Retired officers slam Rumsfeld handling of Iraq war

[ProfJohn]

Pabster is right,

If a bunch of retired officers said that Rummy was doing a great job you guys would spend all of three seconds thinking about it before the attacks would start.

That said, where are the retired officers who support Bush and Rummy damnit!

Edit: and don't forget the fact that this was the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, did you expect to see much support for Bush?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Why do the retired officers hate america? Can't they see that this only provides comfort to the terrists???

Sadly, it does.

And this shouldn't be a huge surprise. Liberal kool-aid sippers are present in the military just the same as any other facet.

The irony is that you are so quick to listen to these Generals when they criticize someone you hate, but write them off when they have a negative opinion of someone you adore. (Kerry comes right to mind.)

:thumbsup:

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Why do the retired officers hate america? Can't they see that this only provides comfort to the terrists???

Sadly, it does.

And this shouldn't be a huge surprise. Liberal kool-aid sippers are present in the military just the same as any other facet.

The irony is that you are so quick to listen to these Generals when they criticize someone you hate, but write them off when they have a negative opinion of someone you adore. (Kerry comes right to mind.)

:thumbsup:

:thumbsdown:

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Lemon law got it right with this!

"A. Rummy refused to listen to his professional Generals who told him he needed at least 100,000 MORE troops to effectively occupy Iraq----as a result he effectively lost the post war peace the day the Iraqi looting started----and all Iraqi weapons dumps---with all the explosives---fell into the hands of the insurgents."

Even Fox had to report on it.
Fair and Balanced!

Al Qaqaa is the size of a small city and was just one arsenal.

Rumsfeld should have gone the moment the 4ID had to detour around Turkey.

Rumsfeld should have been sacked the moment Bin Laden and Zarwahiri escaped Tora Bora.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Why do the retired officers hate america? Can't they see that this only provides comfort to the terrists???

Sadly, it does.

And this shouldn't be a huge surprise. Liberal kool-aid sippers are present in the military just the same as any other facet.

The irony is that you are so quick to listen to these Generals when they criticize someone you hate, but write them off when they have a negative opinion of someone you adore. (Kerry comes right to mind.)

And isn't it AMAZING how righties tend to be military groupies until someone in the military says something they don't agree with? Obviously both sides are guilty of a little irony here, but I think the righties have a little more to answer for...the lefties never pretended to be so fiercly pro-military in the first place. The 2004 election, for example, would have been humerous if it wasn't so nasty. Here you have a bunch of righties screaming at the Democrats to "support the troops", and when they actually NOMINATE someone who's not only served in the military, in a war, but won a rather large number of medals doing it, it takes all of 5 seconds for the righties to start visciously attacking his service. Support the troops indeed.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And isn't it AMAZING how righties tend to be military groupies until someone in the military says something they don't agree with? Obviously both sides are guilty of a little irony here, but I think the righties have a little more to answer for...the lefties never pretended to be so fiercly pro-military in the first place.

Right. I must have missed the "Reporting For Duty" calls of a certain presidential contender.

The 2004 election, for example, would have been humerous if it wasn't so nasty. Here you have a bunch of righties screaming at the Democrats to "support the troops", and when they actually NOMINATE someone who's not only served in the military, in a war, but won a rather large number of medals doing it, it takes all of 5 seconds for the righties to start visciously attacking his service. Support the troops indeed.

Well someone with credibility might have had a better shot. You don't put a guy who is on tape throwing his war medals out up on stage as a steward of military support.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And isn't it AMAZING how righties tend to be military groupies until someone in the military says something they don't agree with? Obviously both sides are guilty of a little irony here, but I think the righties have a little more to answer for...the lefties never pretended to be so fiercly pro-military in the first place.

Right. I must have missed the "Reporting For Duty" calls of a certain presidential contender.

The 2004 election, for example, would have been humerous if it wasn't so nasty. Here you have a bunch of righties screaming at the Democrats to "support the troops", and when they actually NOMINATE someone who's not only served in the military, in a war, but won a rather large number of medals doing it, it takes all of 5 seconds for the righties to start visciously attacking his service. Support the troops indeed.

Well someone with credibility might have had a better shot. You don't put a guy who is on tape throwing his war medals out up on stage as a steward of military support.

