calls, reiterated his support.
“I have seen firsthand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions,” Mr. Bush said in a three-paragraph statement yesterday. “Secretary Rumsfeld’s energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation.”
The president, who has previously declined Mr. Rumsfeld’s offers to step down over the Abu Ghraib prison episode, said he had spoken with Mr. Rumsfeld earlier in the day and “I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation.”
In an interview taped Thursday for the Arab-language Al Arabiya TV station, Mr. Rumsfeld said he has no plans to resign.
“The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views,” he said, “but obviously out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed, we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round around here.”
Six former generals have, one at a time, called on Mr. Rumsfeld to resign. The generals, two of the Marine Corps and four of the Army, cited “poor war planning” for Iraq after Saddam Hussein was deposed, insufficient ground troops and failure to anticipate the infiltration of Iraq by al Qaeda fighters that set off a fierce pro-Saddam insurgency. They accused Mr. Rumsfeld of intimidating senior officers and “meddling” in war planning.
That last bit is, of course, telling.
Our Constitution calls for a civilian run military—and many career military personnel, particularly those who have done the necessary diplomatic work to make it to the rank of general—don’t appreciate having to take orders from somebody like Rumsfeld, even though he himself is ex-military.
Mr. Rumsfeld’s staff scoffed at the accusations of intimidation and meddling. Several retired senior officers also say the calls from the six generals were inspired by Mr. Rumsfeld’s far-reaching transformation of their services and his refusal to increase active forces by a large number.
The officers defending Mr. Rumsfeld say the complaints are an institutional battle between the generals, who think Mr. Rumsfeld is damaging the Army, and the defense secretary, who thinks he is better organizing it for post-Cold War 21st-century threats.
Mr. Bush referred to that friction when he said, “I asked Don to transform the largest department in our government. That kind of change is hard.”
Officers also say general officers have a choice while on active duty: They can follows orders or resign in protests. But they say it is a troubling precedent when retired generals attempt to dictate who should be the military’s civilian leader.
Precisely correct. The fact that these generals waited until after they retired to make their grievances known—rather than stepping down in protest during their active duty—bespeaks the potential, at least, for ulterior motives for their criticisms that have less to do with Iraq than with other political and territorial considerations.
Rumsfeld’s popularity (or lack of popularity) among military brass, in fact, seems tied in large part to his designs on re-forming the military. And while there is undoubtedly some disagreement among military leaders about the best way to fight the war in Iraq (remember, certain generals and politicians assured us we’d need 250k ground troops in Afghanistan to avoid a “quagmire,” and many of those banging the “more troops” drum in Iraq are actively advocating for a larger US footprint—a sign of imperialist designs Rumsfeld and co. were careful to avoid), there can be no doubt that what the military has accomplished in five years under Rumsfeld’s leadership is quite impressive, from an historical standpoint. And should democracy take hold in Iraq and affect change in the region, Rumsfeld could well go down as one of our most successful Defense Secretaries ever.
The tactics and strategies for Iraq after the very quick and impressive victory over Saddam have changed and evolved; much of the earlier problems stemmed from the decision to install Bremer as leader of the civilian authority. But war is fluid, and the US has made the changes necessary to keep Iraq moving down the political path to democracy.
Another fact to consider: we are no longer fighting Iraq. In fact, the Iraqis are now our allies against some of the Ba’athist holdouts and al Qaeda inside Iraq. And it may be, if certain recent reports pan out, that al Qaeda is more convinced of our success in Iraq than are those handful of retired generals who have now taken the unconventional step of speaking out publicly.
For a few retired US generals to be calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation publicly even as we are embroiled in that battle sends a message to our enemies that the generals believe we are losing. And, as everyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that not to be the case—that the only way we can lose is if the public will is sapped—calling for Rumsfeld’s ouster now not only sends the wrong message to Americans, but it likewise sends the wrong message to Iraqis, the vast majority of whom are optimistic about the direction of the country.
I eagerly await Myers’ op-ed.
