Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals
 

How incompetant is Rumsfeld? Years ago, the Republican Party newspaper, the National Review, called Rumsfeld incompetant. Meanwhile George Jr will say, "Your doing a heck of a job, Rummy". Gen Batiste is only the latest in a chorus of retired generals saying reams about incompetant top management - and we really know who they are talking about - why Rumsfeld is still there: Outright violations of well proven principles from 500 BC such as disbanding the army and police; incompetance that even violates Military Science 101. Notice again the repeated refraim that George Jr claims no one is saying - too few troops. Zinni had predicted many problems that are now situation normal in Iraq - a situation that has only been getting worse as even some in the Cellar said otherwise. But then do you remember how far down into the ranks Rumsfeld went to find replacement generals in 2002? Why do you think Zinni was removed? Rumsfeld had to recruit one and two star generals to top ranks because so many generals 'disagreed' with Rumsfeld - and ended up retiring. You tell me how many really were permitted to speak their minds when Rumsfeld's management is a most common complaint from retired military commanders. Of course they are frustrated. Other sources cite Gen. Tommy Franks, who lead the Iraq invasion, is also quietly saying same criticism which is why the Current Joint Chief Chairman is said to reply, "Not once was Tom told, `No, don't do that. No, don't do this. No, you can't have that, ". Tommy Franks also describes how he breifed George Jr in detail before the "Mission Accomplished" war. Woodward described all that George Jr remembered from that detailed breifing - the sun bursts that Tommy Franks put on the charts.

First thing a civilian leadership must do is plan for the other 50% of a war - the peace settlement. This Military Science 101 concept posted here so many times previously. During the Kuwait liberation, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, etc all were drinking champagne when they should have been issuing the conditions for Saddam's surrender. Schwarzkopf had to improvise because those Washington civilian leaders did not do their jobs.

In the "Mission Accomplished" war, those same people did nothing for seven months which is why the commander of 101st Airborne literally had to steal funds to get something started. Again incompetent George Jr administration somehow thought Iraq would magically flourish if all we did is defeat Saddam. And so looting continued everywhere: predictable. No serious attempt to restore basic services occurred for seven months - as even Tobias should be able to testify to - because Rumsfeld and his boss are incompetent. But again, these are now well documented historical facts.

The US currently has two options. 500,000 soldiers for the next year to restore order in Iraq; or an announcement of total withdrawl in 6 months - forcing Iraqis to actually try to run their country. The status quo is a no win solution. Another source - and they are coming like termite swarms - instead leaks administration plans for a 20 year war. Well at least they are planning for what current strategy - with way too few troops - will create. Ready yet to talk about competancy in the George Jr administration? Vietnam deja vue. Yes, administration plans call for 20 continuous years of war. Why do you think retired generals are doing what generals never do? 20 years.

I'm too paralyzed; frozen stiff - brain... locked... in.. a.. death grip with itself as it struggles to comprehend the incomprehensibility of what I am reading:


I'm reading this right, right? I mean, why would he lie?

;)

It is obvious that these high-ranking military officials hate America.

They must be with the enemy.

All is lost. The freedom-haters have infiltrated the highest echelons.

Maybe you did not notice. But so much of what I have posted about Iraq was quietly said by generals through their only mouthpiece - the retired generals. No, not General Miller who promoted torture and is apparently 'persona non-grata' among other generals. It should be obvious. What those retired generals are saying is what they have long been grumbling about AND what I have been saying all along.

Those who strongly reiterated decrees from a mental midget president were only subverting the troops. That should have long been obvious if you are anything close to being a supporter of the American military. You don't do to soldiers what we have done to ours in Iraq. And yet some Americans so hate American servicemen as to put them into Iraq - into a no win situation - without a strategic objective and without an exit strategy.

Notice things have gotten so bad that the retired generals are now getting loud - saying same things I have been saying all along. George Jr has screwed the American serviceman big time. The officers know it. Only political extremists would deny it. What you have read in my posts are what supporters of America's military have long been saying.

BTW, Rumsfeld even looks a lot like McNamara.

All very true. I have been posting endlessly about the low morale of our troops, stretched far too thin in what promises to be an endless war. There are no Iraqi's on our side. They hate our presence there and want us out. Some of them are glad to be rid of Saddam, but now they want to be rid of us as well. A soldier back on leave from Iraq told me stories of little kids one day selling cans of pop at the entrance to a command post and the next day that same little kid is throwing explosive devices at the soldiers. Shades of Vietnam, indeed. :(

Yup. Freedom makes profits less predictable. You have to control the supply chain so that the available money finds its way into the right pockets. Fascism works very handily to accomplish this. Stick around, kids, there's lots more election-rigging, patriotic drumbeating, cause creation and pre-emptive wars to come down the road.

Remember...when you say "Diebold", you've said "Republican!".

:::hides under my bed while the black choppers take you away:::

Christ, if Diebold says "Republican," then "Halliburten" must say "Mussolini"! (*Hides under bed with Flint - politics make strange bed fellows* :lol: )

From the Washington Post of 14 Apr 2006 - or 'add more generals to the list': Ask which major military units are not yet represented of the list. These are the best of the best. They are doing what military men never do - speak out. It says - no yells in your face - that the administration is corrupt. Why yell? So many here still remained silent - condone torture and rendition. Policies so anus that silence can only mean approval.

Our political landscape is now so corrupt that even the generals are speaking out again a vile administration. Generals cannot, on principle, criticize George Jr. But don't fool yourself. They know where the problem lies - and why Rumsfeld still remains in office.

Meanwhile, when are we going after bin Laden? Just another competency question.

