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

#41 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 12:34 PM

And we know that Lieut. General Newbold is speaking as Democrat because...?
"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

#42 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 02:19 PM

Delvo, I think you missed my point.

Quote

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.


By pointing out 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," I'm not saying this is right, simply that it is. And I've actually been more fair than you have. My saying that both sides are guilty of this somehow provoked your anger about the Democrats "making things personal" rather than talking about issues.

Quote

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)....

By "they" you seem to be referring to Democrats. If so, do you really think that they've been the only political party guilt y of  "hate speech"?



Quote

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).

That's exactly how I felt when I saw the attacks on these generals, many of them who served in the Iraq War. If they're speaking out against Rumsfeld, the assumption that some have is that they must be Democrats. From there we go into the song-and-dance about how mean and venal Democrats are. And we don't even know the political affiliation of these generals. Why must we assume that their criticism is partisan-based?

Quote

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.

Again, how is pointing out that both sides tend to view an issue through biased lenses personalizing?

Quote

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.

You really seem to think that the Republicans don't have shrill, vicious, personal attack dogs like Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh,   Horowitz, Farah, Krauthammer, Hume, Gibson, and so on and so forth. Or perhaps to your ear these are the voices of reason. I don't mean that snidely. This goes back to what I was saying earlier: to partisans, partisan statements seem reasonable. Their side is honorable and decent and logical--and the other side practices "the politics of personal destruction." Again, let me clear: I'm not saying that this is GOOD--just that it is. And I *am* saying that both sides are guilty of partisanship.

But I really don't know that these generals are being critical of Rumsfeld out of partisanship. Do 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

#43 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 03:15 PM

View PostDelvo, on Apr 16 2006, 12:23 PM, said:

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?



Then how's this for terminology-they're not using it.

  :sarcasm:

Edited by Hibblette, 16 April 2006 - 06:12 PM.

"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

#44 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 09:16 PM

View PostSpectacles, on Apr 16 2006, 03:19 PM, said:

Delvo, I think you missed my point.
The feeling's mutual. :p

View PostSpectacles, on Apr 16 2006, 03:19 PM, said:

By pointing out 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," I'm not saying this is right, simply that it is.
And that it was the answer to the question you had asked about how things are determined credible or incredible. And that's what I disputed: not whether it was good or right, but whether it answered the question accurately.

View PostSpectacles, on Apr 16 2006, 03:19 PM, said:

Again, how is pointing out that both sides tend to view an issue through biased lenses personalizing?
It's not. What's personalizing is attaching when a Lieut. General says them to the question that was fine without it: Why are "zealots" and "unnecessary war" so easily dismissed as "Democrat party attack rhetoric"?

Asking the question alone just asks a question. Adding the unneeded personal stuff makes personalities and identities a part of the point, thus infusing into the sentence the presupposition that what it's all really about is who said something rather than what was said. And there are times when that does matter; an expert's word is worth more than a non-expert's on the particular subject of his/her expertise. But this isn't such a case, so adding in personal references is making it about people instead of about the actual subject.

View PostSpectacles, on Apr 16 2006, 03:19 PM, said:

You really seem to think that the Republicans don't have shrill, vicious, personal attack dogs... Or perhaps to your ear these are the voices of reason.
My point wasn't about shrillness, visciousness, "attack dog" status, or voices of reason, or which side does more of any of the above. It was about something that I said wasn't just all about attacks but was also generally about how things are interpretted and discussed in quieter, more subtle ways. It's woven into how people approach politics all the time, not just when in attack mode. You even demonstrated a non-attacking incarnation of it yourself by addressing it as a matter of which side's people are meaner or worse than the other's, even after I had already said the first time that that wasn't what I was talking about.

And even when people are attacking, the difference I'm talking about between the sides still applies, not as a difference in magnitude, but as a difference in type. It would qualify as an attack for a righty to talk about the anti-war people wanting to "cut and run" and hand the terrorists a free win, just like it's an attack for a lefty to talk about the other side with words like "Crusade" and "hegemony/imperialism" and "oil" and "his daddy". No matter how unfriendly or inaccurate, the former is on the subject of what the speaker sees his/her opponents wanting to do on an issue, whereas the latter is about the speaker's opponents themselves: they're just Crusader wannabes, they want to rule the world, they're just oil people, it's just about something to do with the previous President Bush's Presidency and this Bush's childishness.

View PostSpectacles, on Apr 16 2006, 03:19 PM, said:

to partisans, partisan statements seem reasonable. Their side is honorable and decent and logical--and the other side practices "the politics of personal destruction."... I *am* saying that both sides are guilty of partisanship.
I said nothing about partisanship, and if I had brought up that catchphrase you put in quotation marks it would only have been to distinguish my own point from it by changing it to "politics of personality", since it can just as easily be about elevating someone as destroying someone, and can also just as easily be about interpretting others' words as such when they're not. For example, when Rumsfeld said the thing about known unknowns and unknown unknowns, pointing out the fact that the entire quote made perfect unassailable sense was seen as an endorsement of Rumsfeld himself or whatever else he was saying in that same conference; the whole concept of the dispute to those people was that it was between "for Rumsfeld" and "against Rumsfeld", rather than about the actual quote about unknowns. I don't recall being attacked for that, but the difference in approach was still there: the people I was dealing with insisted that it was about him, not the quote's contents, and just couldn't imagine dealing with the contents alone instead of the personality, so a defense of the quote just HAD to mean being "on his side" in all other things, in their "it's about people, not issues" concept of the world.

