What's-a BEHIND me... she's-a NOT a-important...Isn't every war pretty much unpopular?
Looks like it's Rumsfield's turn to be "Target of the Week" again. They keep trying, hoping to find a weakness somewhere. I don't think they're going to succeed in drumming him out of Washington.
Every liberal rag has to have someone to demonize. It is Rummy's turn today.
Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the president, not a few ex-generals who are probably Democrats anyway.
I have a few ex-bosses that I never cared too much for. I guess its the same in the military.
More from the 'Saddam wasn't such a bad bloke' crowd.
We have a Commander in Chief. He's running the war, as he should. If he has confidence in Rumsfeld, so do I. On this subject I support Bush and Rumsfeld 100%.
Every war will have it naysayers, but when generals speak out, they MUST have an overpowering arguement. If there was an overpowering arguement, Bush's military advisors would let him know about it.
A person in Rumsfeld's position cannot fake it forever. If he wasn't doing his job, Bush would know by now and make a change. He hasn't, therefore Rumsfeld is doing a great job.
All these generals are doing is making it easier to destroy troop moral in the theater of war.
If Rumsfeld truly wasn't doing his job and our troops were suffering because of it, I'd be very inclined to support his removal.
To this day I dispise Robert McNamera. To this day I admire and respect Rumself a great deal.
I wish these generals would put a sock in it.
Two thousand or more generals in the Army and they think he should buckle under if six don't like him?? What do they think he is, French?
From the wikipedia:
The Center for American Progress is a liberal U.S. think tank and advocacy organization led and created by John Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton. It is located in Washington, D.C. The Center for American Progress has a sister advocacy group, the American Progress Action Fund, and campus outreach group, Campus Progress. As those adjuncts indicate, the Center has a more activist and partisan approach than most think tanks. At its inception, most media noted its partisan mission; in the words of the Atlanta Constitution, "former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta has launched a liberal policy institute, the Center for American Progress, to drive the message for Democrats."
Center for American Progess - Wikipedia
Frankly, I think it is rather misleading for the author(s) of the article not to disclose such information to their readers. They give the impression that the guy works for some unbiased think-tank, when in reality, he works for an organization that was formed to "drive the message for Democrats." In other words, he is a paid shill.
[said Crowley, now a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress.]
Why does it not surprise me that he would say the military doesn't trust the civilian leadership.
First fire all O-6s and above (Col/Capt and Gen/Adm). Then promote warriors. Any officers above O-5 (LTC/CDR) got their on politics. They sucked up to the leaders who sucked up to the SecDef who sucked up to POTUS. Almost all the "leadership" were promoted to O-6 by Clinton. Are you surprised that they whine? Frankly, I am surprised that we have as many halfway decent flag officers as we do. As for all the complaints about "boots on the ground", I have yet to hear one person say, "When I was asked by the President, 'What do you need?'. I told him MORE TROOPS." I have yet to hear it, because they did not say it.
Let those generals read this.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614703/posts
I'm sure those retired Generals have twice as many of their subordinates criticizing their performances.
Hang in there Mr. Rumsfeld, you're doing just fine, quite a few notches on that belt of yours!
A wartime army is different from a peacetime army, and the kind of guy who rises to the top during peacetime isn't the same kind of guy who rises during war.
The Wesley Clarke political types will find themselves pushed out over time, because a warfighting army has no need of them, and they just get in the way. The ones who will stay, and thrive, are the ones who can quickly adjust to the particular challenges of the new war, and quicly fashion a force to meet them.
They say that an army always prepares to fight the last war, and that is probably true until the new war starts; then comes the pain of building the new force to meet the new enemy. Some guys have the right talents for the new war, and some guys have the right talents for the previous war, and need to go home and enjoy their well-earned retirement.
What's-a BEHIND me... she's-a NOT a-important...This article is also on the net titled
Analysis: Criticism Mounts Vs. Rumsfeld
General Tom Franks made this line of BS clear in his biography.
The "Title Ten Motherxxxxxxs" on the JCS wanted control of Iraq, Franks and Rumsfeld told them to screw off, and ow that they have retired and can't be made to suffer, they get even with lies.
Face facts, "Generals", the US Military is now a Joint Operation, you are dinosaurs, and nobody wants to hear your whining and crying.
Get lost.