RUMSFELD HAS GOT TO GO

Status
Not open for further replies.
Best military leaders resigned rather than serve under Rumsfield??? Lord help us if these men were the best we had!
Click to expand...

Let's see, Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq, has just called for Rumsfeld to resign, joining Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005, former U.S. Central Command chief Anthony Zinni, former Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold. Are you saying that our military is run by people of poor character? I think you're confusing the Bush administration with the military.
 
Headless Thompson Gunner said:
Wait! Wait! You mean Saddam really did have WMD?!?

Quick, somebody go warn the President! I bet he doesn't know!
Click to expand...

You may want to get your dates straight.
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
In the early 80's the US and Britain assisted Saddam Hussein with massive amounts of arms and money as well as development. In not so delicate terms, we gave him the weapons to assist in the war against Iran. This was when Iraq had been run out of Iranian territory and the Iranians were mounting an offensive against Iraq. Washington feared that Hussein's regime might even collapse. Reagan, Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld were some of the major players in this. Saddam uses chemical weapons against the Iranians.

fast forward to 1988
Saddam uses chemical weapons in several attacks against the Kurds. Kills several thousand of his own people. He is under no sanctions.

fast forward a little bit to the first Gulf War.
Saddam was under no sanctions and wasn't prohibited from owning any weapons. Saddam is defeated and sanctions are placed. A couple years later Oil for Food program introduced to help Iraqi citizens.

fast forward another ten years.
UN inspectors were back in Iraq and found *GASP* nothing. UN inspectors left and we had a nice little war. US inspectors searched anywhere they wanted and found *GASP* nothing! In other words, there were no WMD's in Iraq at the time. Hussein had apparently obeyed the sanctions. More claims were made about his connections to Al Qaeda but those were BS. Saddam (a secular leader)wouldn't want to be connected to a radical Muslim terrorist group that could use religious influence to remove him.
 
Rumsfeld is a machine, a micromanager. He does not make policy. He is told what needs to happen by his boss, and so he goes and figures out how to do it. Let's blame Rumsfeld to technical errors and GWB for policy errors. What is fair is fair.

I challenge all the president's men to come up with something better than:
1) Bill Clinton got a blowjob and lied about it, and so he is worse than GWB who cherry-picked the truth and got thousands of Americans killed, bankrupted the country, and is killing our liberties one by one
2) I like Rummie 'cause he is tough on them leftie journalists
3) Anybody who does not support GWB is a leftie, an incompetent, or a traitor

If only you knew who pathetic it makes you look...:rolleyes:
 
Who remembers Viet Nam?

I do. We're fighting the same kind of war in Iraq that we tried to fight there. Iraq ain't Iowa. We're NOT going to turn that place into a democracy like we have here. We were RIGHT to go in there, but I think it's time to leave now. Just let them know if they misbehave we'll be back. And we'll be bringing another butt-kicking with us when we come. This is only my opinion. And we all know what we have besides one of those.
 
I knew MG Swannack personally. You'd be hard pressed to find a better infantryman, soldier, or leader.
Click to expand...

Trying to smear the messenger is a typical tactic of this sleazy, corrupt, morally-bankrupt administration. They don't even need to come up with specific smears; they just make vague, damning allegations like:

Lord help us if these men were the best we had!!!
Click to expand...

If this administration and its defenders get any more rotten, we'll be able to spot them by the maggots wriggling on their foul carcasses.
 
"Best military leaders resigned rather than serve under Rumsfield??? Lord help us if these men were the best we had!!!"

Amen.

Sadly, MANY excellent and wholly dedicated military leaders--exceptional individuals by any measure--go quietly and humbly, fading unoticed and unrecognized for their loyalty and years of service, while "the misguided few" receive unlimited face-time on the networks and in the press. Such has become the glide path for the transition from career military man to "X" News Consultant and corporate board advisor.

Has anyone taken the time to look up the current "retiring class" of O-whatevers in his USMA / USNA / USAFA yearbook?

Betcha dollars to doughnuts there's a pattern. ;)

I'm just sayin. . . .

(Good night, Chesty!)

Semper Fi
 
And you have the nerve to try to blame Clinton for this? Talk about deranged hater syndrome!
Click to expand...
Get a mirror and take a long hard look at someone consumed with hate.