The WHOLE administration is incompetent! Seems they MADE themselves believe in WOMD to go to war even though the intellegence reports said otherwise and they read them!


I don't allow any right wing christians who voted for Bush in order to save their soul from going to hell because he is against aborting unborn fetus to complain to me!

I just say ' he's the antichrist' instead of going on some rant about how much I can't stand him and I saw all this comming and maybe next time they should use the wisdom god gave them to make an intellegent choice.

Did god EVER say. Please leave your brains at the door?

Even The Washington Times demonstrates a problem that is well beyond Rumsfeld. Where has he been besides at extremist indoctrination seminars? Batiste stated why he would not return to Iraq as second in command. Even Rumsfeld's own senior staff somehow did not know this? Or do they even lie to themselves? Where do they think reality lies? With a president who still says we are winning the "Mission Accomplished" war and who says "Nobody expected the levees to be breeched"?

Add another general to a list of critics: If our grandchildren will be fighting this war? Leaked was that "Mission Accomplished" would only take 20 years? Our grandchildren will be fighting this?

Is this word from Homer Simpson found in the Oxford dictionary? Duhhhhhh....

If I comment any further on this thread, we'll have to move it into Conspiracy Theories.

It occurs to me that "retired generals" would imply old men, steeped in military tradition, trained in the army way and maybe resistant to change. Maybe they don't grasp or trust the new fangled gadgetry of the "army of one".

But then I thought, being generals with years of experience they would appreciate the value of not expending anymore soldiers than necessary. Accept technology that would let them keep as many as possible out of harms way.

The administration has bought the military contractors sales pitch, lock, stock and barrel. They're sold on the gee whiz, high tech, systems and their promised results, whereas the old generals have to be convinced these improvements are really improvements and not bullshit.

They way things have been going over there, the reticence to give up lots of depth in the front line may be justified. It's hard to judge the effectivness of the new systems when the people using them, or at least their bosses, don't have a plan. :eyebrow:

Wrong generals. Go back to 2002. Rumsfeld wanted out generals such as Shelton - (Joint Chief who followed Shalikashvili who succeeded Powell). Curious. Shelton was one of the 1990s generals who had conducted extensive research to identify bin Laden's organization and money sources before and when the George Jr administration insisted there was no threat. IOW he obviously identified real threats before they were threats. The neocons (Project for New American Century) adamantly insisted only Saddam Hussein was a threat - in direct contradiction to what generals such as Shelton were saying.

Many generals who turned down offers to work for Rumsfeld by retirement or other actions include Generals Tommy Franks, John Keane, B. Bell, James Campbell, Larry Ellis, Philip Kensinger, John Abazaid, and Eric Shinseki. All generals of major Asian and European commands and other top positions. Normally the job would be a major promotion. But it meant dealing directly and repeatedly with Rumsfeld. Remember what Rumsfeld said back then when he could not find generals who agreed with his way: "my way or the highway." Curious. Now he says all those generals could speak up at any time and he would listen.

We now have a new crop of generals, all recently bloodied in combat and all recently retired, who also saw Rumsfeld and the administration for what they really are. Especially significant is Batiste who was regarded as a sure bet for Joint Chief. He turned down a third star - considered the biggest promotion in a lifetime - because his principles were stronger than his ambitions. Because for one reason that he has made quite clear - Rumsfeld.

Janise Karpinski makes an interesting speculation - and she admits it is only speculation. This first strike nuclear attack on Iran has unnerved the entire US military. Did my post on the matter exceed any previous post in making the point! It better! Notice punctuation I almost never use! I have never made a post in the Cellar as critical importance as that post about George Jr's nuclear first strike proposition! Mark my word! More adamant than any post opposed to a useless invasion of Iraq and any post demanding the rescue of Kuwait - none should be remember as much as my recent post on a 1st strike nuclear attack of Iran!

What Janise Karpinski suggests has much merit. This may not be about Rumsfeld. We won't be fooled again was a promise by virtually all generals to not let the mistakes of Vietnam happen again. And yet that is exactly what is happening now. Except the people making these decisions to subvert the world view nuclear war as a viable and freely used option. If we have nuclear weapons, then we should be free to use them at any time. Notice the appropriate use of !!!!

One final point. Much of my opposition to the original Iraq war was based sources I will say no more about. Do you think I was so accurate about Iraq all these years for no reason. The military is not happy about what Rumsfeld et al is doing to this nation. Why do you not hear this? Because generals do not talk. That should tell you that we now have serious and severe problems with our current civilian leadership. It has gotten that bad which is why Janise Karpinski may be more accurate than any of us should want to believe. Something bad is happening in the US military. This due to civilian leadership who saw nothing wrong in proposals to unilaterally attack Russia, India, or Germany to keep the US in a #1 position. Real bad. And neocon fingerprints are all over it. Such minds would give no second thought to using nuclear weapons.

If this post does not give you pause, then read it again. George Jr has considered a 1st strike nuclear attack - Pearl Harbor style - which he personally characterized as speculation. He does not even deny it. Speculation by an administration with such a long history of lying that any responsible military man should be worried! Would that not cause generals to start talking! Damn straight it would! These are people who never talk! Be worried or be an ostrich! What these generals have said may really be about something far more danagerous - which makes sense considering the morals of George Jr and his administration.

These comments on "speculation" are a serious mis-reading of the story.

The administration is not speculating. The administration is saying that Seymour Hersh is speculating, or that people are speculating when they are speaking to Hersh.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12252300/from/RSS/

:lol:



Fact is sometimes stranger than fiction. Life imitating art and all those time worn phrases couldn't be more true regarding this Administration.


