Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Why is it so wrong for these top officers, responsible for the lives of so many to tell the truth as they see it to Congress? Has the administration finally gone around the bend in its attempt to stifle any honest examination of their conduct? What do y'all think?
1 posted on 03/29/2002 10:27:59 AM PST by Pancho13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: Pancho13
Rumsfeld - I love you!!!!!!!!!!
107 posted on 03/29/2002 1:24:46 PM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pancho13
Why is it so wrong for these top officers, responsible for the lives of so many to tell the truth as they see it to Congress? Has the administration finally gone around the bend in its attempt to stifle any honest examination of their conduct? What do y'all think?

"NO GENERAL EVER HAS ENOUGH TROOPS"

Come on, the military is just a job like any other, except for the few(5,000) who have actually faced combat, none of them needs any rest. Only the stress of combat can cause the weight loss and emotional drain which requires R&R. While the Admiral may have had a point about JDAM stock piles, the JDAM can be replaced by other weapons, and I doubt the military will touch their reserves except in an emergency. Laser guided and TV guided bombs and missiles are more labor intensive than the drop and forget JDAM, but are just as accurate. The thing we should all remember is that "NO GENERAL EVER HAS ENOUGH TROOPS" which is what the complaining is all about.

111 posted on 03/29/2002 1:44:51 PM PST by Eagle74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pancho13
I think the press has tried to run this war no matter who it hurt. And I think like wardaddy poster #2, you don't get Rummy's ire up. He deserves a medal for putting up with the stupid questions asked by the press. As for the General and the Adm.'s remark, has anyone seen the original transcript?
119 posted on 03/29/2002 2:35:03 PM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pancho13
But concern is widespread at the Pentagon that U.S. forces may be overextended by worldwide commitments.

The most telling sentence of the article. One does have to consider that Secretary Rumsfeld has proposed further reductions in certain areas of the military that would add to the the military's "per person" workload. Op Tempo/Pers Tempo are too high right now. Do you think they will get any better in the future? I don't. I know of both Officers and Enlisted folks who have had enough of the TDYs and are not re-enlisting in the Guard/Reserve, even when offered much. It will get worse before it gets better.

121 posted on 03/29/2002 3:17:21 PM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pancho13
This time of the year (budget season), I will take anything with a grain of salt. Having said that, we are deployed in too many places. If Bush has any courage, he would pull out our troops from Bosnia and Japan, and deploy them elsewhere. But, then again, that takes balls.
122 posted on 03/29/2002 3:19:40 PM PST by Satadru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pancho13
If an officer has a problem, he should address it to the chain of command. He shouldn't go griping to the media about it (unless the chain has blown it off and he feels strongly enough to put his job in jeopardy).
123 posted on 03/29/2002 3:32:27 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pancho13
the bend in its attempt to stifle any honest examination of their conduct? What do y'all think?

I think you assume MUCH!

127 posted on 03/29/2002 4:46:02 PM PST by Mahone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pancho13
Pancho...there is a chain of command in the Military. That's why!
131 posted on 03/29/2002 6:34:06 PM PST by joyce11111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pancho13
Why is it so wrong for these top officers, responsible for the lives of so many to tell the truth as they see it to Congress?

Because you don't want to tempt the bad guys to push harder by saying that you are low on ammo. It'd be a lot wiser if they could say something like, "We almost ran low on ammo, but we talked in private with some key people in Congress who made sure that we got what we needed."

It's wrong when the truth can get more people killed.

134 posted on 03/29/2002 10:48:00 PM PST by powderhorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson