Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Rumsfeld Must Go

Bush Administration Donald Rumsfeld Criticism

  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#21 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 15 April 2006 - 01:27 PM

Quote

Franks also strikes me as more politician than general. I don't know how Franks is feathering his nest with his connections to Bush and Cheney, but I bet there's some mutual back-scratching going on there.
Well I know it's a pretty popular opinion around here that we've gone down to irreversible defeat in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but are we really going to outright dismiss any viewpoint that says otherwise, even from military professionals?  Or does the stamp of military authenticity only carry weight when you're hearing stuff that supports an already well nourished anti-war position?

Since the question of motivation has arisen, I'll mention that LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD's analysis of "strategic failures" would go over better, if he didn't charge out of the gate with a tirade about "zealots" and "unnecessary" war. I'm willing to listen to almost any non-radical's point of view on the Iraq conflict, as long as it remains free of the usual Democrat party attack rhetoric. The noise tends to make me tune out, which is too bad when there might be an actual useful "idea" lost in the din.

-scherzo

Edited by scherzo, 15 April 2006 - 01:27 PM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#22 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 15 April 2006 - 01:28 PM

View PostSpectacles, on Apr 15 2006, 12:40 PM, said:

Franks also strikes me as more politician than general. I don't know how Franks is feathering his nest with his connections to Bush and Cheney, but I bet there's some mutual back-scratching going on there.

Franks is by no means a political general and by all accounts he is a soldier’s general and always has been.  Franks barely if ever gave any interviews and when he did he had to be dragged into one for Afghanistan by Rumsfeld.  If anything Franks was largely adored by his troops and looked out for them whenever he could.    

A little dated but this articile gets to the heart of Tommy Franks.  
Tommy Franks: Guardian: A modern major general  

Quote

One flag-rank officer recalls Franks' deportment at a recent banquet for senior officers at the newly established CentCom headquarters in Qatar - the first command centre ever to be located outside the US, on the enemy's doorstep. Franks was meant sit with the other military top-brass, but instead placed himself at a corner table, head-to-head with a sergeant. According to an account in Newsweek magazine, an aide approached and suggested that the commander might now take his place at high table. 'Nope,' came the reply, 'I want to talk to the sergeant major.'

Word got to Franks on another occasion that a young female petty officer was nervous about sitting next to him. Franks rose when she arrived, gave her a playful hug and with a debonair dash pulled out her chair so that she might sit.

Now if you want a poltical general I suggest you look at Wesley Clark...
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#23 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 15 April 2006 - 01:52 PM

View Postscherzo, on Apr 15 2006, 02:27 PM, said:

I'll mention that LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD's analysis of "strategic failures" would go over better, if he didn't charge out of the gate with a tirade about "zealots" and "unnecessary" war.

You're correct, those words were too inflammatory.  In order to convince those who have been misled by the Bush Administration you certainly have to soften the blow.  Despite the overwhelming evidence that they were, in fact, "zealots" and that the war was clearly, in fact, "unnecessary," approaching duped inidividuals with such aggressive words is going to make them immediately tune-out and remain uninformed.

Unfortunately, Newbold appears simply to be a plain-speaking, straight-shooting, no-nonsense, tell it like it is military man and not a PR guru who chooses his words and phrases according to the latest polling.

Banapis

Edited by Banapis, 15 April 2006 - 02:02 PM.


#24 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 15 April 2006 - 02:09 PM

I have no doubt that Franks is beloved by his troops. From what I've seen of him, he's a likeable guy.

But he also has been a big Bush-backer. During the 2004 campaign, he did several interviews endorsing Bush. And he endorsed him at the RNC.

Here's Frank's webpage, by the way:

http://www.tommyfranks.com/Index.shtml
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#25 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 15 April 2006 - 02:20 PM

Quote

Scherzo: Well I know it's a pretty popular opinion around here that we've gone down to irreversible defeat in both Afghanistan and Iraq,

That's pretty much correct, if by "around here" you mean the world in general.

Quote

but are we really going to outright dismiss any viewpoint that says otherwise, even from military professionals? Or does the stamp of military authenticity only carry weight when you're hearing stuff that supports an already well nourished anti-war position?