Nostradamus and Bible's predictions make it creepy. Modern day authors make it maddening,shocking.

What is scary is how dismissive everyone is of tactical, not strategic, nuclear weapons, as if a nuclear bunker buster is just a small step up from a MOAB.

It almost seems as if they cannot comprehend exactly what kind of provocation this would mean and how many people this would move off the fence to actively fight us.

The whole problem I have with Manicheism is the unshakable belief among some practitioners that it is impossible for white hats to get dirty, that good is always good no matter what despicable acts are done.

I could almost picture the next day commentary on new channels around the world. Of course, the next day banter on Fox Network would consist of "Well, it had to be done." and "About time!":mad:

OLD SOLDIERS....NOT
 

Did George Jr say Seymour Hersh was speculating? NO. He only said use of nuclear weapons was speculation. So who should we believe? A reporter with a long history of honesty? Or a politician - and one that is supported by religious extremists - who has a long history of lying. Let's see. Saddam caused 11 September attacks. Using the same carefully worded statement, George Jr all but blamed Saddam for 11 September. So deception is situation normal for this man. No wonder he does not say Seymour Hersh was speculating. He says use of nuclear weapons is speculation. So who is speculating? Who should anyone trust?

It goes right to the honesty of each man. He knew after two days of study by Americans that those vans were not mobile biological weapons factories. But he said they were WMDs anyway - knowing full well that he was lying - as any religious extremist would do. He full well knew Iraq was not getting Uranium from Niger - but lied anyway. Then to take revenge, a CIA agent was outted. This president says he would prosecute anyone found to have leaked that information ... knowing full well he and his administration had done the leaking.

So those tubes are for WMDs - even though all advanced physics labs and even Zippe (who does this stuff) had demonstrated ten times over that those aluminum tubes could not be for weapons of mass destruction. But George Jr lied anyway.

UT bought that outright presidential lie - hook, line, sinker, and fishing pole. You would think UT learned from the song "I won't be fooled again". And yet when George Jr again carefully words something so that he cannot be totally caught lying, UT assumes what George Jr would be spinning; not believe the so credibile Seymour Hersh.

UT, this mental midget crook even lies about the levees. "Nobody expected the levees to be breeched." He could not even let the USS Bataan to deploy in hours where it was most so needed. Five days of doing nothing. And now you will believe this president who lies as much as Richard Nixon?

Does the expression "Mission Accomplished" not tell you who the last person on earth to trust is? Does the fact that this president condones torture and rendition - and lies about it - not tell you something about his credibility and honesty?

UT - does he have to murder you before you suggest he might have committed a misdemeanor? This is George Jr - a man with no credibility - a classic example of a religous extremist politician - who said he needed nuclear bunker buster bombs. Why? We know why. Hersh has demonstrated why. UT, when do you finally concede that George Jr is a liar? After he has killed how many millions? What is enough. When we kill hundreds? When we killed 98,000 Iraqi civilians? When we kill millions? When does the number no longer become acceptable?

He would impose religious beliefs on all others. He believes he is god's chosen president. Do you need a statement from the spirit world before conceding that George Jr is a classic lying politician of the worst kind?

George Jr even declared the list of nations he intends to invade - Iraq, Iran, and N Korea. How blunt need a liar be before one says, "Maybe I cannot trust him"?

I saw a man with a gun and a ski mask covering his face walk into a 7-11. But the president told me crime is no longer. Therefore that man could not be a criminal. At what point is that logic flawed? You cannot trust anything this extremist militant; the mental midget president says. That has proven too many times. After so many aluminum tube lies, I would have thought you - you of all people - learned a lesson about this outright liar - George Jr.

When generals of great reputation and in significant numbers do what generals don’t do – speak out against a civilian leadership that has been demonstrated to be incompetent, used MBA school management techniques, lies repeatedly, has as political agenda that even condones unilateral military attacks on India, Germany, and Russia, that already ‘Pearl Harbored’ another nation …. UT how does a sane mind then trust George Jr? How many times over need I post reasons why no sane person can trust this president?

He thinks nothing of using nuclear weapons for 1st strike tactical purposes! Notice the punctuation again! He thinks nothing of conducting war as if it was his messianic agenda. And he stated he believes he is god’s chosen president. Why does that not scare you?

And why is the person demonstrated to have so accurately predicted George Jr over so many years now so concerned? I am extremely concerned because I have so accurately and repeatedly - too many times - identifed George Jr as lying. George Jr is intentionally deceiving if not outrightly lying. We don't have the conventional forces for the invasion of Iran. But the president is already spinning to justify air strikes on Iran. No wonder he so wanted that bunker busting nuclear bomb.

One final point. His supporters want Armageddon. The extremist right wing religious fanatics have said on the news that a war is necessary to the second coming of Christ. Those are George Jr's strongest supporters. George Jr, with nuclear weapons, would only be doing what his extremist supporters want!! Any you still think this mental midget president - god's chosen president - would not lie?

If it's not nuclear it dosen't require exclaimation points, and only eight paragraphs from you instead of the requisite fifteen.

The Pentagon makes all kinds of war plans all the time. That's their job. This is not news. If they do not have an Iranian invasion plan on the table they are incompetent. It doesn't mean invasion is imminent.

The fact that W is not competent does not allow you to divine the truth by merely assuming the opposite of his position.

I ran this through the American to English translator, but it too was stumped [stymied]. Is it a colloquialism or a reference that I missed? Please explain.

Pre-Iraqi war tw's position was that aluminium tubes purchased by Iraq were for missiles and not for nuclear enrichment. It turned out he was right and for the last three years he's used it as proof he's right about everything else.

