Donald Rumsfeld

[Herr Scholz]

I was banned for 3 days last week. Did I miss a thread about the 6 retired Army Generals saying that Rumsfeld should be fired for incompetence, arrogance and contemptuous behavior toward the military leaders?

[yermom]

yeah, at least one

[Octavian]

several unpatriotic posters were identified and executed.

you got lucky.

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

I was banned for 3 days last week. Did I miss a thread about the 6 retired Army Generals saying that Rumsfeld should be fired for incompetence, arrogance and contemptuous behavior toward the military leaders?

Weird. I guess the ban is still in effect for the search function. I'll get right on that. :bigoldfatwinkyface:

[yermom]

dang mEANO

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

What? I winked?

[Hatfield]

Weird. I guess the ban is still in effect for the search function. I'll get right on that. :bigoldfatwinkyface:

it needed to be said

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

it needed to be said

Sometimes I could just kiss you.

[Hatfield]

uhmmm...that didn't need to be said.

[handcrafted]

Ban him again, Beano. :D

[Herr Scholz]

Just as long as it was discussed. That's all I needed to know.

[VeeJay]

Let's re-hash it. Just for the sheer entertainment value.

[Herr Scholz]

Actually, I lied, I'd like to get some military opinions on this. Maybe USMC or Carolina Sooner? Seems like the Defense Secretary hasn't listened to the military experts at any step in this process: whether to go in at all, how many troops were needed, whether the Iraqi army should stand down or not, conditions at Abu Ghraib, etc. Seems like every decision he's made in this process has been detrimental to our military and has put them more in harm's way. Am I reading this wrong? Seems like if these retired Generals weren't so disappointed in Rumsfeld's leadership, they wouldn't have all spoken out about it (which I'm sure was very hard for them to do).

[OklahomaTuba]

Just as long as it was discussed. That's all I needed to know.

We even discussed the several hundred that support him publically as well.

And did anyone mention that Dubya got like 90% of the military vote in 2004, and that reenlistment is at an all-time high?

Damn those facts.

[jk the sooner fan]

sigh.......

[Harry Beanbag]

Actually, I lied, I'd like to get some military opinions on this. Maybe USMC or Carolina Sooner? Seems like the Defense Secretary hasn't listened to the military experts at any step in this process: whether to go in at all, how many troops were needed, whether the Iraqi army should stand down or not, conditions at Abu Ghraib, etc. Seems like every decision he's made in this process has been detrimental to our military and has put them more in harm's way. Am I reading this wrong? Seems like if these retired Generals weren't so disappointed in Rumsfeld's leadership, they wouldn't have all spoken out about it (which I'm sure was very hard for them to do).


I didn't see the other thread either, but I have heard that Rumsfeld has been ruffling a lot of feathers with the old established guard at the Pentagon with his total reorganization of the military. It's all politics, so ulterior motives are abound as usual. Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.

[dolemitesooner]

I THINKA LL LIBERALS SHOULD BE HUNG IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN AND BEAT WITH LARGE STICKS

[usmc-sooner]

Actually, I lied, I'd like to get some military opinions on this. Maybe USMC or Carolina Sooner? Seems like the Defense Secretary hasn't listened to the military experts at any step in this process: whether to go in at all, how many troops were needed, whether the Iraqi army should stand down or not, conditions at Abu Ghraib, etc. Seems like every decision he's made in this process has been detrimental to our military and has put them more in harm's way. Am I reading this wrong? Seems like if these retired Generals weren't so disappointed in Rumsfeld's leadership, they wouldn't have all spoken out about it (which I'm sure was very hard for them to do).

6 retired generals doesn't really amount to much. Why would it be hard for them they are retired. They're not going to lose anything. It's like Switzer trying to tell us what Stoops is doing wrong. Sure he has an opinion but he's no longer in the war room. and that is my opinion. BTW we must have done something right we took down there Army and removed there leader a guy by the name of Hussein in no time at all. The real problem is fighting the BS image the media has ingrained in your brain about what they percieve to be problems. We are no longer fighting the Iraqi Army it's muslim extremists a lot of them from other countries.

that is my opinion but I'm not a retired general so feel free to disregard it.

