I could go along with this.
You mean some members of the military are Demorats? And they place party above country? I never heard of such a thing!
SecDef Rumsfeld allows completely for this and Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack knows it -
This is a completely below the belt shot at the SecDef ...and speaks volumes about Swannack -
Hey 82nd, are those bowling alleys done yet in Stan?? - Great, you'll come along now (thanks).
SecDef Rumsfeld is doing one hell of a job and hard charging in the process. When one does this, he is going to ruffle some feathers and cause some people to get their feelings hurt.
It is obvious there are a number of spiteful ex-Gen's who fall into the above category. Nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe, just maybe, some of them have a point. I've heard complaints from ex-military friends of mine about how Rumsfeld has weakened the military with his decisions. These are hardcore gung ho conservatives saying this too.
You gotta remember that Rumsfeld is 'old warfare' - bomb, invade and occupy. He has a new wrinkle - do it on the cheap with equipment and manpower. WW II there were enough troops to completely conquer, occupy and control [thank you draftees].
What is going on here?
Almost no matter what the facts are, Rumsfeld should stay in office. The President should not allow his staff members to be unseated under fire. It happened with Card, and, so far, that one hasn't seemed to hurt too much, but I cringed at the time. My thought is, even if you have a poorly performing staff member (which I do not say about either Card or Rumsfeld), when you are under unrelenting assault from your political enemies, you do not respond to their criticisms about your staff by firing them. In the worst case, you can leave the target in office and transfer his functions to others. Seeming to give in to the critics only strengthens their bloodlust for more.
I have felt all along that this was a lapse, even going back to Bush41, but...
Although I still feel that way, there may be much I do not know. We are not fighting a war like any other previous one, and Political Correctness has never played a bigger role for better or for ill.
So... the Commander-in-Chief still is the only one authorized to select the means. The Generals may disagree, but only behind closed doors.
No recent "old-fashioned" war has not been micromanaged by the legitimate civilian authority from Korea in the 1950s to the the early 1990s. So this criticism is gratuitous and calculated simply to join the chorus of other critics, for diametrically opposed purposes. Those want the present struggle to fail.
Why this general chose to join that group may forever remain a mystery.
There have been many in the Pentagon who don't like it because it means having to give up pet projects and old thinking.
Rummy has made a lot of enemies in that building. But I trust the guy.
All this grousing about "mistakes" in the occupation I think are just Democrat/Al Qaeda spin intended to replay our "defeat" in Vietnam several years after we left the battle. Only this time they want us to loose several years after the capture of Saddam. Unfortunatly the Big Lie still works just like it did for Goebels.
Ok. The Whiney Ex-General Count is up to what? 6? 7?
There's something like 881 Generals and Admirals currently in the Armed Services. How many retire each year? 75? 100?
LOL! I like Rummy. I have always liked Rummy. ... but, you KNOW Rummy has to rub some of 'em the wrong way. A handfull of malcontents is expected.
Wake me up when we get to 50 or something.
Former SecDef Cohen has the experience, probably unemployed, and all these Generals worked for him and you know how effective he was.
Yeah, let's bring back Cohen and Albright. That's the ticket. /sarc
Ohhhhhhhh. Please. Do go on.
"If you understand what Secretary Rumsfeld has done in his time in the Pentagon, he personally is the one who selects the three-star generals to go forward to the president for the Senate to confirm."
Awwwww. Did poor widdle Chawuhls get his widdle feewings hurt by that mean old Donald Rumsfeld because he didn't select him to be a three-star general?
Tough.
Last time I checked there are only 102 people who get to determine who the SecDef is: The President who nominates him and the 101 members of the U.S. Senate (The 100 Senators, and if necessary, in the case of a 50-50 tie, the Vice President who by the Constitution presides in the U.S. Senate.) Rumsfeld was nominated and confirmed so now there is only one man who can "fire" him, and that is George W. Bush. There are 536 men who might also be able to fire him, the 435 members of the House of Representatives were they to impeach him (for what I do not know) and the 101 members of the U.S. Senate. Someone ought to remind these generals that I can take their opinion to Rapid Refill and get a large coffee for $1.46 which is the exact same price I get the coffee for without their learned opinion. So, Charles Swannack, Major General, U.S. Army (ret.), have a nice $1.46 cup of shut the heck up.
If these old brass-terd are so great why are they retired while we are still at war? Don't recall Bradley or Patton putting in papers in 1944.
I'd love to see the political voting and donation records of these 6 generals. I smell a RAT.
Did I hear incorrectly, or have we just forgotten it?
No I can't remember who said it, but it wasn't said loudly enough!