Good question. One might also ask if the stamp of military authenticity only carries weight when it supports Bush's position, which is that Rummy's doing a heckuva job and we're making great progress in Iraq, if only the liberal press would report it. And by way of an answer to that question:


Quote

Since the question of motivation has arisen, I'll mention that LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD's analysis of "strategic failures" would go over better, if he didn't charge out of the gate with a tirade about "zealots" and "unnecessary" war. I'm willing to listen to almost any non-radical's point of view on the Iraq conflict, as long as it remains free of the usual Democrat party attack rhetoric. The noise tends to make me tune out, which is too bad when there might be an actual useful "idea" lost in the din.

-scherzo

Why are "zealots" and "unnecessary war" so easily dismissed as "Democrat party attack rhetoric" when a Lieut. General says them?

I guess the answer is that those of us who are inclined to believe Bush and Rumsfeld want to dismiss their critics--and those of us who think Bush and Rumsfeld have no credibility want to dismiss their supporters.

History will sort out who was right in the end. Unfortunately, I worry that the critics of this administration are right and our military and our country are going to suffer for this for a long time.

Edited by Spectacles, 15 April 2006 - 02:20 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#26 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 15 April 2006 - 02:25 PM

Quote

You're correct, those words were too inflammatory.
An observation I see you've taken to heart.  :whistle:

The original draft of your post before the edit,(saw it :eek4: ) wouldn't have shocked supporters of the war all that much Banapis. I think they're sharp enough to already know what people like yourself think of them. But you're right about at least one thing...approaching uninformed dupes with aggression isn't useful. I'll try not to.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#27 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 15 April 2006 - 02:34 PM

Quote

That's pretty much correct, if by "around here" you mean the world in general.
No I meant ex isle's off topic forum. But I suppose you could include all manner of groups, countries, religions in that mix if you need some back up. The point is, not everyone agrees with you, least of all the Iraqi people.
http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=1389228

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#28 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 15 April 2006 - 03:17 PM

View Postscherzo, on Apr 15 2006, 03:25 PM, said:

Quote

You're correct, those words were too inflammatory.

An observation I see you've taken to heart.  :whistle:

The original draft of your post before the edit,(saw it :eek4: ) wouldn't have shocked supporters of the war all that much Banapis. I think they're sharp enough to already know what people like yourself think of them. But you're right about at least one thing...approaching uninformed dupes with aggression isn't useful. I'll try not to.

-scherzo

Apparently you mistake me for a PR guru interesting in convincing the incorrigible then. ;) However, I'm gratified that you think I'm the subject of this thread and choose to write about me instead of advancing any meritorious arguments about the topic.  I freely admit I'm a fascinating topic to discuss and can see how its hard to resist. :whistle:

To explain more clearly that which appears to have escaped you, my observation was limited to your criticism that Newbold (remember, he's the writer of the topic of this thread, not I) should have chosen warm-and-fuzzy touchy-feely words to appease the sensibilities of those who remain ignorant of the fact this war was unnecessary by any objective measure. Such a criticism makes no sense, as the writer wasn't likely interested in convincing those individuals who still - at this late date and after all the evidence to the contrary - believe this war was "necessary."  Why should anybody expect to convince them otherwise at this late date?

At this point, informed individuals no longer debate the "necessity" of this war, but simply what can be done about the situation now that we're stuck with it?  Which brings us back to the topic in the title of this thread:  Rumsfeld.  Is he up to the job at hand, or is he a bungling incompetent who needs to be replaced?

Banapis

Edited by Banapis, 15 April 2006 - 03:20 PM.


#29 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 15 April 2006 - 03:21 PM

There have been spikes in optimism, usually just before elections. The problem, especially after that election in December, is that elections don't appear to be followed by a stable government. And so then opinion drops:

http://www.fortwayne...al/13750080.htm

Most Iraqis want us out of there. Furthermore, most U.S. troops think we ought to get out as well:

http://www.zogby.com...ews.dbm?ID=1075

And, events in Iraq have gone from bad to worse since that December poll. Daily, we're finding beheaded corpses of Sunnis or Shiites--Sunnis executed by Shiites; Shiites executed by Sunnis. The Iraqi death toll has soared since November as the rival political groups and their militias jockey for power. More and more Iraqis are moving if they're minorities in a Sunni, Shiite, or Kurdish-dominated area. People are arming themselves because they don't trust the security forces and the militias are running amok.