[yermom]

I THINKA LL LIBERALS SHOULD BE HUNG IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN AND BEAT WITH LARGE STICKS

it's a good think you're not The Decider then

[Mjcpr]

it's a good think you're not The Decider then

I thought he was a Uniter?

[Herr Scholz]

We even discussed the several hundred that support him publically as well.
Are you talking about retired generals who support him or current ones? Because it's against the uniform code of conduct for an active military officer to speak out against the military leaders.

And regardless, these are 6 are experienced, combat-hardened leaders whose opinions carry a lot of weight. It's not like they don't know what they're talking about. Zinni and a couple others were in the high level planning sessions previous and during the invasion and their opinions were apparently dismissed. And they aren't criticizing Rumsfeld lightly, but rather out of a sense of duty and honor to the soldiers Rumsfeld has apparently incompetently directed in war.


And did anyone mention that Dubya got like 90% of the military vote in 2004, and that reenlistment is at an all-time high?

Damn those facts.
There are also a lot of vets NOW (not in '04) who are speaking out against this war. And I realize that all of the soldiers voted for Bush. I don't understand it though.

[Herr Scholz]

6 retired generals doesn't really amount to much. Why would it be hard for them they are retired.
Their reputations? They're being called unpatriotic which is the last thing they deserve.


BTW we must have done something right we took down there Army and removed there leader a guy by the name of Hussein in no time at all.
From what I understand, the criticisms were not for this phase of the war but for the total lack of planning for what came afterward. In fact, I heard Zinni talking about us speeding to Baghdad and that being a mistake as well (leaving all these problems in our wake). Colin Powell's description of "If you break it, you own it..." wasn't fully understood by Rumsfeld and the standing down of the Iraqi army really put the nation building and democracy building in jeaporday. Not enough troops to do the job, etc.

But you know more than me. I'll defer to you. It seems like this administration's relationship to the military is a rather abusive one if you ask me though.

[OklahomaTuba]

Zinni and a couple others were in the high level planning sessions previous and during the invasion and their opinions were apparently dismissed. And they aren't criticizing Rumsfeld lightly, but rather out of a sense of duty and honor to the soldiers Rumsfeld has apparently incompetently directed in war.


I think Zinni is just upset that Tommy Franks threw his Iraq war invasion plan that Clinton ordered right out the window.

[1stTimeCaller]

Their reputations? They're being called unpatriotic which is the last thing they deserve.


From what I understand, the criticisms were not for this phase of the war but for the total lack of planning for what came afterward. In fact, I heard Zinni talking about us speeding to Baghdad and that being a mistake as well (leaving all these problems in our wake). Colin Powell's description of "If you break it, you own it..." wasn't fully understood by Rumsfeld and the standing down of the Iraqi army really put the nation building and democracy building in jeaporday. Not enough troops to do the job, etc.

But you know more than me. I'll defer to you. It seems like this administration's relationship to the military is a rather abusive one if you ask me though.

hmmmm, I don't remember seeing a post where anyone did.

[KABOOKIE]

Have you ever farted at your desk and had to get up and leave it smelled so bad?

[jk the sooner fan]

i'd be impressed if Tommy Franks, or Shinsheki came out and stood with these generals

but they havent......your statement about Rumsfelds decisions are painted with such a broad brush, typical and par for the course......i'll refrain from answering further.....

[OklahomaTuba]

It seems like this administration's relationship to the military is a rather abusive one if you ask me though.

Of course you think that.

Glad the military (retired and active) do not.

Oh, if only we could fight the perfect war, with no mistakes and no casualties. Much like Clinton did in Somalia.

And only if we had a President Kerry, who would order troops into battle, and then vote against funding their weapons, armor and raises.

