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

Skip to comments.

W. House backs Rumsfeld as generals demand he resign
Reuters ^ | April 14 2006 | Steve Holland

Posted on 04/13/2006 3:15:15 PM PDT by jmc1969

The White House gave a new vote of confidence to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday as yet another retired general demanded Rumsfeld resign.

"Yes, the president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

A fifth retired general, Major Gen. John Riggs, added his voice to those opposing Rumsfeld. In an interview with National Public Radio, Riggs cited an atmosphere of "arrogance" among top civilian leaders at the Pentagon.

Rumsfeld "should step aside and let someone step in who can be more realistic," he said.

Of the Pentagon's civilian leadership, Riggs said: "They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign."

Retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni kept up the pressure for Rumsfeld's scalp by telling CNN Rumsfeld should be held accountable for a series of blunders, starting with "throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq."

"I think he should (resign). This is not personal, believe me. We grew up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting your mistakes and learning from them was critical to us," Zinni said.

A recently retired two-star general, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Germany-based 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, called on Wednesday for Rumsfeld to resign.

(Excerpt) Read more at in.today.reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush43; dod; flagrankbabies; praise; rumsfeld; secdef
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-149 next last

1 posted on 04/13/2006 3:15:17 PM PDT by jmc1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Simply amazing.


2 posted on 04/13/2006 3:16:26 PM PDT by Dog (We have had a date with destiny and Iran for 27 years---appealof2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969


Here we go again.

This serves nothing...but the agendas of some very spiteful, very evil, folks in the media and democratic party.


3 posted on 04/13/2006 3:18:00 PM PDT by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis. American gals are worth fighting for!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
You know what you call a retired General?

Mister.


4 posted on 04/13/2006 3:18:02 PM PDT by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog

Who woulda thunk that NPR would ever become a hangout for retired American generals.


5 posted on 04/13/2006 3:19:01 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Reuters left out "Retired" Generals.

So what's your take? Should rummy resign?


6 posted on 04/13/2006 3:19:49 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog

No, Rumsfeld stepped on the pride of a lot of brasshats. They wanted a 1991 style operation. The 330,000 they were proposing would have not have contained many more boots on the ground that the force that Tommy Franks used. The rest would have been support.


7 posted on 04/13/2006 3:20:15 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

How long will it take us to undo all the damage done to our military by the rotten lib scum who politically generalled the thing nearly into the ground during the 1990s? If Algore had won, there would be nothing left by now.


8 posted on 04/13/2006 3:21:23 PM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Rummy should run for President.

Resign? LOL!


9 posted on 04/13/2006 3:22:08 PM PDT by bill1952 ("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Reuters left out "Retired" Generals.

This is a key point. When I first read the title I was spun into thinking, "well if currently surving Generals (plural) are calling for him to step down maybe the Whitehouse should consider some action."

10 posted on 04/13/2006 3:23:08 PM PDT by Moleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

It took eight years for Clinton to royally screw up the FBI, CIA, state dept and yes, damage the military. What is surprising and down right unforgivable is for ANY general to speak out against their commander in chief's decision making during a time of war. I wish Bush would retaliate and at least punish these traitors somehow.


11 posted on 04/13/2006 3:25:54 PM PDT by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are familiar bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Moleman
When I first read the title I was spun into thinking, "well if currently surving Generals (plural) are calling for him to step down maybe the Whitehouse should consider some action."

You'll never see a serving general or admiral call for the Secretary of Defense or any other civilian military head resign. That apparently doesn't mean that some aren't thinking it.

12 posted on 04/13/2006 3:26:06 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

More to the point. We didnt have the time for a massive build up...we still wanted take the "initiative" in battle with the little surprise we had.

Plus...How would we have brought all those troops into the theater to be effective, since Turkey denied us another front to attack from? Franks did a good job with what he had in the time frame he had to do it in, which is why the oil fields in Iraq were pretty much taken intact and the people of Iraq were liberated without a Shermanesque type invasion plan.

So...these Generals are either oblivious to the "whyfor's" of Gen. Franks planning and the fluidity of the situation at the beginning of OIF or, worse, being disingenious with an axe to grind...methinks the later is more probable.

Shame on them.


13 posted on 04/13/2006 3:26:30 PM PDT by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis. American gals are worth fighting for!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Maj. Gen. John Batiste

I know of him...that is all I chose to say.


14 posted on 04/13/2006 3:27:22 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Forgot to add because it is Easter.


15 posted on 04/13/2006 3:27:49 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
Some background noise on what's possibly going on here:

June 4, 2005

John Riggs to Donald Rumsfeld: "You Can't Handle The Truth!"

