Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by toontra, Apr 14, 2006.
Is this making news stateside? - LINK
Yes. I've noticed it on several sites: NYT, CNN, IHT, Washington Post. It's almost a full chorus. A bit bloody late, if you ask me. When does the WAR CRIMES trial start?
Still, we've been through calls for his resignation several times already. Bush has made it pretty clear that his inclination is not to fire him. I guess that as the election cycle heats up this summer and fall there will be some calculations as to how his resignation might affect votes. Otherwise, I'd say there's no chance.
don't you mean when does the liberation and democritization parade start? i think the iraqis were late getting the announcement....
You know how Republican loyalty works...
They're probably looking for a way to promote him to Secretary General of the U.N. or something.
What's the count of retired generals speaking out about it....up to 5 now?
While this is good (comparatively speaking, as it could be worse), it's hardly impressive.
When a large group of active generals speak up, then I'll be impressed.
No... Bush gang needs be jailed for the mess they've created
You should already be impressed. These are the generals who have recently retired, and can now speak freely. Active military people can't.
as IJ indicated, this is, in fact, very significant. i can't recall ever having seen anything like this.
"Can't" in this case is a strong word.
I'd agree that it would be very difficult and quite bold to speak out while being active.
But if you valued the well-being of your country more so than your individual career, it would be a lot easier.
That's why I am unimpressed, because it's only the retired generals saying anything. All that tells me is that they, for a part of their career, made decisions and gave orders they knew fully well were horrible and ill-advised, and only after they allowed the damage they speak out about it. That does not impress me.
Had Franklin and friends been so precarious, we (us Americans) would still have a king.
Can't is a strong word, but it is also the right word. The military serves civilian authority; they are not entitled to public opinions about their missions. Whatever complaints they may have must go up the chain command, which ends with civilian, elected government officials. This is the difference between a democracy and a banana republic.
In fact, I've heard these generals criticized for going public with their opinions so soon after leaving the service. Wish as you might, you will not hear high-ranking military people opining publicly on the Iraq mission. This is not because they have any concerns about their "careers," but because they understand their roles as military people in a civilian society.
Being a whistle-blower in the military is completely different from being a whistle-blower in the corporate world or public sector. The military runs on discipline and it is simply unacceptable to go outside of the system. These people were generals, and I'm sure they voiced their concerns within the appropriate channels within the military. And I'm sure they believe in the military and the reasons for which military discipline and secrecy exist. To think that these people, while conducting operations, should have stopped, quit, grabbed a reporter and started saying that Rumsfeld was incompetent is completely unrealistic.
Would you have a military that refuses to carry out lawful orders of lawful civilian leadership? Because you haven't heard about disagreements from the generals doesn't mean it hasn't happened, it has been clear for quite a while that the military commanders have objected to the planning and conduct of the civilians in DOD. Have you read Seymour Hersh's article around the Iran nuclear strikes? In it he talks of high-level military commanders who are willing to resign if the use of nukes are not taken out of the plans. That is the only real option uniformed personnel have if the civilian leadership is adamant about a disastrous course. I have to stress that I think that is the course military men and women should take against lawful orders they disagree with. I would hate to think the disasters that are Donald Rumsfield and George Bush have caused a break down in military discipline to the degree that active-duty commanders are openly questioning their Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense.
no surprise here. nytimes
I highly recommend the article in Time magazine by retired Marine Lt. General Greg Newbold entitled "Why Iraq Was a Mistake."
In the Chain of Command those generals cannot speak out against Rumsfield while on active duty, its doesnt work that way unless they want to be demoted,disciplined and given reduced pay. Most of these guys have 1 eye on retirement. Its crazy to think any active general is going to speak up against his superior. Any that do are gone. Thats the way our military system works and since Bush Backs him no matter how poor he does it would be a great way to end you career. Bush is President and he is to blame.
Call as loud as you want. Not. Gonna. Happen.
Now that Bush told Rummy he is "doing a heckava job" I give him two weeks.
We've just had on the BBC news that Bush has fully supported Rumsfeld and ---- well, there are no ands, everything remains tickety-boo. So things go on. No impeachment of Bush, no resignation or sacking of Rumsfeld - rattling of sabres all round. Time to go to bed.
Presumably you think he's done a top-notch job.
Yes, but Bush also fully supported Harriet Myers, Michael Brown and Paul O'Neil at one point as well and where are they now?
Yesterday, I think it was, I heard a rather remarkable editorial on NPR by a Rumsfeld admirer. It boiled down to this: Rumsfeld needs to stay because he never admits to an error, and admitting error in a "time of war" only shows weakness to the enemy. Of course the editorial completely skirted the issue of whether he's done a competent job. Presumably, to even suggest otherwise, is virtually a treasonable offense.
a well-written piece, imo.
Apparently one of the reasons Rumsfeld's unpopularity is so widespread is his practice of taking reprisal on those who have dared to disagree with him. Remind you of anyone - LINK.
Hardly a noble attribute for leaders.
And when it does, I'm sure you won't admit you were wrong.