The political process has been stalled since December. No one now seems to want the Islamist Jafaari as the President (or whatever) except for Al Sadr and other fundamentalists. And if Al Sadr doesn't get his way, it's going to take a lot of diplomacy and horse-trading to keep him from turning his militia loose.

In short, Iraq is a mess. We bungled the occupation badly and now the whole damned thing is close to spinning out of any semblance of control. This is why the retired generals are speaking out.

In the meantime, Afghanistan is heating up again, has been for a while now.

We're like the old act on Ed Sullivan--the guy who would spin plates on a stick, running from plate to plate to keep them all going. Unfortunately, we're not doing as well as he did.

:(
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#30 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 15 April 2006 - 03:24 PM

Scherzo, I'll ask a sincere, totally snarkless question. :)  You apparently consider yourself a supporter of this war. Why? What outcome do you expect? Why do you think it's a reasonable expectation? How do you see us making progress toward that outcome?
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#31 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 15 April 2006 - 03:54 PM

View PostCJ AEGIS, on Apr 15 2006, 06:28 PM, said:

View PostSpectacles, on Apr 15 2006, 12:40 PM, said:

Franks also strikes me as more politician than general. I don't know how Franks is feathering his nest with his connections to Bush and Cheney, but I bet there's some mutual back-scratching going on there.

Franks is by no means a political general and by all accounts he is a soldier’s general and always has been.  Franks barely if ever gave any interviews and when he did he had to be dragged into one for Afghanistan by Rumsfeld.  If anything Franks was largely adored by his troops and looked out for them whenever he could.    



Tommy Franks did a good job with the initial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq-- though he wasn't exactly up against the Wehrmacht in either case-- and deserves credit for watering down Rumsfeld's thoroughly insane desire to go into Iraq with 50,000 troops, precision bombing, and Ahmed Chalabi's exiles.  

However, he thoroughly botched the primary mission in Afghanistan by subcontracting out Tora Bora to Afghan warlords who had been allies of Osama bin Laden weeks before,   and also paved the way for the Iraqi insurgency by not committing enough troops or the right kind of units to properly occupy Iraq.  

And he may have refused interviews while in uniform, but he's certainly been every inch the politician while promoting his 5 million dollar memoir, even reversing his earlier assessment of Doug Feith as "the f****** stupidest guy on the face of the planet."
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#32 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 04:09 AM

Quote

Apparently you mistake me for a PR guru interesting in convincing the incorrigible then.
You might NOT be interested, but that certainly didn't stop you from offering up a recipe for successful conversion. One that at least on the surface, acknowledged Newbold's poor choice of words. Even though you would eventually contradict yourself by suggesting my criticism of him "makes no sense".

Quote

However, I'm gratified that you think I'm the subject of this thread and choose to write about me instead of advancing any meritorious arguments about the topic. I freely admit I'm a fascinating topic to discuss and can see how its hard to resist.
Banapis I'm going to suggest that questioning why certain points of view regarding the Iraq situation are dismissed while others are not, is a more "meritorious" contribution to this thread than useless sarcasm.

Quote

To explain more clearly that which appears to have escaped you, my observation was limited to your criticism that Newbold (remember, he's the writer of the topic of this thread, not I) should have chosen warm-and-fuzzy touchy-feely words to appease the sensibilities of those who remain ignorant of the fact this war was unnecessary by any objective measure.
You saw me say somewhere that Newbold should have used "warm-and-fuzzy touchy-feely words"? Really? Make sure...because this can be more easily researched than most things.

Quote

Such a criticism makes no sense, as the writer wasn't likely interested in convincing those individuals who still - at this late date and after all the evidence to the contrary - believe this war was "necessary." Why should anybody expect to convince them otherwise at this late date?
I guess I could believe Newbold wrote this piece purely for the cathartic high, or is possibly nursing an uncontrollable typing fetish....but I'd need some rather compelling evidence. Until that materializes, I'm going to bet the intent behind the piece is along the lines of every article like it that's ever been published. You on the other hand, can assign any motivation to him you want.