For a while, every time he used it as "proof", I would go into the archives and locate a thing he was wrong about. But that became tiresome.

I see, thanks. I thought it was probably a very dumb question, but figured staying ignorant was even dumber.

I hate to agree on anything W related but this is the real deal. We (maybe not we but soon Israel and eventually Europe) are officially on a raft of shit with the Iranians going nuclear. We need solutions, not I told you so's. I think Georgies subverting their government idea is foolish and strengthens the nuts. I think going pre-emptive and/or nuclear on them really does make us the Nazis to the Moslem on the street. So how do we handle them? Yes George has completely blown it so far, but where do we go from here?

Nations develope a reputation just like people do that can be hard to live down. Just for the sake of argument, suppose Iran was building nuclear weapons only for self protection, censored all Muslim extremists, rounded up all terrorsts within its borders and accepted Jesus as its savior. Would the rest of the world think Iran was now our friend? Maybe, but I doubt it.

The US has managed to accumulate plenty of ill will in the Muslim world, and we will have great difficulty undoing the harm this and other administrations have done. The US has the blood of 100,000 Iraqi civilians on its hands. Frankly, I don't blame Iran for building nuclear weapons. If the tables were turned and Iran had just invaded Canada and we had no nukes, wouldn't we busily be trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal to defend ourselves? Would we beleive Iran if it told us that it came in peace after watching footage of bombed Canadian cities and injured or killed Canadian children on the nightly news?

The scenario may seem ridiculous, but its how and neighboring Muslim countries view what happened in Iraq. The US has a lot to live down and we don't seem to be trying very hard to do anything different.

George Jr claimed those aluminum tubes were for centrifuges - Weapons of Mass Destruction - nuclear bomb production. This along with another claim that the uranium was from Niger.

One can learn the entire story in the New York Times 3 October 2004 - a front page article and two full pages inside.

Those who said those aluminum tubes were not for WMDs also said those aluminum tubes were the perfect size for making Medusa rockets - an Italian product. George Jr administration said there was no value in anondizing those tubes because the Italians did not do it. They forgot to mention that anondized tubes were totally wrong for cetrifuges.

So where were those aluminum tubes found? In a factory to make Medusa rockets. Since Iraq had to store those tubes outside, they also found large number of non-anondized tubes that had to be scrapped.

Like the mobile biological weapons lab, these aluminum tubes for WMDs were another in numerous lies by George Jr. This is not an honest president.

Meanwhile, what is published about Centrifuges (I beleive it is a recent issue of Scientific American) is important to understand where Iran is in their uranium enrichment program. As more facts come available, Iran is farther behind than I originally suspected and much farther behind what the administration was predicting.

Don't forget for one minute why all this occurred. Forces in Iran that were opposed to nuclear weapons development - a force that was growing and therefore opposed to right wing mullahs - was completely undermined by George Jr in 2001 and finally subverted in his 2002 State of the Union address. Now even Rafanjani advocates Iranian WMD. We have made the world that unstable.

All this due to a George Jr who sees enemies everywhere - who advocated preemption - whose solution is always in big dic thinking - military solutions. Now that Iran must build WMDs to defend itself, we should continue preemption? We should disparage the well proven policy of containment? Such problems were repeatedly eliminated when containment was the policy.

Until Iran is considered a threat to its neighbors, then Iran can never be a threat to the US. Furthermore, how long before they can even start making a bomb? Many years. Many years. We still have time to defuse the situation. But those efforts that could - Europe, UN - their agenda is subverted by George Jr's outright endorsement of 'Peral Harbor' diplomacy.

I fear war is inevitable due to neo-con mentality of enemies everywhere - where none exist. IOW too many Americans never learned the lessions of Vietnam - and are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history. What I have posted here should have been obvious to every American four years ago.

When diplomacy fails, then war is inevitiable. Goes right to the obvous purpose of war. Using a George Jr mentality, war is inevitable. Worse, George Jr regards nuclear weapons as only tactical devices. Not for one minute should anyone make that dangerous assumption.

Iran is only proclaiming threats - just like N Korea - just like Saddam - to make themselves look stronger than they really are. Like a bird who expands feathers to look menacing, these countries are bluffing. But if we respond with even more threats, those bluffs will only become real - kill more American and make Americans even less popular even with our allies. Exactlly what 'big dic' diplomacy does.

A worst strategy has been implemented. George Jr may have made war inevitable. If true, then what does this author - an accused liberal - advocate? Nuking Tehran. If one goes to war, then a strategic objective demands total and unconditional surrender. Nothing less is acceptable if you are a patriotic Amerian. If one advocates war, one better have a strategy to win it. Nuking centers of power is the only way such a war can be won - since we don't have conventional forces sufficient to conduct such as war. This because the president has already seriously undermined the US military - that still has not even won the Afghanistan war nor captured bin Laden.

If you think war is inevitiable, then be ready for the next step - US must nuke Iranian power centers. That means nuking cities. And that is what George Jr propaganda is preparing you to accept. Don't fool yourself. And don't forget the need for a draft. Going to war must be final - a strategic objective. If you are not ready to be as god damn hard nose brutal as I am, then you are not yet ready for war - you have not yet thought out the consequences.