(h/t Allah)
If a few retired flag officers didn’t have complaints, something would be wrong. It’s war they’re talking about, not ping-pong.
You’ll excuse me for saying this but this piece has an awful lot of delusion and wishful thinking. Ignore and scoff at these generals at your own peril because their opinions are going to drive the R’s poll numbers down even more.
Here’s another bit of free advice –
“sending a message to our enemies” has less to do with winning in Iraq than having enough troops and a competent Sec Def. Not that complaining about dirty liberals isn’t fun, it doesn’t do much to win the war in Iraq.
Did you know that America’s civilian leadership committed a “coup” of the military in invading Iraq? ‘S true!
It could be that its also less disruptive this way. Lots of people are saying that rummy resigning would be a victory for the terrorists. I can’t imagine what they would say to generals resigning in votes of no-confidence right before an invasion. But besides the ‘dissent is treason’ line, there’s also the belief that some of these generals may have had that though they disagreed, they still have a job to do. I’ve had moments in jobs when I was asked to do something I disagreed with. The fact that I failed to resign isn’t very indicative of my level of disagreement, or ability to rethink the situation in the future.
At least one of these guys did refuse an appointment due to his disagreements. Have we heard that any retired in order to speak out?
But maybe the world would be a better place if our military was full of heroic Daniel Ellsbergs. Should we fault the generals who fail to live up to that ideal? Maybe.
and that’s when I stopped reading.
I said the generals who are complaining are “liberals”? Huh. I didn’t even realize that.
Or maybe you’re just reading posts you’ve written in your own mind, posts that see conservatives as always attacking liberals.
So here’s my free advice to YOU, heet: try not to project your own prejudices onto me. It just makes you look like an asshole.
Whaaa waaa…
Dirty words on the internet! You are so risque. As for projecting, perhaps you should re-read your screed and check for the parts where taking our leaders to task for poor results is sapping the will of the people to win in Iraq. Just because you equate dissent with weakness doesn’t mean the rest of Americans are dumb enough to do the same.
Denial is an acceptable defense mechanism. For a teenager, anyways.
Nothing is more emblematic of the moral and mental bankruptcy of the American left than their current celebration of generals after spending literal decades painting them as their stock villains in “progressive” entertainment and “thought.”
The left no longer has any solid foundation. That shrieking you hear over there is nothing but the howling of the wind…
Pedantism is the preferred mechanism for the slow-witted. Congrats!
<blockquote>Precisely correct. The fact that these generals waited until after they retired to make their grievances knownâ€â€rather than stepping down in protest during their active dutyâ€â€bespeaks the potential, at least, for ulterior motives for their criticisms that have less to do with Iraq than with other political and territorial considerations. blockquote>
It’s also against the Unified Code of Military Justice; the relevant articles have to do with insubordination and disrepect to elected/appointed officials. I don’t recall the specific articles; mayhaps a military lawyer will cite them.
The flag officers either leave the military or stay mum in public. Actually, that applies to anyone on active duty; flag officers are not unique in this respect.
Internal disagreement is another matter, and that’s what is being discussed by the retirees……after they are no longer subject to UCMJ.
Clinton “reduced the size of government” by decimating the military (the officers of which weren’t welcome in the White House). The cocksuckers in the press and retired generals can basically just kiss my ass.
Voicing your opinion isn’t insubordination nor is it disrespecting a senior officer unles you’ve been specifically ordered not to do so. It might be a nice way to get your career scuttled, but it isn’t illegal.
Retired generals are neither more nor less than Americans. Even if they weren’t, freedom of speech “permits” them to say whatever they like. Active military have no such right, but once retired they have the same right of free speech as you, or I, or actus.
This does not, of course, mean that we have to listen to, heed, or agree with what they have to say. Sadly, many of our officers are imperialists who think we should have taken full control of Iraq, and that’s a large-budget process which would, in actual fact, have required many more troops than we actually deployed. (Note: anyone who tells you “not enough troops” is, down deep, advocating imperialism. We wouldn’t have had enough troops to conquer and subjugate Iraq even if 4th ID had been allowed to blaze the trail for Michael Totten. That was on purpose. Neither George Bush nor Donald Rumsfeld is an imperialist, despite the catcalls of the international Left.)