Like Tim Cruise receiving such an acid reply from Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men," supposedly rough and tough Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld cannot handle receiving reality from those in his charge.

This is one of the bonafide trademarks of the Bush Administration--either swallow the Kool-Aid or be damned. Mistakes don't matter--loyalty does.

Previously, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki (whose replacement was then quickly announced over a year ahead of time) told a Senate committee that 200,000 troops would be need to control Iraq after Saddma's downfall. Ace military-meister Rumsfeld pooh-poohed such a number and crack(pot) troop expert Paul Wolfowitz added that Shinseki's estimates were:

"wildly off the mark...I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down."

Protecting ammo dumps (explosives now used against our troops) and oil pipelines, plus the prevention of looting--naw, none of that mattered. At least not to those planners and visionaries tucked away in the safe confines of Washington D.C. Their errors don't count, even if such result in higher body and maiming counts. Remember, it's all about loyalty. Nothing else.

This time it's military man John Riggs who was given the bum's rush for allowing that the emperor had no clothes (again).

Unceremonious end to Army career
Outspoken general fights demotion
By Tom Bowman
Sun National Staff
May 29, 2005
WASHINGTON - John Riggs spent 39 years in the Army, earning a Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery during the Vietnam War and working his way up to become a three-star general entrusted with creating a high-tech Army for the 21st century.

But on a spring day last year, Riggs was told by senior Army officials that he would be retired at a reduced rank, losing one of his stars because of infractions considered so minor that they were not placed in his official record.

He was given 24 hours to leave the Army. He had no parade in review, no rousing martial music, no speeches or official proclamations praising his decades in uniform, the trappings that normally herald a high-level military retirement. Instead, Riggs went to a basement room at Fort Myer, Va., and signed some mandatory forms. Then a young sergeant mechanically presented him with a flag and a form letter of thanks from President Bush.

"That's the coldest way in the world to leave," Riggs, 58, said in a drawl that betrays his rural roots in southeast Missouri. "It's like being buried and no one attends your funeral."

So what cost Riggs his star?

His Pentagon superiors said he allowed outside contractors to perform work they were not supposed to do, creating "an adverse command climate."

But some of the general's supporters believe the motivation behind his demotion was politics. Riggs was blunt and outspoken on a number of issues and publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops.

"They all went bat s- - when that happened," recalled retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, a one-time Pentagon adviser who ran reconstruction efforts in Iraq in the spring of 2003. "The military part of [the defense secretary's office] has been politicized. If [officers] disagree, they are ostracized and their reputations are ruined."

Little-used punishment

A senior officer's loss of a star is a punishment seldom used, and then usually for the most serious offenses, such as dereliction of duty or command failures, adultery or misuse of government funds or equipment.

Over the past several decades, generals and admirals faced with far more serious official findings - scandals at the Navy's Tailhook Convention, the Air Force Academy and Abu Ghraib prison, for example - have continued in their careers or retired with no loss of rank.

Les Brownlee, who was then acting Army secretary and who ordered that Riggs be reduced in rank, said he stands by the demotion. "I read the [Army inspector general's] report and made that judgment. I happen to think it was that serious. Maybe I have a higher standard for these things," Brownlee said in an interview. "I still believe it was the right decision."

Rumsfeld's office had no comment for this story, referring all questions to the Army, which issued a statement.

The two contracting infractions "reflected negatively on Lt. Gen. Riggs's overall leadership and revealed an adverse command climate," the Army statement said. "Based on the review of the investigation and Lt. Gen. Riggs's comments, the Acting Secretary of the Army [Brownlee] concluded that Lt. Gen. Riggs did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of lieutentant general."

Garner and 40 other Riggs supporters - including an unusually candid group of retired generals - are trying to help restore his rank.

But even his most ardent supporters concede that his appeal has little chance of succeeding and that an act of Congress might be required.

From the ranks

Riggs' rise to three-star general was heady stuff for a man who left the family's cotton farm in Missouri and enlisted in the Army in 1965, the same year America deployed combat troops to Vietnam. After three years as a soldier, Riggs went through Officer Candidate School and soon was piloting a twin-rotor Chinook above the central highlands of Vietnam.

On March 17, 1971, Riggs flew the lumbering, troop-carrying helicopter on a voluntary medevac mission to a base at Phu Nhon which had been under heavy attack from a battalion of North Vietnamese soldiers, according to Army records. On his first approach to the base he was forced back by enemy fire, but he tried another flight path and was able to set down on a small and dusty landing zone.

he young officer flew out 59 wounded soldiers, 30 of whom "probably would have died if Captain Riggs and his crew had not acted as they did," said Riggs' citation for the Distinguished Flying Cross, a top medal awarded for "exceptionally valorous actions."

