Skip to comments.Rumsfeld singled out as crisis deepens in Iraq (General Eaton attacks Rumsfeld)
Posted on 03/19/2006 7:59:07 PM PST by jmc1969
A former US army general yesterday called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign on grounds of incompetence in Iraq.
There were signs yesterday that the Bush administration was losing its ability to shape perception of the conflict, even among partisan Republicans. George Will, an influential conservative commentator, yesterday compared Iraq's war to that of the 1930s Spanish civil war.
Paul Eaton, a former American army general in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004, marked the anniversary with a furious attack on Mr Rumsfeld, saying he was "not competent to lead our armed forces".
Yesterday, calling on the US to keep its nerve, Mr Rumsfeld pointed to the swelling ranks of Iraqi government forces. But Mr Eaton, a former major general, said the defence secretary had "shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically", and was "far more than anyone else, responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq". Mr Rumsfeld had to step down, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
The Guardian ! God I hate that newspaper.
Such that a larger storm is coming.
Don't trust leftist rags like the Guardian.
General Eaton and George Will didn't say that?
Anyone with any brains at all saw this coming months ago.
Former 2 star who couldn't get the job done calls for Rumsfeld's resignation? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
This is just silly. Unless he means to say, its a war between communists and fascists, or between stalinists and conservative catholics, or whatever. Who knows what he means by that. I used to read Will's commentary eagerly, back when I was young and he was prematurely old (and now I'm prematurely old, sadly...).
As for Eaton's comment, unfortunately the article gives us nothing to explain what the general proposes. Rumsfeld is incompetent. Fine. So what should we be doing that we aren't doing?
Mr. Eaton? Mr. Borger? Mr. Steele?
Rumsfeld and Bush's answer is that we will fight on until the enemy is beaten. Thats clear cut. What is the general's answer?
Compared to the 300,00 to 1,000,000 that we are digging up in the mass graves, killed since Gulf War 1? Just by the numbers, fewer Iraqis are dying now than under saddam
I haven't paid attention to Will for a while. I got the impression he is a conservative that liberals could like.
"A former US army general yesterday called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign .."
This is the Democrats new assault ..... dems are so transparent.
Political offensive targets Bush
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 18, 2006
Senate Democrats have mapped a political battle plan for the March congressional recess that calls on lawmakers to stage press events with active duty military personnel, veterans and emergency responders to bash President Bush on virtually every one of his national security policies.
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
George Will, a prominent isolationist paleocon, left the reservation a long time ago. Nothing new in that. As for "Mr." Eaton, he is the person who is required to be competent "operationally and tactically", not the Secretary of Defense. If Mr. Eaton's superiors had assessed Secretary Rumsfeld's mission statement and concept for Iraq to be unworkable, and they failed to "fall on their swords" over it, shame on them. I smell a future job as a NBC news "analyst" for "Mr." Eaton, or possibly a Democratic congressional nomination. At least he said that the mission was "important", that had to hurt Mssrs. Borger and Steele's ears.
And he's what? A former general, did you say?
Not enough in the ol' pension plan, eh, Paul?
SO now you're out prostituting yourself for your own 15 minutes of fame?
I hope the GOP is smart enough to line up their generals, soldiers, rapid responders, wounded vets and etc to counter the Dem PR. Dems cannot protest that soldiers are taking part in partisan fights, especially if they use the same tactics. I know alot of Iraqi vets who would not hesitate to give the politicians and MSM their piece of their mind over all this BS while they are placing their asses on the line.
The problems in Iraq stem from Bush's mid-course decision to build a democracy instead of install a benign dictator or partition the country. These are not Rumsfeld issues. I think Rumsfeld is doing a great job.
The war in Iraq is intrinsic to the war on terror; it is essential to keep America safe that a defeat be dealt to al Qaeda in Iraq so that they don't draw the same lesson they did when we bugged out of Lebanon and Somalia. I'd rather see us escalate the war and take out Assad than to allow al Qaeda to win in Iraq. Have these people gone mad? What will be the consequences for oil prices and for humanity if we allow ourselves to accept their defeatists nonsense that's been shoveled to us everyday by the Democrats, the MSM, and now Buckley, Buchanan, and white flag Will. We cannot allow these people to bring us to defeat when victory is so close. After all the service members have done and suffered, the will to victory is being sapped by people who've never served and always enjoyed the benefits from those who have.
Everyone must keep in mind that the alternative they propose - quiting now - is not peace, but further war closer to home by an emboldened enemy the MSM, et al. could not see and will not fully reproach or describe because of their contempt for the president.
More to the point is that the vast majority of "Iraqis killed", at least since mid-2003, don't fall onto our side of the ledger in the first place, but to that of our enemy, the terror-insurgents attacking that country. (Duh!)
The left nowadays is so blinded by Bush-hatred they can't even see that they have self-contradictory talking-points:
(1) The Iraq situation is bad because large numbers of Iraqis have died.
(2) We should exit Iraq.
The problem is that (2) is not in any sense a solution to (1), nor is (1) caused by (2). We are in Iraq at this point to defend Iraq from the thugs and fascists who have caused (1). If the left really cared about (1) they wouldn't advocate (2), but its opposite.
"Let's run away from the both of them" is not a solution to "innocent people are being killed by thugs". No one who advocates exiting Iraq has any moral standing whatsoever to preen and moan and hand-wring about the number of Iraqis being slaughtered.
THIS CRAP HAS GOT TO STOP!
Note, too, that the Left is now siding with the most reactionary elements in the world. While they'd have us believe they're afraid Jerry Falwell is going to make them go to church in a US theocracy (they tend to wet the bed on that issue), they look the other way about mass murdering, religious nut cases who threaten the peace from the Philippines, to Indonesia, to Thailand, to India, to Pakistan, to Iran, to Iraq, to Saudi Arabia, to Kuwait, to Lebanon, to Israel, to Spain, to England, to Nigeria, to Kenya, and anywhere else where Islam isn't practiced as a state religion, or it isn't practiced as these nut cases see fit for it to be practiced.
Similarly for the Left, they say they're for women's rights, yet they ignore the consequences of a victory for a mass movement based on misogyny. Have they forgotten the Taliban's treatment of women, or is al Qaeda in Iraq a reformed movement?
The Left, the MSM, and the white flag conservatives want to offer their Utopian balderdash as a solution and behave like in the real world there is no problem as long as you hate Bush and give in to the enemies of civilization. Ideas have consequences, as the old conservative saying goes, and many of these people proscribing defeat as a solution will be happy to point the finger at Bush if we quit and Iraq becomes like Cambodia under Pol Pot.
Dig a little deeper here and you will find a two-star angry that he did not become a three-star.
If you even worked in the general assignments offices of the services you will find some of these guys (and more so their wives)as catty and jealous as your worst town gossips.
Yup. What you said.
I'm glad you posted that. I had failed to realize it was from them.
hahhaa, that is their new talking points??? Thanks for the heads up. That's the reason, then, for the 'wounded soldiers at peace rally' stuff that's going around.
Dang, you know how to turn a phrase.
These dinosaurs are still getting their information about Iraq from the dinosaur media. They should ask some six-year-old kid to show them which button on the computer is the "power" button.
"Paul Eaton, a former American army general in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004"
Up and till 2004 the chief complaint was that they weren't getting trained so I guess "former" is probably the right terminology for the one that was supposed to be training them!
"While he criticized others for decisions that led to what he called a false start, General Eaton accepted responsibility for the most visible setback in the training, when a battalion of the new Iraqi Army dissolved in April 2004 as it was sent into its first major battle. The Pentagon sent Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who had commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion and early occupation, to review the program and then to take over the training mission after General Eaton completed his yearlong tour."
In other words, he was fired, replaced, and now wants to share his sour grapes with us.
A Rumsfeld bump
Rumsfelt and four possible scenarios for the msm/Generals hysteria
1. The Generals got passed over - couldn't cut the mustard
2. Generals/msm Backing McCain
3. or hillary clinton
4. Rumsfeld shuts the msm right up - no stupid questions accepted.
This one has just about run the course - time to start in on Vice President Cheney. Will it start by Friday or will msm wait for next week?