Had it been Wesley Clark in '04, it wouldn't have made a difference to the right-wingers.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And isn't it AMAZING how righties tend to be military groupies until someone in the military says something they don't agree with? Obviously both sides are guilty of a little irony here, but I think the righties have a little more to answer for...the lefties never pretended to be so fiercly pro-military in the first place.

Right. I must have missed the "Reporting For Duty" calls of a certain presidential contender.

The 2004 election, for example, would have been humerous if it wasn't so nasty. Here you have a bunch of righties screaming at the Democrats to "support the troops", and when they actually NOMINATE someone who's not only served in the military, in a war, but won a rather large number of medals doing it, it takes all of 5 seconds for the righties to start visciously attacking his service. Support the troops indeed.

Well someone with credibility might have had a better shot. You don't put a guy who is on tape throwing his war medals out up on stage as a steward of military support.

Had it been Wesley Clark in '04, it wouldn't have made a difference to the right-wingers.

Exactly, look what they've done to Murtha, or what they tried to do to McCain on several occasions. Just last week some Repub was stating that we really have to ignore McCain's thoughts on torture because of his bias, you know someone who actually was tortured.

 

[Lemon law]

In private enterprise they often sack the idiot who lacks vision---and as a result loses megabucks for a given company---but at least there is a criteria---dollars---to gage performance by.---and a lucky few actually go to jail for bending the rules.

In the military---and in politics---there seems no corresponding criteria---and performance is usually measured in political spin. Right now the Republicans under Rove are tye current masters but either parties are devotes of political spin---and the American Sheeple are quite easily manupulated.

The political careers of both Nixon and Churchill are classic examples---Churchill was politically dead for his brainfart at Galoppoli during WW1---and spent two decades as a backbencher---until he was proved right about Hitler---but still wrong about so many other things. One has to wonder what kind of world we might have if Churchill---post WW2---had not been so eagar to make communism the boogeyman. Nixon was always politically sleezy---and we finally gave him the old heave ho because of watergate.

By any measure Lincoln was a failure during the first few years of the civil war---as he played musical generals---but at least he did not stay the course---and finally found generals who could win.

By any measure---the American occupation of Iraq and Afganistan are diasters---and GWB---unlike
someone history has judged visionary---is totally unwilling to try new tactics and personnel. But with Karl Rove there to spin things for him---why do you actually need to suceed?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
By any measure Lincoln was a failure during the first few years of the civil war---as he played musical generals---but at least he did not stay the course---and finally found generals who could win.

He played "musical generals" because he could not find one who would actually fight.
You might even say he "stayed" the course because he believed that inorder to win you needed to kill the enemy. So he fired anyone who refused to follow that path until he found Grant.

Famed for his clemency for court-martialed soldiers, Lincoln nevertheless took a realistic view of war as best prosecuted by killing the enemy. Above all, he always sought a general, no matter what his politics, who would fight. He found such a general in Ulysses S. Grant, to whom he gave overall command in 1864

From Civil War "dot" com

Democrats accused Lincoln of being a tyrant because he proscribed civil liberties. For example, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus in some areas as early as Apr. 27, 1861, and throughout the nation on Sept. 24, 1862, and the administration made over 13,000 arbitrary arrests... Democrats exaggerated Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties, in part because wartime prosperity robbed them of economic issues and in part because Lincoln handled the slavery issue so skillfully.

Sounds a lot like Bush huh?

 

[Lemon law]

I may not have known Abe Lincoln-----but to paraphrase Benton----GWB --you are no Lincoln---Lincoln was a fine human being in troubled times---Bush is a monster and a liar.--who invents problems he fails to solve.

Above all, Lincoln knew he would have to let the south up gently to win the peace---his sucessor---Andrew Johnson nearly got impeached for daring to continue the policy.

With Bush its all about winning---and there is not a humane bone in his body--even when a terrorist is captured and no longer has any usable intelligence---GWB totures them anyway in violation of the Geneva convention and all humanity. Prof John---what are you thinking by making a comparision to Lincoln and GWB?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I may not have known Abe Lincoln-----but to paraphrase Benton----GWB --you are no Lincoln---Lincoln was a fine human being in troubled times---Bush is a monster and a liar.--who invents problems he fails to solve.

Above all, Lincoln knew he would have to let the south up gently to win the peace---his sucessor---Andrew Johnson nearly got impeached for daring to continue the policy.