Quote

At this point, informed individuals no longer debate the "necessity" of this war, but simply what can be done about the situation now that we're stuck with it? Which brings us back to the topic in the title of this thread: Rumsfeld. Is he up to the job at hand, or is he a bungling incompetent who needs to be replaced?
Beats me. I don't pretend to know everything. I haven't been particularly impressed by what I've seen of him, but his enemies are no great shakes either. He's not immune to criticism of course, and when it's  reasonable and factual, it should be more than welcome.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#33 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 05:10 AM

Quote

Scherzo, I'll ask a sincere, totally snarkless question. You apparently consider yourself a supporter of this war. Why? What outcome do you expect? Why do you think it's a reasonable expectation? How do you see us making progress toward that outcome?
I had 2 things to say in my first post on this thread Specs: 1) A question about why certain points of view on Iraq are dismissed, or considered to have shady motivation, when the worst news possible is automatically unquestionable. 2) A point about the current anti-war rhetoric and why it basically undermines legitimate criticism of the war effort.

Neither of these things denote a hawkish attitude towards Iraq and Afghanistan. If you're looking for an official endorsement of the way the war effort's been carried out, you're not going to get it from me. And think about it...you've known me for several years now(since well before Bush was even elected)but how often have you heard me arguing about Iraq? There are a hoard of reasons why I avoid debating this issue, but the fact that it's way too early to gauge genuine success or failure is at the top of the list. I'll take issue with people who carefully ignore the Democrat's participation in hyping the threat, or occasionally goof on the selective nature of the reporting we've gotten from over there etc. But that is pretty much the extent of what I'm willing to go on record with until the picture becomes clearer.(and yes I'm fully aware you and others have already stuck a fork in the place) I have said before and will repeat now, that one of my thoughts after Sept 11 was, any serious war on terror, would have to deal once and for all with Saddam Hussein.(and this was well before any notion of invading Iraq began appearing in the news media) Naturally several million theories have arisen since then. Some actually supporting my apprehensions and others that, well...don't. My gut feeling is, time will prove me correct about Hussein's link to the terrorist threat. Wait. :humble:

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#34 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 06:36 AM

Hey Scherzo,

Well, I agree with you that none of us have the ability to say for certain where the Iraq War will leave us. And I agree that Saddam was worth getting rid of--along with his godawful sons. And I agree with you that mistakes have been made in the prosecution of this war.

If I discovered a rattlesnake in my house, I'd be happy to see it removed. But if the pest control service demolished my house in the process, I'd be a little POd. More than a little.

As you know, having known me for a long time, I've not thought highly of this administration from the get-go. But, as I often remind you because you often forget :), I rallied behind them when we went after the Taliban, who hosted Al Qaeda, who struck us on September 11.

Then, when we shifted our focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, shortly after putting Karzai in Tabul, I said "huh?" It didn't seem wise to me at that time to take on invading and reconstructing another country. I felt we had more immediately malevolent fish to fry.

Then as the run-up to the war progressed, I was increasingly appalled at the politics and the hype. Yes, there was hype on both sides. Unfortunately, the pro-Iraq-War hype overpowered the anit-war hype. Bush and his administration mentioned 9/11 and Saddam in the same breath so often that there are STILL people who think that Iraq orchestrated the attacks on 9/11. Bush declared that the aluminum tubes were suitable only for nuke-making AFTER his own DOE had said no. Bush declared that Saddam had been seeking uranium from Niger AFTER the CIA had told the White House months earlier that there was considerable doubt about that assertion. In fact, the CIA nixed that reference from a speech Bush was to deliver two months before the SOTU--a fact acknowledged by the White House when it acknowledged, finally, that Bush really shouldn't have said those "sixteen words." Just as Bush himself acknowledged in September after the war began that we had no conclusive proof linking Saddam to 9/11.

I know that you view Democrats with considerable suspicion. :) As such, you're more sensitive to the politicizing of issues from Democrats than I am. On the flip side, I view this administration with considerable suspicion--as well as the propaganda mill that supports it in burgeoning rightwing media. So, I guess your tendency is to see the Iraq War as a glass half full. I see it as a glass with a broken bottom.

