Posted on 09/25/2006 6:38:12 PM PDT by John Carey
Three retired U.S. Army Officers address a congressional committee on the war in Iraq in starkly harsh words Monday.
“I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq,” retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste told a forum conducted by Senate Democrats.
A second military leader, also a retired two-star general, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, assessed Rumsfeld as “incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically.”
A third officer, retired Col. Paul X. Hammes, joined Batiste and Eaton in testimony before the Democratic Policy Committee of the U.S. Senate. The unusual location was chosen, Democrats said, because the Republican leadership in the Senate has not permitted thorough oversight of the war in Iraq from the Senate Armed Services Committee. Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-ND) said majority Republicans had failed to conduct hearings on the issue, adding, “if they won’t … we will.”
All three officers who testified served in Iraq, and Batiste also was senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
Batiste, who commanded the Army’s 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, also blamed Congress for failing to ask “the tough questions.”
He said Rumsfeld at one point threatened to fire the next person who mentioned the need for a postwar plan in Iraq.
“Mr. Rumsfeld and his immediate team must be replaced or we will see two more years of extraordinarily bad decision-making,” General Eaton said.
(Excerpt) Read more at johnib.wordpress.com ...
Who wrote that crap, you?
Then what exactly does a political stunt look like to you? How about an angry base of an out of power party dividing a nation engaged in a forward looking war by scraping up three officers to speak before an ancillary partisan committee to drive a wedge between the administration and their risk taking Sec Def with wild vague accusations of his failure in areas that aren’t his responsibility.
So they say it’s Rumsfeld’s, “failure to build coalitions with U.S. allies from what he dismissively called old Europe”? So Rumsfeld’s post invasion comment is the reason France, Germany, Belgium etc don’t have troops in Iraq? Rumsfeld is the reason training is under-equipped after the “good equipment has gone to Iraq”? So he’s in charge of foreign affairs and appropriations now?
I think Rumsfeld's made his share of mistakes, but this nonsense is the epitome of a political stunt.
This was no "congressional committee" and you know it, bub. If you had said, "an ad hoc committee of Democrat congressmen" you might have gotten a pass, but you're just a bad liar.
Here is what I did write about the angry ex-President...
Restore Civility in Debate, Politics and Government
By John E. Carey
September 25, 2006
There seems a lack of civility, good manners, decorum and protocol in Washington these days.
One side frequently calls the other side names instead of making organized, logical arguments. Or sometimes, even while making good arguments, the "tone" of the discussion is so harsh that the message gets damaged or lost.
We entered the world of the “blogosphere” on July 4, 2006. In this internet land of people discussing world events, the language often is particularly harsh, polarizing and nasty.
Former President Bill Clinton entered (or re-entered depending upon your point of view) the fray on Sunday, September 24, 2006, during an interview with Chris Wallace on the TV show "Fox News Sunday."
Associated Press writer Karen Matthews, reporting on the exchange, called it “combative.” The Washington Times' Eric Pfeiffer used words like "angry," "blame," "agitated," "contentious," and "heated exchange."
Former President Bill Clinton, an experienced and calculating politician, one has to think, threw this tantrum intentionally. Either that or he just lost his cool during a TV interview and then failed to ask for a re-taping to set the record straight. Which do you think?
According to Pfeiffer, "Mr. Clinton became so agitated that he could be seen wagging his right index finger at moderator Chris Wallace."
"You've got that little smirk on your face, and you think you're so clever," Mr. Clinton said. "You did your nice little conservative hit job on me."
Mr. Wallace said after the interview, "As he leaned forward -- wagging his finger in my face and then poking the notes I was holding -- I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me."
Mr. Wallace said more on Fox on Monday afternoon September 25: "He just blew," said an incredulous Wallace about the former president. "What set him off," continued Wallace, "was one of my questions. But it was clear President Clinton had been boiling about ABC and their recent show ("The Path to 9/11") and I just hit a raw nerve."
Wallace said he did not think President Clinton's reaction was scripted or planned and that "he was still fuming as he left the studio."
Wallace also said his producer tried to cut off the president to save embarassment, saying off camera, "End this interview right away," but that the presdinet continued speaking.
This is conduct for a former president? To make a point? I can hear George Washington, Abe Lincoln and a bunch of the other former "Bubbas" rolling over in their graves.
Those are not words usually associated with a president sitting for a media interview. Or speaking anywhere on anything. I can’t think of those words ever applied to an ex-president during a media exchange. This may just qualify Mr. Clinton for another description: “not presidential.”
Mr. Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job." Not presidential at all.
Did president Clinton miss a memo about letting others mix it up in public with the opposition and their media? Even my Vietnamese-born wife observed: “Good thing Clinton didn’t interview with Bill O’Reilly on Fox. It might have ended up with Bill and Bill on the floor slugging each other.”
Not presidential.
And as the leader of the Democratic party, the former president used his leadership by example to tell his followers that a nearly enraged response to criticism is all right. Completely acceptable. Even appropriate.