After the war, Riggs worked his way up through the ranks in the Army, serving in Korea and Germany as well as a stint with NATO headquarters in Brussels. He commanded troops from the platoon level to the First U.S. Army, which is based in Georgia and is responsible for training National Guard and Reserve troops east of the Mississippi.

Among Riggs' accomplishments with the First Army was the largest rotation of part-time troops since World War II, when the Guard's 29th Infantry Division, which includes troops from Maryland and Virginia, deployed to Bosnia for a peacekeeping mission in 2001.

http://www.icogitate.com/~celticfolkmusic/blog/JohnRiggs.html

*end snip*

16 posted on 04/13/2006 3:28:38 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
...generals demand he resign

What a hugely distorted headline.

It amounts to overt pervarication.

17 posted on 04/13/2006 3:28:40 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

I wonder if the articles announcing his getting on the bandwagon against Rumsfield also mention that he was fired for opposing the Iraq war? The article also should mention that he appeared on the socialist oriented NPR. Malcontent retired General criticises his former boss on marxist public radio that nobody listens to, but the news was picked up anyway by the drive by media.


18 posted on 04/13/2006 3:28:41 PM PDT by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
So what's your take? Should rummy resign?

Those Generals are just upset because Rumsfeld would not let them throw the war in the toilet.

NO, HE ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT RESIGN.

19 posted on 04/13/2006 3:29:01 PM PDT by Dustbunny (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
The title should be change to:

W. House backs Rumsfeld as generals Clinton era political Komisars demand he resign

20 posted on 04/13/2006 3:29:09 PM PDT by Phsstpok (There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
I wish Bush would retaliate and at least punish these traitors somehow.

Since when did spending their entire adult lives serving their country in peace and war mean that these men forfit their right to speak freely once they are out?

21 posted on 04/13/2006 3:29:19 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Simply amazing.

What's going on here? I don't remember retired generals ever speaking out against an administration before - regardless of the party. Does this have something to do with the "all volunteer" army?

22 posted on 04/13/2006 3:29:37 PM PDT by ziggygrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ziggygrey

see post #16...


23 posted on 04/13/2006 3:30:55 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Moleman

Clinton Generals.Go figure.Clinton replaced one of the greatest Generals we ever had during the Bosnian fiasco.General Joulwan for Ramsey Clark.Ramsey Clark was not qualified to shine his shoes,let alone replace him.I met General Joulwan when he was a LTC.Colonel,and he is a great man.If you notice,I never referred to Ramsey Clark as a General.It had a devastating impact on all involved.


24 posted on 04/13/2006 3:31:30 PM PDT by xarmydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

Obviously a traitorous malcontent and Clinton suck-up. </sarcasm>


25 posted on 04/13/2006 3:32:54 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
Hey Rotters. Retired Generals cannot demand anything. They are has been "Media pundits". This is more manufactured Junk Journalism. They are hyperventilating cause OTHER Junk Journalists(The media talking head military "Experts".) are demand Rumsfeild resign. More "here what we want to happen so we will report it as news and hope".
26 posted on 04/13/2006 3:33:09 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (The Democrat Party. For those who value slogans over solutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
I don't know if a general ever "retires."
The ego that is involved in being "general" probably precludes ever thinking in the box of "civilian who ISN'T privvy to squat and therefore knows diddly."
27 posted on 04/13/2006 3:33:23 PM PDT by starfish923 (Socrates: It's never right to do wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces
Some how these retired generals seem to have an urge to speak out when it's absolutely NOT relevant. The Joints Chief of Staff General Peter Page exposed these generals bogus charges when they were asked and given opportunities to review and comment on the plan. They either SLEEP on the job or what!!! SIGH...
28 posted on 04/13/2006 3:34:36 PM PDT by Toidylop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
It's political season and these FORMER generals are either looking to sell books or looking to join in party politics and probably feel the Democrat Party would welcome them if they spoke out. It probably has very little to do with '06 but more the '08 Presidential Race. This is nothing unusual except starting a bit early.
29 posted on 04/13/2006 3:35:45 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
"I think he should (resign). This is not personal, believe me. We grew up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting your mistakes and learning from them was critical to us," Zinni said.

It's damned difficult taking orders from those who so obviously did not.