The whole hooraw is simply another sheehanization of the debate—that is, “absolute moral authority” simply means “agrees with the Left”, just as “racist”, “fascist”, and similar characterizations have lost any denotative meaning other than “disagrees with the Left”.
Regards,
Ric
Oh lord, where to begin? So, we are to believe that the right “owns” the military? What utter, tiny minded, BS.
By this logic, every time a person in uniform has an opinion that supports the left it is due to
1. Leftist opportunism
2. The opportunism of speaker
How easy. What a simplistic fantasyland you loons live in. For an ideology that purports to support the individual, you sure impose plenty of restrictions on personal opinion.
And finally, this is going to tank Bush’s poll numbers. Sorry.
Hee hee hee heet  I speak from observation, watching the MoveOnBots I countermarch ever week grab every single headline, scream about it in unison for one march, and then never mention it again when the new talking point is circulated. It happened with Fitz, it happened with DeLay, it happened with NSA, it happened with the generals and no doubt it will be something else next week. It is sheer opportunism without the slightest conviction behind it and I stand by that statement without reservation.
Rummie can take the heat from a few idiots with a chip on their shoulders. They’re all scared their replacement will do a better job than they did, and actually they are. The problem with the idiots it they are now showing support for the terrorists and putting the troops in the field in deadly danger. There will be a step up in attacks on our troops and I will hold the weasel Generals responsible and so will millions of real Americans. Only another kiss ass anti-american would support any of them, proven by the ‘I ran for president’ idiot (Clark) mouthing off on TV today. He reminded me of Hanoi John and his ‘I served in Vietnam’. Isn’t Clark the nut that was in charge when they bombed the Chinese embassy in Kosovo where the Klington war is still going on.
Oh, you haven’t got the half of it, heet, and I agree, it’s amusing. Just not in the way you seem to think.
What’s sometimes howlingly, devastatingly funny is to watch the Left trying to embrace the military and not have any idea what they’re doing. For instance, ever since the movie came out leftists have been sneering at “Rambo” and “Rambo tactics” without ever in the least realizing that it’s one of the few places where their philosophy intersects with the military’s. They then bring forward a Naval officer who abandoned his command in the care of a junior elisted man, strapped a bandolier over his shoulder, picked up an M16, and went bounding through a Vietnamese village chasing Cong, and brags about it in retrospect, and present him as an exemplar of the “war hero”. ROFL.
Do you have any idea why George Bush might have wanted the turkey to be plastic? Have any notion of just who was actually insulted by the “Bush AWOL” story? I thought not.
The right doesn’t “own” the military. We do have a pretty strong tendency to have a much more realistic idea of how military people think, though—not perfectly, but much better than the general run of pinkie.
As for tanking Bush’s poll numbers, probably a bit of wishful thinking there. Wait and see.
Regards,
Ric
Scrapiron, your fantasyland is a hate-filled heaven for nutters like yourself and the other posters here. A beautiful place where liberals hate America and no Repub has ever done wrong. It is cathartic for me to see fools drone on and on about the left and their talking points when they wait, cock in hand, for the newest idiocy to fall from Jeff’s wet mouth. You guys lack the insight to see what is really happening. America is turning against you, the officers are speaking out, nobody cares about your pathetic justifications. Rhetorical devices are all you have left. Sweet dreams, tykes…
The right does not “own” the military by any stretch of the imagination. It is a stretch of the imagination to assume that the litany of anti-military pieces from Hollywood, etc., did not grow from a primarily leftist demographic. That the same crowd would then reappropriate the military when certain officials were trumpeting criticisms of the right is more than a little inconsistent.
What “logic” is that, precisely? And are the officials in question being opportunistic or not?