If only we had that, then we could cut and run and truly be safe (and more respected) in the world.

[jk the sooner fan]

oh yeah, one more thing

while the generals would be prohibited from speaking out against the SecDef......if it were a matter of such great principle, then they should have submitted their retirement request on the spot....they should have resigned rather than carry out the mission, retire, collect a few retirement checks, AND THEN speak out against a SecDef that has proven difficult to get along with

its not the SecDef's job to be "liked" by his subordinates......

[Herr Scholz]

I think Zinni is just upset that Tommy Franks threw his Iraq war invasion plan that Clinton ordered right out the window.
How about General John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division? He said he was speaking out from a sense of "duty and honor" because of the "contemptuous attitudes, dismissive behavior and arrogance..." that Rumsfeld showed the military advisors before and during this war.

[OklahomaTuba]

The last thing we need is a Secretary of Defense that is good buds with the JCOS's.

I like the fact that Rummy is a big ol ****ing asswipe. Thats what we need, and its kept this country safe since 9/11.

[Herr Scholz]

i'd be impressed if Tommy Franks, or Shinsheki came out and stood with these generals

Aren't they still active? If so, they can't speak out unless they want to be court martialed. They could resign.

[jk the sooner fan]

umm, Tommy Franks has been retired for 3 years now, Shinsheki as well

[OklahomaTuba]

How about General John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division? He said he was speaking out from a sense of "duty and honor" because of the "contemptuous attitudes, dismissive behavior and arrogance..." that Rumsfeld showed the military advisors before and during this war.

Everyone says that about Rumsfeld. This is not new news.

[Herr Scholz]

umm, Tommy Franks has been retired for 3 years now, Shinsheki as well
OK. So you're not impressed with Zinni or Batiste or the 4 others? Batiste is a career military officer, as was his father who served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. This guy understands sacrifice for country. His voice resonates with me. I think he has plenty of credibility.

[Herr Scholz]

Everyone says that about Rumsfeld. This is not new news.
So you agree he should be held accountable for his ignoring military advice and his poor decision making in this war?

[Harry Beanbag]

From what I understand, the criticisms were not for this phase of the war but for the total lack of planning for what came afterward. In fact, I heard Zinni talking about us speeding to Baghdad and that being a mistake as well (leaving all these problems in our wake). Colin Powell's description of "If you break it, you own it..." wasn't fully understood by Rumsfeld and the standing down of the Iraqi army really put the nation building and democracy building in jeaporday. Not enough troops to do the job, etc.

But you know more than me. I'll defer to you. It seems like this administration's relationship to the military is a rather abusive one if you ask me though.


Ah, the issues you're speaking about now are political ones, not issues that the military is supposed to be concerned with. The military is here to kill people and break things, and they are very good at that.

You seem to be jumping on these 6 generals and the little anti-Bush morsels flying out of their mouths and missing the bigger picture.

[Vaevictis]

So you agree he should be held accountable for his ignoring military advice and his poor decision making in this war?

That presumes that Tuba thinks that there was poor decision making and ignoring of military advice.

If Clinton was presiding over this mess, the dude would be frothing at the mouth, but because it's Bush and Co., everything is A-O-K.

[Harry Beanbag]

OK. So you're not impressed with Zinni or Batiste or the 4 others? Batiste is a career military officer, as was his father who served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. This guy understands sacrifice for country. His voice resonates with me. I think he has plenty of credibility.

John Kerry was a military officer and I don't believe he has one ounce of crdibility. Not saying Zinni or Batiste don't either, just saying that military service doesn't make you an authority on everything, especially when there are political overtones at play.

[Vaevictis]

Ah, the issues you're speaking about now are political ones, not issues that the military is supposed to be concerned with. The military is here to kill people and break things, and they are very good at that.

You seem to be forgetting that war *is* politics. The military is here to effect political change *by* killing people and breaking things, and it is -- as they say -- as useless as a tit on a bull when it doesn't effect the desired change.