Everyone (the UN, Clinton, Bush, etc.) was operating on questionable information about Iraq for many years.
Clinton responded to that questionable information by periodically tossing some cruise missiles at Iraq or ratcheting up activities over the no-fly zones.
Bush responded to that questionable information by launching a war to change the government in Iraq.

Bush certainly acted more vigorously and decisively than Clinton did to the questionable information about Iraq - no argument about that. But Bush and Clinton both had questionable information that they responded to militarily.

Blame Bush for the decision to go to war with Iraq - he deserves that credit. But screeching that Bush took office and suddenly invented all of the questionable information about Iraq is patently ridiculous.
 
Clinton responded to that questionable information by periodically tossing some cruise missiles at Iraq or ratcheting up activities over the no-fly zones.
Click to expand...

What on earth makes you think I supported this? I do now support Clinton's decision to send missiles into Afghanistan. At the time I thought it was a smokescreen--everytime the man got in some trouble he lobbed a few missiles at someone. The events of 9/11 made it clear that at the very least he was justified bombing Afghanistan.

But Clinton never went before the American people information that credible people were telling him was wrong and using it as a pretext to invade a sovereign nation. True, he went before the nation and lied about his sexual midadventures, but lying in order to drag the nation into a bloody war of choice is a whole different kettle of fish, one that stinks worse than just about any other in U.S. history. It is far worse than lying about a tryst with another consenting adult.

But this thread is about Rumsfeld, so we both digress.
 
What's wrong with hating Bush. He increased the deficit. He increased the size of govt. and gave power that violates the Bill of rights. He created DHS which is taking government waste to a whole new level. He's going to give 30 million socialists that are illiterate in their own language voting rights. And he's expanded entitlements(Medicare part D). I don't see what the problem is hating Bush. I hate Bush. He has done more damage to this country than the Russians could have ever hoped to do.
 
Who remembers Viet Nam?

I do. We're fighting the same kind of war in Iraq that we tried to fight there. Iraq ain't Iowa. We're NOT going to turn that place into a democracy like we have here. We were RIGHT to go in there, but I think it's time to leave now. Just let them know if they misbehave we'll be back. And we'll be bringing another butt-kicking with us when we come. This is only my opinion. And we all know what we have besides one of those.
Click to expand...

I had friends older than I who served in vietnam. I am one of the soldiers
who served in Iraq who believe major changes need to be made with
how things are handled there and these changes need to start HERE AT
HOME. Don't even get me started on the pre-war intel thing because I was
in Iraq in 05 when most of this stuff came to light :fire: . The current
crop of chicken hawks can not even begin to imagine how damaging this
was to the morale of soldiers, and more importantly, their families. We're
not stupid and can see that those chanting the "stay the course" chorus
have never served a day in uniform and had a loved one deploy.

I, my fellow soldiers, and older veterans know that the military is to be
used to for "butt-kicking." We are not cops or carpenters to be used for
"nation building." Quite frankly, this sounds like a role dreamed up for us
by some meeting for one-world governance.
 
European Gentry

he believes that the role of the military does not include questioning the leadership
Click to expand...

His oath as an Officer is to the Constitution. Soldiers are to serve
We the People, not We of the Party Currently in Power. :barf:

For starters, if you are going to take public office, you can't hold any stake in a company with government contracts. You must sell your stock. If a company you hold stock in gets a government contract while you're in office, you must sell it off.
Click to expand...

To be fair, many previous admins have been incestuous with many of
the companies they formerly did business with, or seek to become a
part of in the future.

However, there are many questionable overlaps between high-level members
of this admin and the companies that are profiting most from this war. It's
not like they have their stock options posted on their personal website, but
this has been available to the media. You see very little "news" on this
because the people on BOTH sides of the aisle do the same thing and
therefore keep this kind of thing lo-profile --it's advantageous to them
both under a kind of mutally-assured-destruction understanding. A poster
on another thread regarding this country's leadership had mentioned that
we now have too many Americans aspiring to become "European Gentry."
Given that re-emerging and troubling return to that pre-Revolutionary
status quo in the US, one should recall that the gentry never outed even
adversarial fellow gentry in front of the peasants.....;)

Support and Defend the Constitution. PERIOD.
 
