Posted on 04/19/2006 5:48:52 AM PDT by IrishMike
Once again, the leftists are ramping up their campaign for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, just so they can use the word “embattled” in a sentence. The media have tried to tie every military misstep in the War on Terror directly to Rumsfeld as a way of discrediting President Bush, blaming him for every problem from helicopter crashes to Abu Ghraib. Their political purpose is so obvious that the main result has been a general dwindling of trust in the media. Of course, Rumsfeld has already offered his resignation at least twice, but President Bush refused to accept it.
Since their attacks on Rumsfeld haven’t had the desired effect, those on the left have decided that they needed to quote an authority. Lo and behold, a group of retired generals “spontaneously” decided to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation, and just in time for the 2006 campaign season to get underway! And the liberals--the same people who call members of the military “murders” and “torturers,” consider them no better than Nazis, and scream in outrage when they recruit on college campuses--now want us to believe they hold these six generals and their opinions in the highest regard. The thousands of retired generals who don’t attack Rumsfeld and Bush--those guys don’t get the time of day.
Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, for instance, wants Rumsfeld to resign for “throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq.” What Zinni really means is that he’s bitter because Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks did not adopt the plan he created. Zinni’s 2001 plan, drafted without any recent knowledge of conditions inside Iraq, called for 300,000 troops to invade Iraq, advancing city by city.
(Excerpt) Read more at chronwatch.com ...
What ever happened to "Fading Away"?
Cal Thomas
Retired summer soldiers
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas041806.asp
Why America's generals are out for revenge
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C6-2138690%2C00.html
The US top brass are ducking their responsibilities - and beleaguered Donald Rumsfeld is just doing his job
Thanks.
Here's another one...by an active duty Air Force officer...
Six retired "generals" out of 6000...
Yup. That'a a crisis all right.
0.001 of them... underwhelming.
After talking with some who have served in Iraq, I have no respect for many of these Generals and their cohorts. Lieutenants begging to get water to their men/women and mail taking more than 60 days to get to the men and women in the field.(these are just a few small things)..while Tommy Franks is busy sprucing up his command center to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in Iraq. So if Rumsfeld is cleaning up this bureaucratic nightmare then so be it.
So if Rumsfeld is cleaning up this bureaucratic nightmare then so be it.
AMEN to that.
Instinct is a God given sense, and IMHO Rummy is serving his Country well.
Whether it's six or sixty generals, my loyalty will always stay with Donald Rumsfeld.
President George W Bush, 18 April 2006.
I heard it on the radio.
VERY strong backing from W.
"The president knows, as I know, that there are no indispensable men. ... He knows that I serve at his pleasure, and that's that," Rumsfeld said.
I find it interesting that so few are critically examining why a handful of retired generals have decided to publicly call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's head on the proverbial silver platter. Are these retired military men immune from probing public scrutiny, unlike those civilian men, they formerly served but currently challenge?
Take for example General Zinni, who now astonishingly asserts, he was “never convinced” about Iraq's WMD programs. Yet General Zinni while still serving as the Commanding General of CENTCOM testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of 2000 that “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf…primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD [emphasis mine], oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR)…” As if this was not enough Zinni’s testimony continued “despite claims that [Iraq’s] WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions,…Even if Baghdad…surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to agents and munitions within weeks or months.” That’s right folks General Zinni, who now blithely states that he was “never convinced” about the threat of Iraq’s WMD programs was in point of fact, not too long ago, sufficiently convinced of this threat to deliver an assessment to the U.S. Senate in which he concluded among other things that Iraq’s WMD programs and its ties to terrorism made it “the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests.”
Perhaps Zinni’s most incredulous indictment of Rumsfeld comes in his stunning claim that the Iraq Invasion Plan was “fatally flawed” and based on “erroneous intelligence.” Well, sheer seriousness of these bald assertions certainly begs the question - Who was responsible for collecting reliable intelligence and properly planning U.S. military operations in support of established U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives and threat assessments within the CENTCOM AOR? Ups…Has the cat finally got the general’s well used tongue? Just to clarify the record, Bill Clinton changed the official U.S. Foreign Policy regarding Iraq in 1998, establishing the new objective of “Regime Change.” At the time General Zinni was the theater commander overseeing a JTF responsible for enforcing the “Northern & Southern No-Fly Zones” in Iraq. As such he was already commanding U.S. Forces engaged in routine low level hostilities over the skies of Iraq. Furthermore, Zinni’s testimony in front of the U.S. Senate indicates he was at least aware of Saddam’s UNSCR transgressions, WMD proclivities, terrorist connections, and belligerent history. Additionally, he assessed Iraq as the “most significant near-term threat the U.S. interests.” All of which suggests at the very least that General Zinni in support of the new “Regime Change” policy in light of his own testimony and threat assessments should have vigorously planned and prepared a wide range of “full spectrum” military operations for Iraq. He should have redoubled the intelligence collection effort in Iraq. He should have war gamed every possible “Regime Change” and invasion scenario. He should have developed contingency plans and post hostilities plans.
Yet, inconceivably the seemingly omniscient General Zinni acted in precisely the opposite manner and apparently did nothing to improve intelligence collection or operational planning regarding Iraq, terrorism or WMD proliferation in the region. In fairness to General Zinni he did invest a significant amount of time and energy toward diplomatic, political and economic engagement throughout the region in return for which however, the United States did not realize the benefits of peace and stability in the CENTCOM AOR, but rather received the reward of airplanes hurled at skyscrapers. These facts beg another question - Was General Zinni too ignorant to fully appreciate the potential likelihood of CENTCOM fighting a war in Iraq in the near future OR was General Zinni too incompetent to make the necessary preparations?
While still in uniform General Zinni was uniquely immune to the input and council of others especially in dissent, which perhaps makes him well qualified to recognize these traits in others. But only if we strain our reasoning sufficiently to believe him, which is something I could not do then, and will not do now. Indeed I believe his current political moves betray the very core of what should be the ubiquitous effort of our Nation - Absolute Victory over Totalitarianism and the Unconditional Surrender of Tyranny and Terrorism. Perhaps the harshest truth of this betrayal is that it comes from a brother, an honored hero, a once trusted leader and a formerly valued mentor of the warriors who still today continue to serve to support and defend our Constitution to protect our country and its noble values even in the face of a determined enemy now at home as well as abroad.
Although it is hard for me to imagine why on earth anyone would oppose such a dynamic, aggressive, substantive and consequential leader, it is nevertheless unnecessary to enthusiastically support Secretary Rumsfeld to detect the rank odor of hypocrisy and ulterior motivation underpinning the all too convenient recent statements of General Zinni. In case there is anyone left who hasn’t heard, General Zinni “knew all along” invading Iraq was a “bad idea,” but at the time nobody would listen to him. But what’s new? After all General Zinni enjoys nothing more than another PR opportunity to say again “I told you so.” In an uncanny way I actually agree with some of what General Zinni has said, it is indeed too bad more people didn’t pay closer attention to what he said and what he did on the eve of 9/11. Just for the record General Zinni – I told you SO!!
Thanks for posting those links.
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.