I'm pretty sure the current situation was not the desired effect.

[Harry Beanbag]

Have you ever farted at your desk and had to get up and leave it smelled so bad?


Yes.:eddie:

[Herr Scholz]

Ah, the issues you're speaking about now are political ones, not issues that the military is supposed to be concerned with.
Well, the police keeping and nation building were a pretty forseeable consequence of us breaking everything, and when we forced the Iraqi army to disarm (again against military advice), we became the police in the country. This was all part of Rumsfeld's faulty war plan.

[usmc-sooner]

Well, the police keeping and nation building were a pretty forseeable consequence of us breaking everything, and when we forced the Iraqi army to disarm (again against military advice), we became the police in the country. This was all part of Rumsfeld's faulty war plan.

dude we won the war

the problem were having is effecting a social and cultural change to somewhat of a Democracy, which liberals like you think we should be able to just change 1000's of years of beliefs and behavior in a couple of years, if not blame Bush, Rumsfield or whoever.

You guys never comment on Bosnia and we have been there much longer.

[Herr Scholz]

dude we won the war

the problem were having is effecting a social and cultural change to somewhat of a Democracy, which liberals like you think we should be able to just change 1000's of years of beliefs and behavior in a couple of years, if not blame Bush, Rumsfield or whoever.
No, this isn't a conservative/liberal thing. This is a former military commander thing. The Defense Secretary hasn't been and isn't in tune with what the military advises or wants.

And I never personally thought we could do any of this within a ten year period. I thought it was a huge mistake to go in to begin with.


You guys never comment on Bosnia and we have been there much longer.
...with a multilateral force. The US isn't shouldering the entire burden in that one. Iraq is costing us American lives daily and $10 billion per month because it's unilateral.

[usmc-sooner]

[QUOTE=Herr Scholz]No, this isn't a conservative/liberal thing. This is a former military commander thing. The Defense Secretary hasn't been and isn't in tune with what the military advises or wants.

they answer to the Sec. of Def, he doesn't answer to them. It's his way or the highway, maybe we should question all the enlisted guys under these 6 generals and see if we find 6 that didn't like the way they ran things? You'd find a hell of a lot more than 6. But that aint the way things go.

[usmc-sooner]

Iraq is costing us American lives daily and $10 billion per month .

same thing can be said about cars, cigarettes, alchol, drugs, sex, obesity and so on.

[Herr Scholz]

they answer to the Sec. of Def, he doesn't answer to them. It's his way or the highway...
This is true and many (including former Generals under his command) feel he has done a horrible job planning and executing this war and should be fired. The buck stops with him.

Do you think this war was planned and executed well?

[jk the sooner fan]

The Defense Secretary hasn't been and isn't in tune with what the military advises or wants.



i never thought it possible that somebody could over generalize things more than my ex-wife, but then you came along

"what the military advises or wants".......what you meant to say was "what the 6 generals advised or wanted"

the cold hard facts are that General Tommy Franks was the man pulling the trigger at the time, he got EVERY SINGLE THING HE ASKED FOR........read his book, i sincerely encourage you to do so.......you might actually learn something

you throw out "what about Zinni, he was a commander blah blah blah".......do you know how many commanding generals have come and gone thru this thing since it started? many more than 6.

you have 6 generals, a couple of them commanding types, the rest of them staff wienies who likely got their feelings hurt during the planning phase.....and now that they're retired, fat dumb and happy, they're flapping their gums about Rumsfeld

Bush tells Rumsfeld "here's our objective......make it happen"......Rumsfeld tells the Generals "here's the objective....make it happen"........a war plan is presented and then approved...there are A TON of moving parts in those plans.....