30 posted on 04/13/2006 3:36:30 PM PDT by eskimo (Political groupies - rabid defenders of the indefensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xarmydog
If you notice,I never referred to Ramsey Clark as a General.

Perhaps because Ramsey Clark was Attorney General under Johnson? Wesley Clark was Joulwan's replacement, and Joulwan had been SACEUR for 4 years.

31 posted on 04/13/2006 3:36:45 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Zinni and these other generals have the amazing arrogance. So far, Rummy has pretty well designed not one, but two successful invasions. Yes, some things could have been done better (some people blame Tommy Franks, actually). But you are hard pressed to find ANY---I repeat, ANY---military operation in human history that has accopmlished so much with so few casualties. Churchill was right: the best thing generals can do when they retire is SHUT UP.


32 posted on 04/13/2006 3:39:13 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ziggygrey

Rummy is absolutely hated by the top brass so I expect a hell of alot more to come out. What that means I am not sure of.


33 posted on 04/13/2006 3:40:26 PM PDT by jmc1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Gee, I would think military protocol or at the very least, their duty as patriots would keep any retired general from publically speaking out against their commander in chief's decision making during a time of war. I have no problem with any retired general bending our President's ear in private, but to willingly become political pawns, speaking out against our Secretary of Defense during wartime is unforgivable, IMO.


34 posted on 04/13/2006 3:45:59 PM PDT by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are familiar bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Read their different biography's.Night and day.The highest Army commendation award I ever recieved was from LTC.Joulwan on his recommendation.I have tried to keep up with his career over the years,but he keeps accomplishing more and more,I just have him bookmarked!
35 posted on 04/13/2006 3:48:16 PM PDT by xarmydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

i would bet he has a greater understanding of the scope and magnitued of all issues. the generals are merely tools in his tool box to be used in the mix of the greater agena of which they are not typically aware.

although the one trick ponies call for his dismissal because he did not meet their needs but met the optimal mix.

let them say what they will, i doubt there is a more savy man for the role.

imo


36 posted on 04/13/2006 3:48:57 PM PDT by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

LT. GEN. MIKE DELONG, U.S. MARINE CORPS (RET.)

M. O'BRIEN: And then he(Batiste) went on to say he thinks Secretary Rumsfeld should step down. What do you say to that?

DELONG: Well, when he was in command over there, Tommy Franks and I had retired. When he was working for then -- Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz, the people who had access to -- who needed access to the secretary were the combatant commanders. That was Tommy Franks. And when we ran our plan through, our plan was run through the joint staff, every single one of the administration's secretaries played at an input in that operations plan, and I just don't see that. Dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO. When you walk in to him, you've got to be prepared. You've got to what you're talking about. If you don't, you're summarily dismissed, but that's the way it is, and he's effective.

snip

M. O'BRIEN: Final thought, is Secretary Rumsfeld arrogant?

DELONG: I don't know if I'd use the word "arrogant." He's very sure of himself. And if you're not sure of himself, I guess you may consider him arrogant. But if you walk and know what you're talking about, you can have a very pleasant, professional conversation with the man.

37 posted on 04/13/2006 3:49:55 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Reuters left out "Retired" Generals.

So what's your take? Should rummy resign?

He should have them put back on active duty and give them each a drum of Pine-sol. Send them to McGuire or Travis AFB terminals to make sure the latrines are patrolled better than their mouths.

38 posted on 04/13/2006 3:50:17 PM PDT by higgmeister (In the Shadow of The Big Chicken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces

I know that historical parallels are invidious, but I think that it is conceded that if Hitler had not taken the advise of Guderian in 1940, the Wehrmacht would have repeated the invasion of 1914 through Belgium , the Allied positions along the Meuse would have held. The Germans simply did not have the weight that they had in 1914.


39 posted on 04/13/2006 3:50:36 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

""Since when did spending their entire adult lives serving their country in peace and war mean that these men forfit their right to speak freely once they are out?"

I absolutely agree. I'm really disturbed that we treat retired generals like traitors on this board, simply because they spoke out. Do we, sitting at home typing on our computers, know more about the failures and accomplishments of our war strategy than retired generals who actually served in this war? I believe that supporting our troops should mean actually SUPPORTING them, even when we disagree with what they say.


40 posted on 04/13/2006 3:53:01 PM PDT by NW Gun Owner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Toidylop

Peter Pace


41 posted on 04/13/2006 3:53:36 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I believe General Joulwan is teaching at West Point,not defending Saddam Insane.