Meanwhile, returning to the original topic. Tommy Franks has rephrased his words in support of Rumsfeld. Six months retired Meyers, former Joint Chief, has also endorsed Rumsfeld. But their reasons reek of one fundamental fact - 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

We did not and do not have enough troops in Iraq. That made obvious from the situation in Anbar Providene - the only part of Iraq that borders Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. From Fallujah to Qaim is a provience in total disarray because there were not enough Marines. And even because of this from Washington Post of 13 Apr 2006:
This is the army that will take over Iraq? Just like Vietnam where we were also winning the war. Current generals swore we would never have another Vietnam. So where is this victory coming from as the insurgency grows AND as the militia are now killing more than insurgents. According to Rumsfeld, it is all due to Al Qaeda - he continues promoting that mythical dragon.

Somehow we are winning a "Misson Accomplished" war? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management - just like in Vietnam. So they (ie Rumsfeld) forgot to tell you why Iraqi units completely disappear when deployed to places such as Fallujah? Rumsfeld will even tell you they are fighting for Iraq - when they really needed a job that sometimes does not pay until Americans find more money. Another article describes an American Sgt who carried three bags - $650,000 - to finally pay those Qaim soldiers with replacement money that otherwise had disappeared.

This is a war that Rumsfeld says we are winning?

At least the Iraqi's have barracks, dilapitated or not. American soldiers get run down warehouses - that's if they're lucky. They seldom get the luxury of a shower and stay clean as best they can using baby wipes that the folks back home send them in care packages. It is not unusual to for them to get as little as a quart of clean drinking water per day.

The US military simply does not have the man power to fully police the occupation of Iraq, and the majority of people in the US have no understanding of the hardships our troops are suffering.

DEFAULT
 

We haven't been at war in decades.

Well, we've been at war, but without all those nasty rules that have to be enforced if we make it official.

When there are $7688 TVs at Walmart we are probably not at war.

Remember those planets in Star Trek that had eliminated all of the hassles of constant war? They had very nice TVs.

Then who's lying, walmart or Michael Yon? :eyebrow:

The WSJ via CNN,says Bush has his own covey of generals to rebuke the dissenters and call them stogy old cranks as well as unpatriotic.:right:

And so we go right to what those four generals say: When did Saddam bring down flight 93? When did Saddam attack the WTC and Pentagon?

The war in Iraq is not being won. 85% of problems are directly traceable to top management - clearly Rumsfeld and George Jr. AND the reasons given to fight a war in Iraq are justified by 11 September? Why are four generals lying to defend Rumsfeld? Are they simply following the president’s orders? Or are they that misguided?

How deep is this pool of outright liars? Anyone who can read knows Saddam was totally unrelated to Flight 93. Maybe these four generals think you - the person reading this - is that dumb? Or maybe these four generals also believe category three levees would not be breeched by a category five hurricane? Maybe Rumsfeld had to reach that deep into a barrel of retired generals to find support? Iraq is about Flight 93? They acutally wrote that in defense of Rumsfeld?

Meanwhile the reason for Flight 93 was in Afghanistan. Remember bin Laden who Rumsfeld and George Jr will not go after? Remember how 10th Mountain was denied access to Tora Bora and then later sent up without preparation - causing numerous unnecessary casulties? More micromanagement by Rumsfeld or Bush. So yes, let's listen to the tapes of Flight 93 - and remember that George Jr did not go after bin Laden. Four generals somehow call that competence? And when did those four generals say we will go after bin Laden?

Was there some specific intelligence material I missed or is this another '9/11' response, an intellectual 'talk to the hand' that is not meant to provide information, merely 'wave a bloody shirt' and imply that the questioner is unpatriotic or out of touch.

As for the 'why we fight in Iraq', I would LOVE to hear a consistent and defensible explanation of that other than 'failed intelligence'.

And so sayeth the Bush.....Oh yeah, oh yeah, well I've got generals too, so there.:right:

It's believed that 75 percent of serving Army officers agree with what the retired generals have said. As someone who joined the Army out of high school, then went on to college, I have to agree with them as well.

I just don't get the feeling that Rumsfeld --- who served as an active-duty pilot in the years between Korea and Vietnam, thus neatly avoiding anything like real combat --- has a feel for what a real ground war is like. And I agree with the comparison to McNamara.

I can serve up a real rant on this, if you really want to set me off. Suffice it to say I'm dead certain Mr. Rumsfeld and his fellow zealots dramatically underestimated the amount of ground troops that would would be needed to pacify Iraq, a mistake which has been paid for by the everyday grunt.

So what is wrong with the other 25%? Are they ostriches? Too few troops is so obvious as to not even be debateable.

Principles upon which the Iraq invasion were predicated and justified were defined by Project for New American Century. A political agenda where unilateral miliary action should be applied liberally to fix the world. Iraq is a perfect example of that agenda. And yet even in Project for New... , it is a no brainer, slam-dunk, obvious. From Project for New American Century of 12 July 2005: Why do 25% of the officers so deny reality? Even the 'strike first and ask questions later' Project for New... identified this problem long ago because it was that obvious. But not to Rumsfeld or to a president who could not even name the countries adjacent to Israel.

If your closest friends and allies were saying this a year ago, then why is it not true today? Denial. Blind denial. Clearly those field officers must be demented or unpatriotic. Good Morning Vietnam. 500,000 troops for one year is required.

Jesus, TW....just because some don't agree doesn't make them "demented or unpatriotic". They just don't agree with that assessment. It would depend on where they are and if they need more manpower.

Do you think every "field officer" has a handle on the whole of Iraq? I'm not convinced any of them see the big picture, more likely they're trying to control their sector and if it's a fairly quiet one they may not need more men.