I've said for many years now "I hope I'm wrong." And I've meant it. I hoped I was wrong about the Iraq War being a disaster. I hoped I was wrong about the growing deficit. I hoped I was wrong about any number of things because those things mean that my country and its future generations will be paying a hefty price.

I still hope I'm wrong. But that hope, which all I've had to cling to for the past five years, is fading as even-worse-than-I-suspected scenarios are playing out. I absolutely dread what will happen next. And, yes, I blame this irrational, ideological administration for much of it. (But not you. ;) )
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#35 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 08:36 AM

I think it was Batiste on Chris Matthews the other night that got kind of pinned by Matthews asking him when he initially felt Rumsfeld was not the right man for Sec. Def. -
and he answered <majorly paraphrasing>- the funeral of some General, like 6 years ago, that Rumsfeld did not attend and it showed "disrespect".  
Matthews paused at this, then clarified - So this is a personal <something>?
Batiste was like:  well, yea.    :blink:
Franks then was asked about Batiste's criticism and he recounts that in all the meetings he attended with both he never heard Batiste (or whoever it was) speak up about those concerns, and that in Franks' opinion, back and forth exchange of ideas was welcome, you just had to expect to be put through your paces explaining your position and answering devil's advocate questions so Rumsfeld could consider the issue from all angles.  So tough, but fair.
Someone pointed out and I think it's at least worth considering, that there are 2 Marines and 4 Army Generals criticising Rumfeld, who is charged with some major rehauling of the military - which means noses are going to get out of joint regardless of if we're at war or not, about troop numbers and the nuts and bolts of preparedness, esp. apparently for our Army.  It may be that these top brass are taking the opportunity in wartime to undermine Rumsfeld carrying out the reorganization.  Or just embarrassing him/complaining out of spite, now that they're retired.  Which doesn't negate the possibility that they're sincere in how they regard the man's management, 'course.

Aside from these brass, I think it's horrendous that armchair critics of the war so readily and with such consistency and assumption, lay strife between the Iraqi factions at the feet of the American effort.  That they are so thorougly full of blame is exasperating.  As if it was going to be a cake walk transitioning the Iraqi and Afghani peoples with "more", "better" planning.  BTW - I think the Iraqi's voting % exceeded the U.S.'s last election.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#36 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 10:27 AM

I think there are three factual causes of the Army brass feeling like Bush, and more particularly Rumsfeld, are inept in the matter of the war in Iraq:

1) They gave the military a job to do and Rumsfeld, who's apparently convinced he knows it all, refused to give them the men and the matierals to do the job. Bear in mind that most of the men who are complaining were on the ground in Iraq, fighting amid the mess that Rumsfeld and the President created.

2) The President has refused from the moment he hit office, when he was already planning to invade Iraq, to listen to the experts in both the military AND the state department who told him that the situation in Iraq would deteriorate, be unstable, and that hostilities between the various factions would break out. People in the military are paying with their lives because the President and Rumsfeld thought they knew it all - AND THEY WERE DEAD WRONG AND A LOT OF PEOPLE, BOTH AMERICAN AND IRAQI, ARE DYING BECAUSE OF IT. Forget the political rhetoric and the kneejerk defense of Bush and Rumsfeld and look at the facts - they screwed up big time.

3) The REAL war on terrorism - you know, the one to capture Bin Laden, the one in Afghanistan? - has been virtually abandoned so that Bush could flog his pet horse. And again, many Americans have lost their lives in Iraq, which most of these generals have witnessed first hand.

To sum it up, most of these guys had to send men to their deaths in a situation that was FUBAR'ed from the outset. I'd be pissed off too,

To dismiss their concenrs about Rumsfeld as ruffled feathers is ludicrous. Anyone who makes that rank in any branch of the service has long learned to put up or shut up. But to actually have to lead men and women to their deaths, to see the toll the war has taken on the survivors, and to KNOW that it could have been done more properly or, better yet, not at all, is to negate both their years of service and belittle their concerns in the service of a man who has lied to the American people repeatedly AND who has been proven to go off half-cocked against all decent advice. Why do you think Colin Powell is long gone?

Edited by Rhea, 16 April 2006 - 10:29 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#37 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 11:53 AM

Rhea, I agree with all your points 100%.