42 posted on 04/13/2006 3:56:04 PM PDT by xarmydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: napscoordinator
November 14, 2004
“We've got great Iraqis who are patriots, committed to a free and democratic Iraq.”
--Major General John Batiste, then-commander of the First Infantry Division,

”Iraqis, frankly, in my experience, do not understand democracy. Nor do they understand their responsibilities for a free society.”
--Retired Major General John Batiste, CNN, today

44 posted on 04/13/2006 4:02:11 PM PDT by Leisler (Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
Good post about heroic General Riggs. I didn't know the background on him. Thanks for filling it in.

My later post is about the men whon become generals....heroes, heroic, whatever. They remind me of former presidents.

#27: I don't know if a general ever "retires."
The ego that is involved in being "general" probably precludes ever thinking in the box of "civilian who is(slight change, as I re-read and correct) to privvy to squat and therefore knows diddly."

The same applies to former presidents (Carter and Clinton come to mind.) who aren't privvy to current intel but "armchair" quarterback with the rest of us civilians.

All the "formers" can only, ad infinitum, say is "Well, when I was in charge......"
Not worth a whole lot.

To "demand" resignation is beyond arrogant. But, then, that's PART of what got those men to general and president in the first place: supreme self-confidence (REAL close to arrogance).

45 posted on 04/13/2006 4:03:52 PM PDT by starfish923 (Socrates: It's never right to do wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NW Gun Owner
Do we, sitting at home typing on our computers, know more about the failures and accomplishments of our war strategy than retired generals who actually served in this war? I believe that supporting our troops should mean actually SUPPORTING them, even when we disagree with what they say.

They may be 100% wrong, but they have earned the right once they're out to speak their mind. They have credibility that none of us have earned, since none of us are retired generals. They were in a better position than we to know if Rumsfeld bungled the Iraq occupation and reconstruction.

46 posted on 04/13/2006 4:07:02 PM PDT by jude24 ("The Church is a harlot, but she is my mother." - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NW Gun Owner
Don't you think that perhaps it's a bit over the line for retired generals to demand Rumsfield resignation?
That doesn't sound supportive of the Commandeer-in-Chief and his staff. Bush IS the top face of the troops in need of support.

Just a thought.

47 posted on 04/13/2006 4:07:19 PM PDT by starfish923 (Socrates: It's never right to do wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: demlosers
Riggs was blunt and outspoken on a number of issues and publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops.

That'll do it.

48 posted on 04/13/2006 4:07:36 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
Rummy is absolutely hated by the top brass so I expect a hell of alot more to come out. What that means I am not sure of.

from what I've heard, the Pentagon procurement to consulting job gravy train has been derailed and the pot of gold at the end of the Flag officers rainbow has lost a little luster. Even before Clinton, there had developed quite the little ticket punching all the way to a double dipping retirement for the Golden Years of Pentagon and flag officers.

The new Sec Def has put the kibosh on that. Look at Paladin, and several other "systems" and "platforms" that have been cut or modified.

The one that will never die is the Osprey. But maybe some real curious FReeper in the DC area or within the 5-sided building in DC can inform us of the little soap opera that is being played out to anger so many flag officers....

Before the Osprey-philes start flaming me, I've personally spoke with several Marine aviators including two squadron commanders that just smile and shake their heads when asked about Osprey. Like the little accident last week that we haven't heard about. Doggone software problems, black box problems, flight avionics glitches....

Follow the money and usually you'll find the answer....

49 posted on 04/13/2006 4:08:02 PM PDT by Dick Vomer (liberals suck......... but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969


' Retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni kept up the pressure for Rumsfeld's scalp by telling CNN Rumsfeld should be held accountable for a series of blunders, starting with "throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq."
'

Zinni !? Zinni of the " it`s DA Jooz fault" Zinni !?

" Zinni during his interview with "60 Minutes," in which he said it "was the worst-kept secret in Washington" that neoconservatives( NEO-CONS AKA DA JOOZ) had sold Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a plan to democratize the Middle East. Those remarks drew criticisms from officials at both the National Jewish Democratic Council and the Republican Jewish Coalition...Zinni sounded a similar note in his "60 Minutes" interview, complaining that he was "called antisemitic" for writing an article in which he mentioned Bush's neoconservative advisers."




http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=eden200405271245


" ..Zinni is not comfortable just with criticism of how the war or post war effort was run. He needs to blame people, and he wants heads to fall. And he names names -- in particular the group he calls the “neocons”, naming five men: Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, and Ellot Abrams, as the key ideologues ..."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13549

ZINNI SAYS IT`S DA JOOZ, DA JOOZ !!!


50 posted on 04/13/2006 4:08:54 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-149 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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