I personally think it is vastly innapropriate for retired generals to irresponsibly malign the Secretary of Defense not becuase I believe they shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions, but because there are several thousand better ways to do so. None of those ways, of course, involve being quoted in newspapers, guest appearances on news shows, or possible book deals. Odd how that works.
Further than they alreaday are? It doesn’t take much to bring the President’s numbers down- against the backdrop of a media that continues to make “editorial decicisons” that unfairly paint the President in a negative light, this seems like a drop in the bucket.
Pablo, we are discussing “grievances” and “criticisms” of senior officers/officials here, which are distinct from “opinion”. I never said “opinion”, although I can appreciate that you would see my post as such.
We are also looking at crossing the line from “opinion” to “insubordination”. It’s a fine line, and professional military personnel watch it carefully.
‘Nuff said.
Bill Quick linked to the same article, the thread on his blog is here.
The analysis by David Ignatius is flawed for several reasons:
He fails to tell us why those he’s interviewed want Rumsfeld to retire.
While the White House could do a much better job of communicating their successes, the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the MSM is so bad, if Bush walked on water, they would report “Bush can’t swim”!
His suggestion of Lieberman or the two RINOS (Hegel and McCain) to replace Runsfeld are just plain silly.
He is right about exactly one thing, though: without public support in the U.S., we will lose this war.
Turing: point, as in he doesn’t have a good one.
Ric,
Did you really write “ROFL”? That is totally awesome, my man! Furthermore, chiding the left for supporting dissenting Generals makes NO sense coming from a right that calls a crew of draft dodgers their “leaders”.
The Clinton’s left office in 2001, chum.
Turing: chum, as in jumped the sharkbait
Has someone started averaging “time to the draft dodger red herring” statistics? I’d be interested to see what the mean time to its appearence is.
Hey, chum! Tune back into reality where people are responsible for their own actions, adults understand this. Blaming it on Clinton ain’t gonna cut it anymore.
Faith is a leap, boys. You’ve lept and, yikes, where’s the floor? It’s not at thirty-six. It’s gonna continue to fall and the faster you and your grand and glorious poombahs drop, the more shrill your little howls of conviction sound.
There’s only one way out/ Embrace doubt. Realize now as most of your American brethren have–your leaders have misled you. You have been duped. You’re holding a perverbial bag of shit. Or, just keep hollering about how much liberals hate America until…
splat.
Bye.
Bye.
“Oh lord, where to begin? So, we are to believe that the right “owns†the military? What utter, tiny minded, BS.”
Firstly, I’m sorry, I missed the part where someone asserted that the right owned the military. For all your pompous sneering, one would think you could have come up with a less obvious strawman. The fact that the majority of the military votes to the right does not mean that the right owns it–please try to resort to more subtle academic cliches next time.
Secondly, as someone who is enlisted in the military, the groaning of these former generals that the SecDef was “initimidating” and a “meddler” is laughable. Even the most green basic trainee knows that the Secretary of Defense outranks every single general in the chain of command–hell, it’s printed on the damn sheets we are required to memorize the first week of training. I understand their misgivings and criticisms on military operations, but if they didn’t want to take orders from the Secretary of Defense, they shouldn’t have joined the military in the first place.
“Embrace doubt.”
Fine, I doubt you lack a condescending bone in your body, you self-righteous, narcissistic windbag.
Amusing.
It’s especially fun to watch the Left attribute Bush’s losses in the polls to adherence to their way of seeing things.
News for you guys: you need to keep careful track of who’s got a lower approval rating than George Bush. A mirror might be handy.
At least half, maybe more, of Bush’s loss in the approval ratings comes from people who think we aren’t killin’ enough wrapheads—or enough hippies, come to think. Anybody who agrees with the Left was ‘way out of the approval column long before.
It’s also hilarious to see people take the hide-bound reactionary side in an intramural turf war, then call themselves “progressive” or “liberal”, clearly without any smallest clue that they’re being used like old hammers in a fight that has nothing to do with what they claim as their ideals. Of course they betrayed those ideals long ago, so long that they’re hardly worth mentioning, but, still, you’d think they’d try to keep up appearances.