The ones in and around Baghdad know they need manpower because that's where the action is right now.
Hence, different perspectives, different assessments. :2cents:

The only comment on this I have to make is why did these generals wait until they were retired to come out public like this? If they honestly felt as they claim they do now then they would have done everything possible to save the lives of the troops under their command. But instead, they wait till they retire to jump up and shout. Seems to me they had held their retirement pay and careers ahead of their own troops. Money and political motives over loyalty to their own men. Sad.

Zinni came off very good with Bill Maher this past week. In the end, all 3 guests agreed that we have to stay to the finish in Iraq, although I'm not sure about where they stood about starting it in the first place.

Heather Higgins was the only one who even attempted to defend the handling of the war up to this point.

Young Officers Join the Debate Over Rumsfeld (NY Times)

By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: April 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 22 — The revolt by retired generals who publicly criticized Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has opened an extraordinary debate among younger officers, in military academies, in the armed services' staff colleges and even in command posts and mess halls in Iraq.

Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at the 2004 graduation ceremony of the United States Military Academy.
Junior and midlevel officers are discussing whether the war plans for Iraq reflected unvarnished military advice, whether the retired generals should have spoken out, whether active-duty generals will feel free to state their views in private sessions with the civilian leaders and, most divisive of all, whether Mr. Rumsfeld should resign.

In recent weeks, military correspondents of The Times discussed those issues with dozens of younger officers and cadets in classrooms and with combat units in the field, as well as in informal conversations at the Pentagon and in e-mail exchanges and telephone calls.

To protect their careers, the officers were granted anonymity so they could speak frankly about the debates they have had and have heard. The stances that emerged are anything but uniform, although all seem colored by deep concern over the quality of civil-military relations, and the way ahead in Iraq.

The discussions often flare with anger, particularly among many midlevel officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and face the prospect of additional tours of duty.

"This is about the moral bankruptcy of general officers who lived through the Vietnam era yet refused to advise our civilian leadership properly," said one Army major in the Special Forces who has served two combat tours. "I can only hope that my generation does better someday."

An Army major who is an intelligence specialist said: "The history I will take away from this is that the current crop of generals failed to stand up and say, 'We cannot do this mission.' They confused the cultural can-do attitude with their responsibilities as leaders to delay the start of the war until we had an adequate force. I think the backlash against the general officers will be seen in the resignation of officers" who might otherwise have stayed in uniform.

One Army colonel enrolled in a Defense Department university said an informal poll among his classmates indicated that about 25 percent believed that Mr. Rumsfeld should resign, and 75 percent believed that he should remain. But of the second group, two-thirds thought he should acknowledge errors that were made and "show that he is not the intolerant and inflexible person some paint him to be," the colonel said.

Many officers who blame Mr. Rumsfeld are not faulting President Bush — in contrast to the situation in the 1960's, when both President Lyndon B. Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara drew criticism over Vietnam from the officer corps. (Mr. McNamara, like Mr. Rumsfeld, was also resented from the outset for his attempts to reshape the military itself.)

But some are furiously criticizing both, along with the military leadership, like the Army major in the Special Forces. "I believe that a large number of officers hate Rumsfeld as much as I do, and would like to see him go," he said.

"The Army, however, went gently into that good night of Iraq without saying a word," he added, summarizing conversations with other officers. "For that reason, most of us know that we have to share the burden of responsibility for this tragedy. And at the end of the day, it wasn't Rumsfeld who sent us to war, it was the president. Officers know better than anyone else that the buck stops at the top. I think we are too deep into this for Rumsfeld's resignation to mean much.

"But this is all academic. Most officers would acknowledge that we cannot leave Iraq, regardless of their thoughts on the invasion. We destroyed the internal security of that state, so now we have to restore it. Otherwise, we will just return later, when it is even more terrible."

The debates are fueled by the desire to mete out blame for the situation in Iraq, a drawn-out war that has taken many military lives and has no clear end in sight. A midgrade officer who has served two tours in Iraq said a number of his cohorts were angered last month when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that "tactical errors, a thousand of them, I am sure," had been made in Iraq.

"We have not lost a single tactical engagement on the ground in Iraq," the officer said, noting that the definition of tactical missions is specific movements against an enemy target. "The mistakes have all been at the strategic and political levels."

Many officers said a crisis of leadership extended to serious questions about top generals' commitment to sustain a seasoned officer corps that was being deployed on repeated tours to the long-term counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the rest of the government did not appear to be on the same wartime footing.

"We are forced to develop innovative ways to convince, coerce and cajole officers to stay in to support a war effort of national-level importance that is being done without a defensewide, governmentwide or nationwide commitment of resources," said one Army colonel with experience in Iraq.

Another Army major who served in Iraq said a fresh round of debates about the future of the American military had also broken out. Simply put, the question is whether the focus should be, as Mr. Rumsfeld believes, on a lean high-tech force with an eye toward possible opponents like China, or on troop-heavy counterinsurgency missions more suited to hunting terrorists, with spies and boots on the ground.

In general, the Army and Marines support maintaining beefy ground forces, while the Navy and Air Force — the beneficiaries of much of the high-tech arsenal — favor the leaner approach. And some worry that those arguments have become too fierce.

"I think what has the potential for scarring relations is the two visions of warfare — one that envisions near-perfect situational awareness and technology dominance, and the other that sees future war as grubby, dirty and chaotic," the major said. "These visions require vastly different forces. The tension comes when we only have the money to build one of these forces. Who gets the cash?"

Some senior officers said part of their own discussions were about fears for the immediate future, centering on the fact that Mr. Rumsfeld has surrounded himself with senior officers who share his views and are personally invested in his policies.

"If civilian officials feel as if they could be faced with a revolt of sorts, they will select officers who are like-minded," said another Army officer who has served in Iraq. "They will, as a result, get the military advice they want based on whom they appoint."