We have a problem with this.
It is bad enough we have to hear the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “talking smack” as they say, at the United Nations; now we have to hear it from a former President of the United States?
Makes one wonder what side is Bill Clinton on? And why does he see a need to lower himself to the level of Chavez and Ahmadinejad? Are we missing something?
An exchange between President Bush and the Today show’s Matt Lauer on the anniversary of 9/11 caused a flurry of discussion on some web sites. Lauer seemed to have an aggressive, even badgering tone with the president as the two stood in the Oval Office discussing 9/11 and other issues of the day. Lauer repeatedly gestured in an aggressive way, almost sticking his finger in the president’s chest.On Sunday, September 10, 2006, on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Democratic National Committee Chairman and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean if he would now apologize to Karl Rove.
It seems, despite Dean’s accusations that Rove was the leaker in the Valery Plame escapade, that Richard Armitage was the unfortunate and inadvertent leaker.Gov. Dean answered, “Absolutely not. I still think he should be fired.”
Armitage apologized in public. Dean could not.
Does it matter? Sure it does.Thoughtful, courteous national discourse has managed to get us and our democracy through a revolution against the most powerful nation on the Earth, a War Between the States, two World Wars and other tragedies and trying times.
If we can get along, maybe we can discuss the problems and get the best answers. Maybe a more civil and etiquette-driven discussion of the issues can help us get through the War on Terror.
Instead, we have become a nation led by name-callers, insult-slingers and generally rude, angry and impolite representatives.And sometimes, the media, maybe unintentionally, magnify the animosity.
This is what many conservatives saw during Matt Lauer's questioning of President Bush on September 11, 2006.
What does this uncivil discourse teach our children? And does it do us any good?
Our American history is full of great men who teach us the importance of good conduct for the common good. Some say George Washington actually authored “The Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour [sic] in Company and Conversation.”
Though not the author, Washington embraced good manners so famously that the “Rules” could easily have been his own creation.The good manners of John Adams also echo to us through history.
With Thomas Paine, Adams watched a young American officer conduct himself less than diplomatically and courteously before the King of France.
Adams wrote to his wife, describing the “Man of Choleric Temper.” Adams said the man “like so many Gentlemen from his State, is abrupt and undiplomatic. Last evening, at a Royal Reception, he confronted His Most Christian Majesty Louis XVI with Words both ardent and impatient, whilst Mr. Paine wrung his Hands at the other man’s lack of Tact. Never did I think that I would see our impetuous Paine so pain’d by another’s want of Courtesy and Civility. To our amazement, however, the King took [the man’s] Enthusiasm in good Part.”
When told one of his generals, John C. Fremont, had been nominated by a group of 400 anti-Lincoln loyalists to run for president, Lincoln opened a Bible and read aloud from I Samuel:22, “And everyone that was in distress, and everyone that was in debt, and everyone that was discontented gathered themselves unto him; and he became a captain over them; and there were with him about four hundred men.”
Modern statesmen pulled the country together, not by tearing others apart or barking at the media, but more often by thoughtful discourse and conduct.
“Both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt operated beautifully on the reporters who surrounded them,” wrote David Keirsey and Ray Choiniere in “Presidential Temperament.”
“Both used the press as if it were their own publicity machine.”
This was largely achieved in a civil, diplomatic style.
A modern day solon of wisdom and truth might be former Indiana Congressman and Democrat Lee Hamilton. Hamilton volunteered some stern remarks about the importance of truth. "Facts are not Republican and they're not Democrat," he said. "They're not ideological. Facts are facts."
I cannot ever recall seeing John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush look petulant, angry or rude. Or terribly distort the facts.
Other great national leaders also reflect respect, even admiration, for the importance of good protocol and decorum.Winston Churchill described a 1941 university ceremony this way: “The blitz was running hard at that time, and the night before, the raid … had been heavy. Several hundreds had been killed and wounded. Many houses were destroyed. Buildings next to the university were still burning, and many of the university authorities who conducted the ceremony had pulled on their robes over uniforms begrimed and drenched; but all was presented with faultless ritual and appropriate decorum, and I sustained a very strong and invigorating impression of the superiority of man over the forces that can destroy him.”
Let’s hope our leaders become enlightened enough to avoid the forces that can destroy them. For our sake and the sake of our children.
I regret the times that bad conduct, anger and a disregard for etiquette got the best of me.
I hope our present day political leaders see the light too.
To get though the war against terror and to achieve victory, a united, clear-thinking leadership just might be important.
Angry rhetoric and arson with clever words serves no good purpose. It just diminishes our dialogue and our democracy.
Perfect.
Better start checking. You lost 3 somewhere. It was six against him back in April.
You need to reconsider about Jimmy Carter. I've seen him behave and speak in all those manners, usually when out of the country, the sniveling little coward.
Bump
Right! Bump that, Rokke.
The title misleadingly implies that the general testified to a Congressional committee. He testified only to a bunch of Democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.