Keep it comin’, guys. Your operating area’s getting pretty far away from base these days.
Regards,
Ric
At least half, maybe more, of Bush’s loss in the approval ratings comes from people who think we aren’t killin’ enough wrapheadsâ€â€or enough hippies, come to think. Anybody who agrees with the Left was ‘way out of the approval column long before.
Is this sort of rhetoric really necessary? I appreciate that you support the President and that you realize that irresponsibly articulated criticism from the left is being used as an indicator of American weakness, but I doubt that using terms like “wraphead” or suggesting that we should kill our own citizenry when they are “hippies” is any more helpful than those who lambast “repugs”.
Awww. This was just getting fun. You ought to have that “Kim” character bronzed, Jeff. Classic.
“…self-righteous, narcissistic windbag…” is about right, although Chris left out “sneering”. “Condescending” is wrong, though. The “descending” part implies having altitude, and attitude is not at all the same thing.
Regards,
Ric
Curtis,
What you perhaps don’t get is that I, a rightist and “Bush Kultist”, sneer at those folks harder than you actually do. But there are quite a lot of them around, and their support has, up to now, more or less canceled the Bush Derangement Syndrome-infected Left. They are now abandoning ship in droves, but not because they agree with Democrats or the Left on anything—in fact, their beef is that Bush is acting too much in accordance with the Left’s wishes rather than in support of conservative causes.
Bush’s loss is not your gain in this instance. I do hope you go on assuming it is, though.
Regards,
Ric
I suppose that I still don’t see the value in enlisting the support of a demographic so radically insensitive and ultimately radical. And I fail to see how embracing such a crowd does anything to fight the rhetoric from the left that we are all as ignorant and as extremist as they are. Perhaps I am no pragmatic enough (I am known to be lacking in that department) but I am glad that you are just as (if not more) disgusted by that sort of rhetoric.
“radically insensitive and ultimately radical”….
*Sigh* I need to not write on Nyquil…
So, the reason Bush’s numbers are in the toilet is because he isn’t being Republican HARD enough. I see. Take that one to the bank and try to cash it, geniuses. The easiest explanation, of course, is America is sick of Bush and his fuck-ups. But, hey, you Republicans are known for your squishy nuance.
I believe you will find that the folks in question will disagree with you rather vehemently about what exactly is defined as a “fuck-up”.
Go ahead and assume.
Regards,
Ric
That’s why those ‘who do you trust better on issue X’ polls are interesting. Dems outdoing the GOP on defence and Iraq? Yikes! Nov 06 is going to be interesting.
There’s only one poll that counts, heet. Try winning that one first, then come back and act triumphant.
runninrebel,
You are, of course, right. Not much can change until the election. Unless the Republicans pressure Bush to toss Rummy to save some seats in November. I don’t see that happening. As for acting triumphant, what else is the internet good for? Don’t say porn, because that demeans women.
Uh, Republicans like Rumsfeld, heet. He’s a kind of guru for us KKKultists. Tossing him would be a huge mistake. Oh, and it’s not going to happen, so…
Here’s a little blast from the past.
Er, here.
Many thanks, runninrebel, for posting the proof that Rumsfeld’s Kung Fu is superior. Be mindful of this, Heet. Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata… hiding amongst the candy… hoping the kids don’t break through with the stick!
How’s about a link to back that up?
Sean M.,
The polling does show that. I took a look earlier and I don’t feel like going back to find a link. But it doesn’t matter now because (1)the Dems still don’t have a coherent policy to hold support (2)there is a long time before Nov to change perceptions (3) the Dems will have to eventually form a policy proposal or continue being wishy-washy. Either way, any dissatisfaction with the current policy won’t transfer to support for Dems.
Citing polls in April only support wishful think about Nov.
Hmm Vinnie. You mean Bill Clinton left office in 2001, right?
The reenlistment rate has been up substantially in the US Army under Rumsfeld’s tenure. A Secretary of Defense who has happy soldiers, and some unhappy generals is a Secretary of Defense who is doing his job well, in my opinion.