Kori Schake, a fellow at the Hoover Institution who teaches Army cadets at West Point, said some of the debates revolved around the issues raised in "Dereliction of Duty," a book that analyzes why the Joint Chiefs of Staff seemed unable or unwilling to challenge civilian decisions during the war in Vietnam. Published in 1997, the book was written by Col. H. R. McMaster, who recently returned from a year in Iraq as commander of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment.

"It's a fundamentally healthy debate," Ms. Schake said. "Junior officers look around at the senior leadership and say, 'Are these people I admire, that I want to be like?' "

These younger officers "are debating the standard of leadership," she said. "Is it good enough to do only what civilian masters tell you to do? Or do you have a responsibility to shape that policy, and what actions should you undertake if you believe they are making mistakes?"

The conflicts some officers express reflect the culture of commander and subordinate that sometimes baffles the civilian world. No class craves strong leadership more than the military.

"I feel conflicted by this debate, and I think a lot of my colleagues are also conflicted," said an Army colonel completing a year at one of the military's advanced schools. He expressed discomfort at the recent public criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld and the Iraq war planning by retired generals, including Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, the former operations officer for the Joint Chiefs, who wrote, in Time magazine, "My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results."

But the colonel said his classmates were also aware of how the Rumsfeld Pentagon quashed dissenting views that many argued were proved correct, and prescient, like those of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, a former Army chief of staff. He was shunted aside after telling Congress, before the invasion, that it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure and stabilize Iraq.

Others contend that the military's own failings are equally at fault. A field-grade officer now serving in Iraq said he thought it was incorrect for the retired generals to call for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. His position, he said, is that "if there is a judgment to be cast, it rests as much upon the shoulders of our senior military leaders."

That officer, like several others interviewed, emphasized that while these issues often occupied officers' minds, the debate had not hobbled the military's ability to function in Iraq. "No impact here that I can see regarding this subject," he said.

Because they would have been put in prison. The military has no free speech rights. If you want to criticize your superiors in public, you have to retire.

Active duty generals cannot talk. Anyone who spoke too accurately to Rumsfeld was retired - as was well known back then (it’s my way or the highway). You heard retired generals saying back then how wrong the Iraq invasion would be. Too few troops were reported before the invasion began. Did you not listen or were your sources Fox News? Once the invasion of Iraq started, retired generals went quiet as they must. Too many Americans chose to stay ignorant - a definition of anti-American - and did not demand a smoking gun to justify war.

You are supposed to know what justifies war. YOU are required to understand concepts such as a 'smoking gun'. That knowledge is required to be a patriotic American. Speaking publicly against a lying president is not a general's job. You (all) are required to learn basic concepts so as to make an informed decision. Did you? Did you demand a smoking gun - or were only mythical threats sufficient to justify war?

From 2003 are the concepts - what generals can and cannot say has long ago been discussed here: After 'the war', retired generals began talking again. As we clearly now know, those retired generals (speaking for active duty generals) were correct (it was too much information for Dave and MaggieL said, "I'm not readin' that crap ..." - IOW how to define anti-American).

Every general who commanded in Iraq and who is now retired is saying these same things. When they were active duty, they could not speak. These generals are simply saying what their retired peers were saying for them before the war. How blunt could they be? Did you listen? Or do so many Americans so hate America as to instead listen to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News? Do so many Americans so hate America as to even refuse to learn facts as MaggieL did? Therein lies the only problem. Iraq was 'Pearl Harbored' without even smoking gun justification.

The generals did everything they could to protect American lives. Failure was back here in America where propaganda and emotion replaced hard knowledge and a grasp of history. Demonstrated is the problem in years of previous posts in The Cellar. Notice the number of Cellar posts dedicated to promoting George Jr myths. Notice how Dave found reality too long and MaggieL somehow just knew otherwise - reality be damned. That is where the problem was then and still remains. Generals were as loud and obvious as they could be. But so many Americans instead listened either to their 'big dic' mentality or Fox News / Rush Limbaugh.

An anti-American is defined as one who does not learn facts before somehow knowing. Problems in Iraq today were long understood by active duty generals - now retired. We were told the problem. And yet some still so hate America as to criticize those generals. Many instead listened to a mental midget president who was clearly lying. Generals are not at fault. They did everything possible to inform you. Did you listen or were you hyped by neocon inspired testosterone?

To be a patriotic American, you are expected to learn the lessons of history. Generals did everything they could to encourage you to become a patriotic American. To many were anti-American - could not bother to first learn facts. Somehow just knew - decisions based only upon emotion - that Iraq must be invaded. Knowlege - not love of country - defines a patriotic American. Retired generals warned us. Did you listen?

These generals still had the choice of their careers or to speak up. They choose their careers. If they honestly felt as everyone thinks they do now, do you think them "being [forcibly] retired" would stop them? BTW I do not watch Fox News very often and believe about as much off it as I do CNN, or CBS, or ABC. They all lie and they all promote their own agendas. To trust in what ANY of them says is ludicrous. You can only use your best judgment since none of us (NONE) knows the whole truth and you are delusional if you think you do.

Well my best judgement turns out to be more accurate than even I expected -because I did trust the honest news sources. Fox News is most often lying.

To even associate Fox News with other reliable sources suggests why you never heard what the generals had been saying. Fox News stated purpose is not accurate news. The fact that is was listed alongside responsible news sources suggests why one might believe a lying president.