Rumsfeld is not a tactician, he's not a field general.....he writes the checks and answers the questions........from what I've read, this is more about generals being ****ed at other generals because their plans were thrown out the window for Franks own war plan

[jk the sooner fan]

Do you think this war was planned and executed well?

the major combat operations phase was executed flawlessly

the counter-insurgency and restore peace and order phase has major problems

[picasso]

I've heard and read where many in the military aren't happy with Rumsy more due to the fact that he's changed the face of the armed forces to a lighter more mobile unit type thing(paging Okla_Homey). thus ****ing off the old brass.
sure either way it helps Sholz's hard-on he has for Bush.:D

[usmc-sooner]

This is true and many (including former Generals under his command) feel he has done a horrible job planning and executing this war and should be fired. The buck stops with him.

Do you think this war was planned and executed well?


are you alluding to your small number of 6? How would these guys know have they been Sec. of Def. ?

You're ignoring my question which I know why but do you think every man under these Generals thinks they ran everything right? Of coarse not. It's stupid to even trot these guys out there. It's more of their political stance and probably lets you know a lot about their ego's.

Do I think the war was planned and executed well? Tell me Herr how do you plan and execute a good war. You figure this guy gets get killed here, we shoot this guy, planes come in drop bombs, nobody misses a target, nobody dies and poof peace in mid east

[Herr Scholz]

OK, JK, you know more than me on this. Do you think this war was planned and executed well? Do you think the right number of troops were put on the ground for what we were and are trying to accomplish? Do you think standing down the Iraqi army was a good idea in light of the nation building we were about to do? Do you think the conditions at Abu Ghraib were good?

Do you think Rumsfeld should be lauded, reprimanded or fired? nm - answered above.

[Herr Scholz]

the counter-insurgency and restore peace and order phase has major problems
And this is just happenstance? Rumsfeld has no accountability here?

[mdklatt]

the problem were having is effecting a social and cultural change to somewhat of a Democracy, which liberals like you think we should be able to just change 1000's of years of beliefs and behavior in a couple of years

Uh, it wasn't the libz who were claiming that democracy would spontaneously take root after we toppled Saddam....

2003

Libz: We're going to be stuck in Iraq for a long time.

Pubz: That's just crazy talk. We'll be in and out in no time. Getting rid of Saddam will solve everything. Peacekeeping forces? Who needs 'em.


2006

Libz: Why are we still in Iraq?

Pubz: Because, you fools, we're nation building. Did you think centuries of religious strife would disappear overnight? Stupid libz.

[Herr Scholz]

Tell me Herr how do you plan and execute a good war.
You know better than me. All I know is this aint it.

[OUinFLA]

Have you ever farted at your desk and had to get up and leave it smelled so bad?

no, but I did that once in Best Buy, then moved away quickly while giving a dirty look to a group of teenagers while I made a gagging sound.

[jk the sooner fan]

any time you invade a country, its generally a good idea to "stand down" or "destroy" the opposing army

certainly until you can figure out who's for us and who's agin us

[mdklatt]

you have 6 generals, a couple of them commanding types, the rest of them staff wienies who likely got their feelings hurt during the planning phase.....and now that they're retired, fat dumb and happy, they're flapping their gums about Rumsfeld



A number of retired generals (not to mention Shinseki) have publicly criticized the sitting Secretary of Defense during the middle of a conflict--isn't that pretty unprecedented?

[Harry Beanbag]

I've heard and read where many in the military aren't happy with Rumsy more due to the fact that he's changed the face of the armed forces to a lighter more mobile unit type thing(paging Okla_Homey). thus ****ing off the old brass.
sure either way it helps Sholz's hard-on he has for Bush.:D


Yeah, he ignored this when I posted it too. :)

[Harry Beanbag]

A number of retired generals (not to mention Shinseki) have publicly criticized the sitting Secretary of Defense during the middle of a conflict--isn't that pretty unprecedented?


There's a whole lot of unprecedented bull**** going on right now, and some of it is treasonous IMO. And when I say that I'm not talking about the retirement beach 6-pack.

[mdklatt]

There's a whole lot of unprecedented bull**** going on right now

Why do you think that is? (Serious question.)

