Replies

"In the Navy I retired from, there is a principle called "ultimate accountability"! " It's still there. Are you really comparing the Commander and Chief of the US military to the Captain of a ship?! Are you suggesting the President of the United States should be fired every time a ship runs aground? Should we hold Bush accountable for every tactical decision made everywhere our military serves? If so, then I suppose you are a raging advocate of Whitehouse direction of every decision made on the battlefield. Sorry, but the Navy you retired from paid a price for that kind of idiocy several decades ago, and that's why we don't do it now. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about "rules of engagement". Do you realize, for example, that every theater we operate in has its own rules of engagement, and within each theater, there are different rules for different zones within that theater. And the rules for one service are not the same as the rules for another. The Army has different rules than the Marine Corps who has different rules than the Air Force. And those rules are hundreds of pages thick and change depending on the threat level and battlefield environment. Rumsfeld could brief the President 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and still not keep him current on all the ROE in all the areas we are currently operating in. In your time in the Navy did you even once operate in a combat environment? Do you know that in the course of a single mission, a Naval Aviator will probably have to operate under several different sets of ROE depending on where his aircraft is at that particular minute? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You certainly aren't giving any indication you do on this thread.

Bunk! Where were your so-called theater "Rules of Engagement" when we dropped the big potato on Hiroshima?
Even LBJ knew about rules of engagement in Vietnam with his "they can't drop a bomb anywhere unless I tell them they can" pronouncement...
And while I agree with your argument that the president isn't responsible for every thing that goes awry in a military engagement I would continue to point out that he is responsible for the rules that the military fights by and should not claim ignorance about sacred status of cemetaries...OBL got away in Tora Bora when diplomatic channels got crossed with the Pakistani government and, though frustrated, I chalked it up to the fog of war. But, now, with this many targets of opportunity walking free to terrorize the world and perhaps the blood relatives I have fighting in the GWOT, I am chalking it up to a guy who barely made his obligatory Air Guard drills (and there is STILL plenty of rumor out there to make me dubious if he even did that)....

And you call the President a "fool". It's almost amusing.
Okay, perhaps "idiot" is a better word (unless you were laughing at yourself).

"Bunk! Where were your so-called theater "Rules of Engagement" when we dropped the big potato on Hiroshima?"

Perhaps that was about when you retired from the Navy? That was 1945. The current year is 2006. Believe it or not...times have changed. However, it still takes Presidential authority to employ nukes.

"Even LBJ knew about rules of engagement in Vietnam with his "they can't drop a bomb anywhere unless I tell them they can" pronouncement..."

Thank you for supporting my point. You want Bush to be another LBJ. Fortunately, Bush and the US Military does not share your opinion.

"But, now, with this many targets of opportunity walking free to terrorize the world and perhaps the blood relatives I have fighting in the GWOT..."

Stop right there. Why don't you tell the world exactly what that so called Predator picture has captured. Tell us exactly who those folks were and what they were doing. Give us the exact reason why the decision was made not to attack the group, and provide your source for that reason. THEN carry on with your rant about why people aren't conducting this war like you want them to. Since you obviously feel you have the big picture here, I want to know what your sources are regarding this incident. Or...are you relying on the MSM to help form your opinions. Your BS anti-Bush National Guard comments sure make it seem like you are better at spewing MSM trash than well supported arguments. Offer some indication you aren't just some sponge of MSM lies and deception.