Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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".

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.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

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!

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/

President Bush said Monday that force is not necessarily required to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon, and he dismissed reports of plans for a military attack against Tehran as "wild speculation."

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Elspode

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

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.

[richlevy]

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!"

[kaylar]

It is usual, In America, that the President (or Vice President, or Secretary of State) is an experienced soldier. Whether a General or an Officer, it is basically
how a nation which has engaged in war, virtually non-stop since 1776 administrates its government.

This is the first time that the United States has a President who can not even be honoured with the term 'draft dodger' or 'anti-war' due to his avoidance of what he felt was an unjust war, but a President who connived to avoid fighting in Viet Nam, not because of political/moral reasons, but cowardice.

It takes a lot of courage to have Protested the War in Vietnam. It takes cowardice to have sat back and 'supported' the war, but not with one's blood.

That all three; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld avoided the draft while supporting the war made them unfit for office.

That all three have absolutely no idea what it is like to be a soldier, no idea
what a war demands of a man, of a nation, but could dishonestly send people to die for an unjust cause, based on a known lie, profit through the war, Halliburton, Oil Prices, and supply the cheapest garbage to the soldiers who are fighting in Iraq, requires an entirely different vocabulary.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Did George Jr say Seymour Hersh was speculating? NO. He only said use of nuclear weapons was speculation.

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.

[carouselle]

After so many aluminum tube lies

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

[carouselle]

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

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

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?

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.

[tw]

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:

U.S., Iraq Commanders Dislike Leave RulesU.S. and Iraqi commanders are increasingly critical of a policy that lets Iraqi soldiers leave their units virtually at will _ essentially deserting with no punishment. They blame the lax rule for draining the Iraqi ranks to confront the insurgency _ in some cases by 30 percent or even half.

Iraqi officials, however, say they have no choice but to allow the policy, or they may gain virtually no volunteers.

... Iraqi army does not require its soldiers to sign contracts. That means they can quit anytime and casually treat enlistments as temporary jobs. Soldiers can even pick up their belongings and leave during missions _ and often do without facing punishment. ...

In the Qaim area near the Syrian border, dozens of soldiers complained last month that they had not been paid in months. The Iraqi Ministry of Defense has struggled to build an infrastructure to both supply and regularly pay its troops. Iraqi soldiers also often live in dilapidated barracks that are slowly being refurbished.

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?