TPS Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 While the administration is trying to down play this, seems to be some serious critiques from some former heavy weights. What say you vets?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 While the administration is trying to down play this, seems to be some serious critiques from some former heavy weights. What say you vets? 663751[/snapback] Not a vet, but can I answer? As far as I can tell, the critics are Clinton generals, the supporters are Bush generals. Basically, same old partisan bull sh--.
erynthered Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 While the administration is trying to down play this, seems to be some serious critiques from some former heavy weights. What say you vets? 663751[/snapback] You're not on the hooch again, are you?
TPS Posted April 17, 2006 Author Posted April 17, 2006 You're not on the hooch again, are you? 663788[/snapback] I sober up on Mondays...
TPS Posted April 17, 2006 Author Posted April 17, 2006 Not a vet, but can I answer?As far as I can tell, the critics are Clinton generals, the supporters are Bush generals. Basically, same old partisan bull sh--. 663764[/snapback] Seems a little more serious than that--these are generals, not politicians. It seems most of those who are criticizing were actually involved in the war effort too.
erynthered Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 I sober up on Mondays... 663795[/snapback] Not a vet either. But I'd agree with what the crap thrower said. Here's a few backing Rummy. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/17/rumsfeld/
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 Seems a little more serious than that--these are generals, not politicians. It seems most of those who are criticizing were actually involved in the war effort too. 663798[/snapback] Generals, at that level, are politicians.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 these are generals, not politicians. 663798[/snapback] From what I understand, in today's military there is little or no difference between a general and a politician...
stuckincincy Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 There is a slippery slope. Remember Truman and General McArthur. One may hate this administration until the proverbial cows come home, but I strongly caution you of the mistake of approving of these military men, in any way, who are making political comment. I'm sure they have their publishing contracts in order... I'd like to see how many retired their commissions... . Court Martial proceedings... I warn you - never let your political proclivities tolerate political words from the military...
KRC Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 Seems a little more serious than that--these are generals, not politicians. It seems most of those who are criticizing were actually involved in the war effort too. 663798[/snapback] You need to be a politician to make it that far up the food chain. Rummy wants to streamline the DoD. That means that you need to upset the status quo. This is going to piss people off. Generals are criticizing Rummy. Others are supporting him. In the end, as the monkey said, it is all partisan bull sh--.
Scraps Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 Not a vet, but can I answer?As far as I can tell, the critics are Clinton generals, the supporters are Bush generals. Basically, same old partisan bull sh--. 663764[/snapback] How do you define "Clinton General"? How do you define "Bush General"?
Scraps Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 There is a slippery slope. Remember Truman and General McArthur. One may hate this administration until the proverbial cows come home, but I strongly caution you of the mistake of approving of these military men, in any way, who are making political comment. I'm sure they have their publishing contracts in order... I'd like to see how many retired their commissions... I warn you - never let your political proclivities tolerate political words from the military... 663828[/snapback] So do you have a low opinion of Presidents Washington, Grant and Eisenhower?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 How do you define "Clinton General"? How do you define "Bush General"? 663851[/snapback] "Appointed by and owe their authority to Clinton" (e.g. Clarke), and "Appointed by and owe their authority to Bush" (e.g. Myers). For what it's worth, I approach Myers' comments with the same level of skepticism as I do Clarke's. And I've never liked Rumsfeld either, not from the moment he was appointed. But what we're seeing now is straight partisan bull sh--.
stuckincincy Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 You need to be a politician to make it that far up the food chain. Rummy wants to streamline the DoD. That means that you need to upset the status quo. This is going to piss people off. Generals are criticizing Rummy. Others are supporting him. In the end, as the monkey said, it is all partisan bull sh--. 663834[/snapback] The nub. My concern is that it is not just partisan bs... There is little evidence that it is not just that, I know. Mountains out of molehills... But I worry - mightily. Generals critizing civilian authority chills my bones.
Scraps Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 "Appointed by and owe their authority to Clinton" (e.g. Clarke), and "Appointed by and owe their authority to Bush" (e.g. Myers). For what it's worth, I approach Myers' comments with the same level of skepticism as I do Clarke's. And I've never liked Rumsfeld either, not from the moment he was appointed. But what we're seeing now is straight partisan bull sh--. 663904[/snapback] So how do you explain Anthony Zinni? Appointed to Cent Com under Clinton. Served as a special envoy to the Mid East under both Clinton and Bush. Formally supported Bush in 2000. Refused to support Kerry. Is Zinni a Clinton General or a Bush General? How do you classify Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste? He was offered a 3rd star under Bush and decided to retire instead. Then there is Joseph P. Hoar, who was appointed head of Cent Com by Bush 41, but has been an outspoken critic of Rumsfeld and Bush 43. What about Tommy Franks? He was promoted to head Central Command under Clinton but formally endorsed Bush. By your logic, he is a Clinton general? I really don't know enough about John Riggs or Paul Eaton to form an informed opinion. I doubt you do either. Quite frankly I think your analysis is extremely superficial on this matter. The military tends to be a right wing organization. I don't think there are many "Clinton guys" out there. Some of these Generals have taken career hits for speaking their minds. Zinni was essentially fired by Bush and labeled as anti-Semitic by a right wing columnist. Batiste gave up a sure 3rd star. Other than Clark, I don't see how these generals stand to gain by criticizing Rumsfeld. Most flag officers I've seen retire go on to lucrative offers from defense contractors. They are wanted by the contractors, in part, because of their contacts in the military establishment. Speaking out against that establishment will most likely make them undesireable to the contractors since they risk being shunned by the military fraternity. Whistle blowers are reviled by big business. Furthermore, by criticizing the command of the war in Iraq, these generals can seriously undermine morale of the troops. Do you really think they are willing to undermine troop morale because they are "Clinton generals"? I'm skeptical. In fact, it is because of the potential to undermine morale that they are likely to keep their mouths shut. For the most part I see these generals as people who were young officers in Vietnam, saw the devastating toll that war took on the military, rebuilt it, and don't want to see it happen again. History is repeating itself and they know it. There is a reason why the Powell Doctrine was developed. There is a reason why Zinni and Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor for Bush 41, publically came out against the Iraq war before it started. Schwarzkopf and Powell were real late to come on board. Playing the role of good soldiers?
/dev/null Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 theirs is not to question why. theirs is but to do or die
Scraps Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 theirs is not to question why. theirs is but to do or die 663941[/snapback] After they've retired?
/dev/null Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 After they've retired? 663945[/snapback] after they've retired its time to just fade away
Scraps Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 after they've retired its time to just fade away 663947[/snapback] So George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower should have just faded away?
/dev/null Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 So George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower should have just faded away? 663948[/snapback] Thats what they would have done if their country hadn't called on them. Neither retired from the military and went directly into politics. Washington went back to Marth's Vineyard after the Revolutionary War and came back after the Constitional Convention Called on him Ike retired from the Army, became a University President, then Supreme NATO Commander before the GOP asked him to run
Recommended Posts