I think I am going to write my first fanmail to a Federal official.
Back in the late 40’s, we had the “revolt of the admirals.” The difference between now and then was that those flag officers and the Secretary of the Navy put their careers on the line while the decision was being made. Not afterwards, from the safety of a retirement sideline.
It’s unseemly, is all.
I think it was Pew.
In other words, no link.
Um, no. My error was in the apostrophe.
Hey heet:
You simpering shitnozzles were blaming Bush before he even took office.
We have 8 years of history on our side, you have…Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, et.al.
Turing: heetisagasolineadditivethatdestroystheozone
I’m tired of people speaking against our Generals. That just demoralizes our troops and emboldens terrorists.
So the next person who disparages a U.S. General better think about the U.S.A. and those who love it or else they’ll be supporting terrorists.
Unless that General has retired and now disagrees with anything the Republican Party says.
Cuz then that General is supporting terrorists.
MORAL CLARITY, BITCHES!
heet, et al,
Rodney King – crackhead, angel dust, serial speeder, leftist: “Why can’t we all just get along?”
F’ing beautiful. What a wonderful sentiment, but unfortunately, we CAN’T all just get along. My favorite part about the left is the wall you put around your intellect. I used to be just like you, but one day a wrecking bar fell on my head. It was embarfrassing, but, Uh-oh! No more wall!
You will have a hard time getting over on the posters here, because most of us have been where you are at one time or another. Unfortunately, we found that space to be insipid, vapid, and controlled by a desire to stay in the eighth grade for the rest of our lives.
You make no points new here, you only appear to be another silly ass.
Bummer for you , huh?
huh?
That “huh?” was for SWR, who spent a solid few minutes writing an absolutely worthless comment. I’m starting to think Jeff is right in saying that most of the leftist visitors don’t actually read the post or the comments. I was hoping he was wrong. I thought we’d have a better chance at getting them to think rationally if they would at least make the effort to understand what everyone here is saying. Now I don’t know what we can do.
Look up the generals. They are HARDCORE military.
Try calling the former CG of the 82nd Airborne unpatriotic in a room full of vets and see where your whining gets you. Two star general means nothing to you I bet.
Swannack’s the shit. Anyone on this board want to claim a higher rank? Anyone want to pretend to know more about the workings of the military and the morale of the troops?
I can’t wait to hear you all talk shit about CG Swannack…
I’m not so sure you know much about Major General Swannack, as you are promoting him two grades.
Go to my own blog to see what this vet, heading to A’stan for the second time, buck Sergeant thinks.
FWIW, no one has called any of these general officers unpatriotic.
Jeepers, RTO, don’t you know that any criticism of anybody who dares to question the Bu$hco neo-con cabal is automatically unpatriotic? I guess you’re just another kkkultist chickenhaw–what? He’s currently in the military?
Well, in that case, I guess you’re too stoopid to be able to get a job anywhere else, so you had to join up. Don’t forget that the left supports you as long as you frag your officers. Unless those officers decide to criticize Rumsfeld, I guess.
Lost Dog,
How will I know I’ve attained Republican nirvana like yourself and the other fine people here? Lemme know cuz I want to slap some backs on this site and be all like “you go girl!” and shit.
heet,
The first thing you’ll notice is that you’ve stopped preening and spewing empty talking points.
Really, when the time comes that you look back at yourself and say “Good God, what the hell was I thinking?”, you know you’re on the path to enlightenment.
In the meantime, try constructing a coherent, fact-based argument. It will be good practice for you.
heet,
Many of us who are currently serving – (ie. RTO, myself, Lex, et al) have been making a couple of points that are fairly mild. I wish you would engage them – we do not often get very good debate and discussion from people that drift in. We wish it was different.
On to our points. We are simply saying that the crypto-Gene LaRoques that have decided to complain now are either unseemly or lack the courage of their convictions.
As Lex pointed out – sometimes general officers (and their civilian counterparts) have not been afraid to put it on the line while still in.
We also find it distasteful that currently serving general officers have to come out and remind their former brothers of this. I don’t like this one bit either.
We aren’t yelling “unpatriotic” or such. We just feel that in this conflict, their actions/statements – which they have the right to take/make, are ill-considered. Info ops is THE ONLY path to victory for our foes. Ill-timed criticism, and that not made in particularly good faith may assist our foes. This bothers us.
Can you see why we feel this way? Thanks.
By the way, Citizen Goldstein, how many lights do you see?
And he waltzes around the Pentagon like he runs the place, that prick. Hmph.
tw: It’s true, I swear!
Yeah, I’ll take that. I’m a civilian.
Doesn’t the President outrank him?
You seem to be having a hard time distinguishing the war to get d’Emocrats elected with the war to free the Middle East. Unless there is no difference to you, perhaps?
Yup. And no search engine skills either.
Its like when you get pulled over by a cop, and you remind him you pay his salary. They lovs that stuff.
No, actuse. It’s more like how I’m the same rank as every Commander in Chief, ever. Even Generals take orders.
Oh, and when I was a lowly E-3, and I put that dude with the 2 stars on his shoulders face down on the tarmac? He still outranked the shit out of me.
But stars usually won’t stop a 5.56 round, and we both understood that.
Pay their salary too.
Is this another purblind jism hoax post?
It reads similarly.
It’s not who pays the salary. It’s who has the elected (and thus legal) civilian authority. Read the Constitution. One would think that a law student would have done so already.
Yeah, like the tax collector and the guy who reads the water meter.
Well then they certainly outrank us plebes. I mean, the elected dude can put me in jail with a signature. But not vice versa.
President is a position, not a rank. People who hold military rank also have less rights than any civilian (but felons). Civilians are not obliged to take orders from anyone, barring criminal charges or a successful civil suit.
That and your stupidity are what’s getting in your way here, actuse.
Except it isn’t a cop pulling you over. It’s the retired cop who still goes to the cop bar/hangout and loudly reminds all the cops that are still on the job that he was better than them. And, when he was on the job, he took care of the punks on the street unlike the pussies on the force now. Instead of getting his face smashed in, the others make a couple of snide remarks about the old fart and turn back to their beers and games of pool. Then they go back onto the street the next day, while the retired guy reads the blotter in the paper and mutters to himself how much better he is than them.
I will now return to my regular rls inspired stance of “ignore actus”.
I don’t know about you, but I usually follow the orders of law enforcement. Way before I get charged or sued.
The cop/bar hangout that is the media and book tour circuit. Right on.
this thread is depressing. well, apart from that one dude who was going on about how hollywood hates the military—he was hilarious.
because the industry that gave us pearl harbour, black hawk down, we were soldiers and saving private ryan clearly will not allow a positive portrayal of the military.
also:
News for you guys: you need to keep careful track of who’s got a lower approval rating than George Bush. A mirror might be handy.
unless i’m dick cheney, i’m not sure what light a mirror is supposed to shed on this.
President is a position, not a rank.
Actually, the President is the commander in chief, thus he outranks all military officers and is the top of the command chain. It is a military rank. You’re right, it is an office, but it also is in a certain sense a rank – above all these generals.
The Guidons blog points out that there are at present 881 officers at the equivalent rank of “General” in the US military service. From this we can extrapolate that there are at least a few hundred living, retired generals, in all likelihood there are more than 800. Of this pool, six are vocally critical of the President (and coincidentally, I’m sure, have books they wish to sell).
In the past, as Victor Davis Hanson points out well in his most recent column Generals were quiet about their personal opinions on the progress and status of an ongoing war. Shrill political drive and personal animosity has pushed these men beyond the bounds of honor. Anyone who has worked in an office knows exactly why and what these men are like.
Snuh  I suggest you read The View from Sunset Boulevard: America As Brought to You by the People Who Make Television to see how Hollywood really treats the military.