With Bush its all about winning---and there is not a humane bone in his body--even when a terrorist is captured and no longer has any usable intelligence---GWB totures them anyway in violation of the Geneva convention and all humanity. Prof John---what are you thinking by making a comparision to Lincoln and GWB?

ummm your the one who brought up Lincoln in the first place. I was just pointing out the "facts" on why he played musical generals and that he actually did "stay the course" by sticking to his believes in how the war should be fought.

Bush is certainly not Lincoln, but there are similarities in how the Democrats treated Lincoln and now treat Bush.
Dems called Lincoln a tyrant because of his view of civil liberties during war. Just look at this board, you guys do everything buy use the term tyrant to describe Bush. Just think it is interesting in how similar these two are in that way.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Hmm... Elected to office despite losing the popular vote, domestic and foreign policy that benefits the few at the expense of the many? Unprecedented constitutional controversy and infringement upon our rights to privacy and due process? A spin machine (that means propaganda) the likes of which the world has never seen?

I'll go ahead and say tyrant.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Well someone with credibility might have had a better shot. You don't put a guy who is on tape throwing his war medals out up on stage as a steward of military support.

Only because idiots in this country don't understand that those actions were the ultimate show of military support. At least support of the grunts who actually have to serve in the military. I'm no Kerry lover, but for someone who fought and killed and lost in a genuine tour of duty in that war to do what he did speaks volumes of his compassion for his fellow soldiers. That's the kind of person we need in the white house - not Kerry per se, but someone who cares more for the people than the government itself. Isn't that what a democracy is supposed to be? Will it ever be that, if it ever even was?

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I may not have known Abe Lincoln-----but to paraphrase Benton----GWB --you are no Lincoln---Lincoln was a fine human being in troubled times---Bush is a monster and a liar.--who invents problems he fails to solve.

Above all, Lincoln knew he would have to let the south up gently to win the peace---his sucessor---Andrew Johnson nearly got impeached for daring to continue the policy.

With Bush its all about winning---and there is not a humane bone in his body--even when a terrorist is captured and no longer has any usable intelligence---GWB totures them anyway in violation of the Geneva convention and all humanity. Prof John---what are you thinking by making a comparision to Lincoln and GWB?

ummm your the one who brought up Lincoln in the first place. I was just pointing out the "facts" on why he played musical generals and that he actually did "stay the course" by sticking to his believes in how the war should be fought.

Bush is certainly not Lincoln, but there are similarities in how the Democrats treated Lincoln and now treat Bush.
Dems called Lincoln a tyrant because of his view of civil liberties during war. Just look at this board, you guys do everything buy use the term tyrant to describe Bush. Just think it is interesting in how similar these two are in that way.

Perhaps it would be better to look at things in terms of progressive and conservative, rather than going along party lines.

Lincoln: Progressive president attacked by conservatives.
Bush: Conservative president attacked by progressives.

When a conservative calls someone a tyrant, they're just using it as another way to undercut his authority, conservatives have never really cared all that much about liberty.

When a progressive calls someone a tyrant, it's because they actually are one.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I may not have known Abe Lincoln-----but to paraphrase Benton----GWB --you are no Lincoln---Lincoln was a fine human being in troubled times---Bush is a monster and a liar.--who invents problems he fails to solve.

Above all, Lincoln knew he would have to let the south up gently to win the peace---his sucessor---Andrew Johnson nearly got impeached for daring to continue the policy.

With Bush its all about winning---and there is not a humane bone in his body--even when a terrorist is captured and no longer has any usable intelligence---GWB totures them anyway in violation of the Geneva convention and all humanity. Prof John---what are you thinking by making a comparision to Lincoln and GWB?

ummm your the one who brought up Lincoln in the first place. I was just pointing out the "facts" on why he played musical generals and that he actually did "stay the course" by sticking to his believes in how the war should be fought.

Bush is certainly not Lincoln, but there are similarities in how the Democrats treated Lincoln and now treat Bush.
Dems called Lincoln a tyrant because of his view of civil liberties during war. Just look at this board, you guys do everything buy use the term tyrant to describe Bush. Just think it is interesting in how similar these two are in that way.

Perhaps it would be better to look at things in terms of progressive and conservative, rather than going along party lines.

Lincoln: Progressive president attacked by conservatives.
Bush: Conservative president attacked by progressives.

When a conservative calls someone a tyrant, they're just using it as another way to undercut his authority, conservatives have never really cared all that much about liberty.

When a progressive calls someone a tyrant, it's because they actually are one.

Well that is a nice fair opinion.