I realize these old school generals are ****ed that Rumsfeld wants to take their fighters and aircraft carriers away, but that doesn't automatically invalidate their criticisms. It's obvious to me that the post-war effort isn't going as well as we were led to believe it would prior to the war. This was either a deliberate misrepresentation to bolster support for the war, or a miscalculation. If it was a miscalculation, I just want somebody in charge to come out and admit that they were wrong. I don't expect our leaders to be perfect, but it would be nice if they would just acknowledge the **** ups so that we had at least a sliver of hope that they were learing from their mistakes. I have yet to see this sliver of hope from Bush et al.

[Harry Beanbag]

Why do you think that is? (Serious question.)

I realize these old school generals are ****ed that Rumsfeld wants to take their fighters and aircraft carriers away, but that doesn't automatically invalidate their criticisms.

Agendas. It's open season on Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. and everybody that has an ax to grind or is seeking political gain or favors based on Democratic wins this fall are piling on.

I'd like to start over completely. Kick everybody out of office and reset this mother ****er.



It's obvious to me that the post-war effort isn't going as well as we were led to believe it would prior to the war. This was either a deliberate misrepresentation to bolster support for the war, or a miscalculation. If it was a miscalculation, I just want somebody in charge to come out and admit that they were wrong. I don't expect our leaders to be perfect, but it would be nice if they would just acknowledge the **** ups so that we had at least a sliver of hope that they were learing from their mistakes. I have yet to see this sliver of hope from Bush et al.

I agree with most of this, but just what do you think would happen if Bush came out tomorrow and said that he screwed the pooch and was wrong about Iraq? Would that admission and the conflagration that the current firestorm would turn into make anything better? That's what his enemies want to happen.

If the Dems win Congress in November, they're already going to try and impeach Bush. I'm afraid that might be a regular occurrence for our Presidents from now on. :(

[Scott D]

Agendas. It's open season on Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. and everybody that has an ax to grind or is seeking political gain or favors based on Democratic wins this fall are piling on.

I'd like to start over completely. Kick everybody out of office and reset this mother ****er.




I agree with most of this, but just what do you think would happen if Bush came out tomorrow and said that he screwed the pooch and was wrong about Iraq? Would that admission and the conflagration that the current firestorm would turn into make anything better? That's what his enemies want to happen.

If the Dems win Congress in November, they're already going to try and impeach Bush. I'm afraid that might be a regular occurrence for our Presidents from now on. :(


I really don't think it has much to do with any democrat wins or lack of wins. The administration is in lame duck mode now, the situation is only going to deteriorate for them. But hey, that's the system of government we have in place.

[mdklatt]

I agree with most of this, but just what do you think would happen if Bush came out tomorrow and said that he screwed the pooch and was wrong about Iraq? Would that admission and the conflagration that the current firestorm would turn into make anything better?

If Clinton had never wagged his finger on TV all "I did not have sex with that woman" the whole thing would have blown over. It's no better for this administration to try claim that things in Iraq are going exactly as planned; it's almost reminiscent of Baghdad Bob.

The conflagaration you speak of is already happening on the left. Bush needs to throw those of us in the middle (the plurality of the contry) a bone so that we quit wondering if maybe he really is a dumbass. Owning up to your mistakes is a sign of leadership; denying them is a sign of weakness.

Here's what I want to hear:

Miscalculations were made in the run-up to the war. Our intelligence wasn't perfect. We underestimated the sectarian strife that now plagues Iraq. However, that doesn't mean we should give up now. Even if we were mistaken about Saddam's WMD capability, there can be no doubt that he would have eventually acquired them if left to his own devices. Saddam was not only a threat to his own people, but was a destabilizing force in the Middle East. If we can help Iraq to become a beacon of peace and democracy it will benefit the entire world. We will learn from our mistakes. Our military forces, intelligence services, and diplomatic corps will take these lessons to heart as they continue to adapt to the post-Cold War era of warfare and foreign policy.