Exactly right, Christopher. That’s why I’m sure that actus has never read the Constitution:
The President holds an elected office with command authority over the military….but not over civilians.
stein’s book is about a bunch of tv shows [that are no longer in production, and haven’t been for about thirty years]. hollywood makes movies, not tv shows. and also, i would’ve thought actually watching the major films of the last 10 years would give one a better idea of “how Hollywood really treats the military”.
No, it isn’t, regardless of how it feels to you. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not a rank. Commandant of the Marine Corps is not a rank. Both men are O-10’s, full Generals. That’s a rank. The other titles are job titles, and being in those jobs places them in a position above many other O-10’s. It doesn’t make them outrank them.
The President has neither a pay grade nor a rank. He’s a civilian, and his position puts him at the top of the chain of command. You’ve got to have a contract/commission with one of the armed services to have a rank.
also:
Nothing is more emblematic of the moral and mental bankruptcy of the American right than their current celebration of big government after spending literal decades painting it as their stock villain in “conservative†entertainment and “thought.â€Â
The right no longer has any solid foundation. That shrieking you hear over there is nothing but the howling of the wind…
this is arguably a true statement, although it is also insufferably arrogant, not to mention a pointless and reductive provocation, since it tells us nothing about why the alleged most emblematic views were/are held, or whether the original opinion was more correct than the current prevailing opinion [a not insignificant issue if one wants to assert the complete “moral and mental bankruptcy” of a political grouping]. it also provides no evidence to support either assertion it makes, that (1) the former views were widely held but aren’t any more, and (2) that the current views are widely held but were detested before.
Right, because nobody outranks a civilian. That’s the point of America, in a nutshell.
He can’t order that anything happen to any civilian.
Go have some coffee, wake up, re-read the Constitution, and get back to us, actus.
Better yet—don’t get back to us.
Keep clapping your hands kids, Tinkerbell will come back to life if you do it harder.
Iraq’s death spiral is obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain. But please keep bitching at the messangers that’ll solve alllll the problems.
Major Tom,
You believe the retired Gen’s actions are ill considered because you don’t perceive a problem with the military leadership. They do. They clearly have made the decision that any enemy comforting (which many think is a fantasy) is offset by actually fixing the problems in Iraq. Also, any reference to book deals can be ignored. It is impossible to tear apart self-promotion, book writing, and having grievances with the administration. At some point, people with the latter will resort to the former to fix the problem.
I can see this is a problem but there is little to suggest the posters on this board want good debate and discussion. Yes, I’m trolling. But you have to admit it is easy to invoke the base response from a place that suggests a liberal who post in good faith “fuck off and die”.
Why does a retired General’s opinion count more than mine?
If it didn’t, this wouldn’t be a story… Voters tend to trust generals who know the territory. Bloggers don’t count quite as much.
Iraq’s death spiral is obvious
really makes you cream your pants, doesn’t it?
another, It was all kites and puppies under Saddam leftoid heard from
Pay no attention to the mass graves, the rape rooms, the acid-dripping torture rooms, no the huge funnel of oil-for-food money into the pockets of the French, Russia and the Kofi Annan family…
meshugga schmuck
tend to trust generals who know the territory
:::cough::: Truman/MacArthur :::cough::::
is offset by actually fixing the problems in Iraq
Oh? They want to fix problems?
So THAT’S why they retired…
It wouldn’t have a thing to do with a little of the old Et tu, Brutus of political bloodletting from the sidelines when one is too cowardly to stay in and actually WORK to fix problems?
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
So, Darleen… What, pray tell, are you doing to win the war in Iraq from behind your keyboard? Who’s the coward again?
I’m a Soldier long before I’m a blogger. I have nearly as much experience in service as many Generals.
Why should “voters” care about the rank. A General is just as capable of being mistaken, misinformed or wrong as a PFC.
I think it’s the media with the stars in their eyes. Would they report a retired Sergeant Major’s opinion?
heet (posting on someone else’s bandwide anonymously…what courage)
Is this where you trot out the chickenhawk mantra?
Oh.Joy. Haven’t heard that one before.
Let me know when you have some new schtick.