I have always been told, both by officers and enlisted that any good officer thinks of those under him first, and carries the burden of sending them out - when they know that some are going to die ( and yes war causes death - someones death 100% of the time ) for the rest of his/ her life.  And any officer that doesn't have doubts, second guesses, and that burden is not a officer, he is a politician...( and yes they mean that last as a total insult. )

Rumsfeld is a micromanaging idiot who should never have been appointed.  Of course I feel that no one shoule get that position who hasn't been in the military.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#38 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 11:59 AM

View Postscherzo, on Apr 15 2006, 02:27 PM, said:

LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD's analysis of "strategic failures" would go over better, if he didn't charge out of the gate with a tirade about "zealots" and "unnecessary" war. I'm willing to listen to almost any non-radical's point of view on the Iraq conflict, as long as it remains free of the usual Democrat party attack rhetoric.

View PostSpectacles, on Apr 15 2006, 03:20 PM, said:

Why are "zealots" and "unnecessary war" so easily dismissed as "Democrat party attack rhetoric" when a Lieut. General says them?

I guess the answer is that those of us who are inclined to believe Bush and Rumsfeld want to dismiss their critics--and those of us who think Bush and Rumsfeld have no credibility want to dismiss their supporters.
Wrong answer. They're easily dismissed not just when a Lieutenant General says them, but whenever they're said, because the issue here is what's said, not who says it, and that kind of talk is just plain obnoxious.

And to see the whole thing in the terms in which you just put it is to demonstrate not just the problem with politics in general, but the reason why Democrats have been losing ground: making things personal instead of issue-based and issue-oriented, especially when it's done so habitually that one can't even THINK of politics in any other terms, just turns off a lot of people... not just those to whom it's also equally personal from the other side, but also those who think we should be talking about the issues instead of engaging in popularity contests. And it gets applied to not only outgoing words (in the form of the incessant stream of hate speech they've been outputting for as long as I've been paying attention to politics), but also to incoming ones from outsiders like me (in the form of thinking that whatever we say must be attacking or defending some person even when we're not doing that but just talking about issues and ideas). As a conservative who really wants to be able to join the Democrats because the two parties have been in the process of reversing their liberal/conservative positions lately, I keep getting the sense of being pushed away because of not only the personal hatred and attacks but also the more subtle, possibly subconscious personalizations like this case above. Now, if Democrats are even making people who WANT to join them feel pushed away by the overload of personalization on the Democrats' side, how many voters will they win over in general, given that most people aren't necessarily inclined or driven to switch in the first place? None; they're driving them away instead.

#39 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 12:08 PM

^How funny.

In my opinion I think that the Dems are not making it personal enough.  They are trying to keep it as issue oriented and stay Politically Correct and nice about things.

To me the big issue is that our Country (USA) is going down the poop chute at lightning ludicrous speed.  

I'm a little peeved that the Generals didn't speak up sooner.

But oh well let's take what we can get at the moment.

After all we are all at their mercy.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#40 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 12:23 PM

View PostHibblette, on Apr 16 2006, 01:08 PM, said:

In my opinion I think that the Dems are not making it personal enough.
Since they're always cranking it up higher and higher, apparently most Democrats think so. But look at the results it's gotten them. Republicans now have more seats of power than they ever have, at least in decades if not quite all time.

You used the word "enough". That's a goal-oriented term; "enough to accomplish... something". (Fill in the blank.) But what is the goal, and how much would be enough to achieve it?

If the goal is to start winning more and losing less in politics so you can actually change things for the better, then this tactic only leads to failure.

What goals are there that this tactic could actually bring you closer to instead of farther away from? Making even more people on the other side hate you even more? Increasing the gulf/antagonism between political sides? Proudly showing off just how hateful you can really be? Not only are such goals completely irrational and self-destructive, but they don't even give any end point, a limit that tells you when it's "enough". The goal of actually trying to improve things through political success, on the other hand, not only has a potential for positive real-world results that's completely absent form the others, but also gives a clear measure of when you've done enough or gone too far. Right now, the results speak for themselves quite clearly. The Democrats just aren't listening.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bush Administration, Donald Rumsfeld, Criticism

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users