Kodiaz, I am not sure I really care if you hate Bush or anyone else, I just like to see posters say Why they hate them and state facts/reasons. "I hate Bush" by itself is a pointless post sort of like posting "I hate AR's, AK's are better". Okay, that's great, why? You did post some reasons so that is good. :)

Most of my complaints about Bush are regarding domestic issues and the budget. However, the alternative party (Democrats) had a golden opportunity to voice their opposition to the war in Iraq right before the 2002 mid-term elections. They chickened out and voted for it (all but a couple). Domesticly, the alternative party has proposed no better choices except more spending and less freedom. Bush may not be a great President, but the alternatives that could have been are much worse. I want to see those choices improve, but I am not sure it will without some changes in voters minds.

Bush will be gone in two years. Who will be your next president? Maybe you would better spend your energy trying to make sure the next guy is better. I haven't been too impressed by the candidates I see now.
 
It's
not like they have their stock options posted on their personal website, but
this has been available to the media.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but each medium-to-senior level government employee has to file an SF-450 statement of financial interests covering self, spouse and children and update it every year. It is reviewed by independent staff in the office of ethics (called by different names in different departments). Those reviewers counsel each official about potential conflicts of interest and recusal. Violators are subject to dismissal, and it's taken seriously.

Now the SecDef may be a bit different in this regard. Rumsfeld could officially recuse himself from any and all direct involvement with companies whose stock he owns and depend on his loyal minion Leatherneck to "do the right thing (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)" and avoid having his fingerprints on any deal advantageous to "his" company.

The only way to avoid that would be divestiture or at a minimum a blind trust.

TC
 
Today, the Barking Moon Bats' new hero is Anthony Zinni, a US General, now retired.

Here is Zinni making the case for a US led invasion of Iraq, when he was an acting General, in 2000. For the chronologically challenged that would be during the reign of their hero, Billy Jeff Clinton:

Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD, oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) …
Click to expand...

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5415

Of course, those with Bush Derangement Syndrome will only hear Zinni now that he has pulled a Jean Fraud Kerry flip flop.
 
If you actually listen to the various Generals speak you'll notice that most of them aren't arguing against being in Iraq. Their problem is with the way Rumsfeld has instituted a culture of incompotent leadership.

They say that Rumsfeld and the administration have fostered an atmosphere were sound military advice is not being followed or encouraged. I for one give a lot more weight to their opinions (on military matters) than Donald Rumsfeld or the Bush administration's press representatives. If you haven't actually listened to what these Generals have to say, you might want to take a moment to find out.

-Shadizar
 
Who remembers Viet Nam?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do. We're fighting the same kind of war in Iraq that we tried to fight there. Iraq ain't Iowa. We're NOT going to turn that place into a democracy like we have here. We were RIGHT to go in there, but I think it's time to leave now. Just let them know if they misbehave we'll be back. And we'll be bringing another butt-kicking with us when we come. This is only my opinion. And we all know what we have besides one of those.
Click to expand...

Same here, when the military is required go in kill your opposition and leave,
no nation building.............
I voted for this administration and have been greatly disappointed, in my opinion history will give this one an F.
 
Shadizar said:
If you haven't actually listened to what these Generals have to say, you might want to take a moment to find out.
Click to expand...

Shadizar, I have been listening, and I can't figure out why they want him to go, other than they don't like his personality. I'd like to hear specifics. The only specific I've heard is,

1. He didn't go to Shinseki's retirement ceremony.

And everything else sounds like they generally don't like his personality. They want something, he wants something else and is the boss and tells everyone else to do that. So how is that unique?

The only piece of military criticism I've heard against him is the vague, he sent the military in unprepared for the insurgency after the war. My question is, did the generals actually tell him to bring more forces specifically for an insurgency, and then did he refuse? Because unless there was a chorus of generals who anticipating the insurgency and urging more troops to deal with it, then the generals are all just as short-sighted as Rummy.

So unless someone gives military specifics, the obvious conclusion to come to is that is an everyday military personality conflict that is only big news because the mainstream media is giving the disgruntled generals free face time to further their agenda of making Republicans look bad.

PS All this "the Bush administration is moronic/lied and is in it for the oil" stuff is completely off-topic and distracting on this topic. The topic is, why don't six generals like Rummy?
 
I challenge all the president's men to come up with something better than:
1) Bill Clinton got a blowjob and lied about it, and so he is worse than GWB who cherry-picked the truth and got thousands of Americans killed, bankrupted the country, and is killing our liberties one by one
2) I like Rummie 'cause he is tough on them leftie journalists
3) Anybody who does not support GWB is a leftie, an incompetent, or a traitor

If only you knew who pathetic it makes you look...
+1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top