My later post is about the men whon become generals....heroes, heroic, whatever. They remind me of former presidents.
#27: I don't know if a general ever "retires."
The ego that is involved in being "general" probably precludes ever thinking in the box of "civilian who is(slight change, as I re-read and correct) to privvy to squat and therefore knows diddly."
The same applies to former presidents (Carter and Clinton come to mind.) who aren't privvy to current intel but "armchair" quarterback with the rest of us civilians.
All the "formers" can only, ad infinitum, say is "Well, when I was in charge......"
Not worth a whole lot.
To "demand" resignation is beyond arrogant. But, then, that's PART of what got those men to general and president in the first place: supreme self-confidence (REAL close to arrogance).
So long as we're going to talk about the awful nature of generals, let's talk about why we're supporting a man who shook hands with Saddam Hussein on this thread more than we're supporting (even RETIRED) men who fought his sorry ass? I'm confused. We support the man who at one time welcomed Saddam more than we support our troops? I guess since they're retired, they must've slipped into Clinton era liberalism. Is that what you're saying? A lifetime of service to this country in the military, and once you retire, you're not worthy of having an opinion? I'm a long time supporter of our military, and I'd like to think I would stop to listen to anyone who's fought to protect my freedoms. Particularly if they'd earned the rank of general. In my opinion, all you should do is stand up, shut up, and salute. Even if you don't agree.