BBC, WSJ, NY Times, Radio Netherlands, The Economist, CNN, Bloomberg News, NPR, Chicago Tribune, Charlie Rose, 'real' Network News, AP, and so many more. Sometimes each may get a story wrong. So rarely that such mistakes are major news. 'Best judgement' says one routinely ignores anything from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh except to learn what extremists are hyping as propaanda.

Funny how I heard what generals were saying so many years ago - and I was using those sources that were disparaged by FloridaDragon. Why did those sources serve me so accurately? I put trust where trust was earned.

Those generals did exactly as generals must do. Now that they are saying publicly what was always known, Florida Dragon instead blames the generals? Only Rush Limbaugh would do that. Those generals have always been honest with us - as honest as they could be considering the limits of their jobs. Shame on anyone for blaming the generals when we out here did the lying to ourselves. We permitted without dissent the United States to 'Pearl Harbor' a nation that was a threat to no one - and without even a smoking gun. Why does FloridaDragon have a problem with this reality?

It's not the news services that are to blame. If you did not see those presidential lies, then you have only yourself to blame. Honest news services provided what you needed to suspect the president was lying. Where was your judgement when retired generals were telling you the truth years ago? Blame goes to those who believed an MBA educated president. There was more than sufficient evidence early on to suspect the president was lying - from responsible news organizations. Now retired and permitted to be candid, those generals are the benchmark one uses to determine if he is honest or he is routinely conned by scum politicians. George Jr and Rumsfeld lied. Did you believe those liars or were you patriotic?

I like how anyone who does not agree with the garbage spewing out of your mouth is uniformed or even unpatriotic. Had you on my ignore list for a long time tw and back you go. (so rant all you want, I won't be reading it ... to put it in words even you will understand, you are just as worth listening to as Fox News ... and I sincerely mean that).

FloridaDragon has no information sources (that he will admit to) and yet somehow knows those generals must be wrong. Suspiciously, he uses classic Rush Limbaugh logic. One who cannot answer honestly - a Rush Limbaugh tradition - must then reply with insults.

FloridaDragon needs no news sources? He automatically knows those generals must be lying? Or FloridaDragon has information from sources best not admitted.

Meanwhile, the generals are only saying what has long been known - even declared a year ago by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC): No wonder torture and rendition are normal and acceptable in this United States government.

I'm so hurt. FloridaDragon put me on his ignore list along with Project for New American Century - since we both must be as wrong as six generals. How then did he reply to my posts? Hummmmh. Did somebody lie?

When we were in Afghanistan, before Iraq started, there were plenty of news sources talking about the friction between the administration and the Pentagon, about lean & mean vs mucho manpower.
Hell even I knew about it, so it must have been all over.:right:

Point of order: coveys may be composed of pheasants (on the ground), ptarmigans, grouse (you probably meant this one), partridges, and of course, quail. Hawks gathered together to advise the president form an aerie, cast or kettle. And we all know what color the kettle is.

Carry on.

I stand corrected, V. :notworthy

And so any American who want patriotic credibility are watchng Frontline on PBS - The Dark Side on Tues 20 Jun 2006.

Who were bin Laden allies? Cheney and Rumsfeld who would not even commit US forces to Tora Bora. Why was Al Qaeda even found in Tora Bora? CIA, in frustration with Rumsfeld foot dragging, went into Tora Bora and found Al Qaeda.

Reams of other outright Cheney lies including "bin Laden and Saddam were allies" ... but then anyone would know that was false. This Frontline report demonstrates why those lies were repeatedly promoted. Why George Tenent and CIA (who were doing a 100% great job) instead are mislabeled as intelligence failures. Why even Tenent had to lie about 'slam dunk' when marginalized by Cheney, et al.

If you have the brain of a patriotic American, you know that it was Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al who were lying. Same people who were upset because CIA refused to report an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA would not report WMDs and would not report myths that politicians wanted. So CIA gets blamed. So Tenent gets fired.

Lies are exposed using first person interviews by those who saw what those lies, at the highest levels of government, did to even create a mythical threat and the Mission Accomplished war. Good people destroyed by a president whose reputation (like Nixon) is more important than America.

Repeatedly I would ask when are we going after bin Laden? The obvious answer was never, in part, because anti-Americans even in the Cellar supported a scumbag president. Of course, America still has made no serious effort to get bin Laden - and you should have no problem acknowledging that fact. That alone should be reason to call for impeachment. So why do Americans not do same? Because a Monica Lewinsky blow job is worthy of impeachment - but a president that protects bin Laden by being incompetent is not impeachable? In your face - are you a patriotic American, or do you forgive a current president who has a blow job mentality?

Frontline - The Dark Side. Yes they even show how an aluminum tube lie was created starting with Condi Rice. They show evidence of aluminum tubes from that secret government document - the NIE - was locked away and considered a pathetic joke by those who know.

Yes myths about aluminum tubes, Niger yellowcake, et al was so obvious that we even debated here for months. Yes some in the Cellar are more inspired by Oprah Winfrey logic to believe that scumbag president. Others who think like an engineer could therefore see through those lies.

Meanwhile every general who served in Iraq and has since retired has all but told you what a scumbag liar this president really is.

BTW, why were those myths of mobile biological labs created? In part because torture was used for a *confession*. Shocked? Only America’s greatest enemies torture - which tells you so much about the George Jr administration – all senior staff members and their president - Cheney. Oh. Americans don't really torture? And those 700 prisoners in Guantanamo - maybe only ten are guilty of anything. Being a scumbag is not an impeachable offense?

Frontline was depressing. It will be a difficult job to repair the damage this administration has done to the government.

They've also created a portion of the population so disgusted they may quit voting entirely. :(