Edited by Delvo, 16 April 2006 - 09:27 PM.


#45 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 06:25 AM

I was responding to this statement:

Quote

Scherzo: 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.

Imagine a bizarro world where Scherzo had said "does the stamp of military authenticity only carry weight when you're hearing stuff that supports an already well nourished pro-war position?" and followed it up with an implication that Newbold used "Republican party attack rhetoric."  Same thrust, different perspective. Would Scherzo then be guilty of "personalizing," as you put it?

Edited by Spectacles, 17 April 2006 - 06:27 AM.

"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

#46 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 07:30 AM

Quote

Rhea: To dismiss their concenrs about Rumsfeld as ruffled feathers is ludicrous.
Actually it isn’t and I shall state why.  In all seriousness force transformation is a major reason why many people don’t like Rumsfeld in and out of the military.  Many of his choices and paths that he wanted to take the military in were bending noses in the wrong way well before Iraq hit the public radar.  I’ve been ticked to an extent ever since Arthur Cebrowski with his boondoggle ideas like Streetfighter/LCS got placed in charge of the Office of Force Transformation.  I know I have been saying the LCS was a bad idea for years and it falls on deaf ears.  The negative impact of Force Transformation is going to stick with us long after we are out of Iraq and will be something the military will have to deal with for decades.  

So to say that it is ludicrous to suggest people are bent out of shape over it is simply wrong.  People especially in the military and the brass are legitimately bent of out of shape over Rumsfeld transformation of the military.  We are ending up with a military that is going to be lighter and faster for sure.  That said it is going to retain the heavy hitting and fighting capability that Rumsfeld and company claim it will.  

Just take a look at what happened to General Shinseki.  To put it simply Iraq was the straw that broke the camels back in his case.  He already had strikes against him based on his support for Crusader (Rumsfeld cancelled it), his strong support for Stryker is another rumored sore point, and then you have the whole Black Beret mess that Shinseki got snarled in.   The Transformational Doctrine that Rumsfeld is so hot on is behind everything he has done as Sec. Defense including Iraq.  The rumblings were there at least in military circles about Rumsfeld and his ideas well before Iraq became a political powder keg      

Iraq gave many officers who were ticked at Iraq a stick to beat Rumsfeld with that the public will actually listen to.  Since they won’t actually listen when people say some doctrine or that x weapon system is a bad idea.  So it isn’t a case of ruffled feathers at work but rather being ticked off over something Rumsfeld has done to the doctrine of the military for years now.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 17 April 2006 - 07:33 AM.

"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

#47 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 09:38 AM

View PostSpectacles, on Apr 17 2006, 07:25 AM, said:

Imagine a bizarro world where Scherzo had said "does the stamp of military authenticity only carry weight when you're hearing stuff that supports an already well nourished pro-war position?" and followed it up with an implication that Newbold used "Republican party attack rhetoric."  Same thrust, different perspective. Would Scherzo then be guilty of "personalizing," as you put it?
No, just describing what's wrong with what was said in the article (s)he's describing.

#48 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 11:08 AM

View PostCJ AEGIS, on Apr 17 2006, 05:30 AM, said:

Quote

Rhea: To dismiss their concenrs about Rumsfeld as ruffled feathers is ludicrous.
Actually it isnít and I shall state why.  In all seriousness force transformation is a major reason why many people donít like Rumsfeld in and out of the military.  Many of his choices and paths that he wanted to take the military in were bending noses in the wrong way well before Iraq hit the public radar.  Iíve been ticked to an extent ever since Arthur Cebrowski with his boondoggle ideas like Streetfighter/LCS got placed in charge of the Office of Force Transformation.  I know I have been saying the LCS was a bad idea for years and it falls on deaf ears.  The negative impact of Force Transformation is going to stick with us long after we are out of Iraq and will be something the military will have to deal with for decades.  

So to say that it is ludicrous to suggest people are bent out of shape over it is simply wrong.  People especially in the military and the brass are legitimately bent of out of shape over Rumsfeld transformation of the military.  We are ending up with a military that is going to be lighter and faster for sure.  That said it is going to retain the heavy hitting and fighting capability that Rumsfeld and company claim it will.  

Just take a look at what happened to General Shinseki.  To put it simply Iraq was the straw that broke the camels back in his case.  He already had strikes against him based on his support for Crusader (Rumsfeld cancelled it), his strong support for Stryker is another rumored sore point, and then you have the whole Black Beret mess that Shinseki got snarled in.   The Transformational Doctrine that Rumsfeld is so hot on is behind everything he has done as Sec. Defense including Iraq.  The rumblings were there at least in military circles about Rumsfeld and his ideas well before Iraq became a political powder keg      

Iraq gave many officers who were ticked at Iraq a stick to beat Rumsfeld with that the public will actually listen to.  Since they wonít actually listen when people say some doctrine or that x weapon system is a bad idea.  So it isnít a case of ruffled feathers at work but rather being ticked off over something Rumsfeld has done to the doctrine of the military for years now.

I understand what Rumsfeld has done. The point is, he screwed up in Iraq. He was singlehandedly responsible for our going in understaffed and unprepared. That cannot be dismissed as a bunch of generals with ruffled feathers. That's a flat-out honest assessment of what happened in Iraq, due mostly to Rumsfeld but due also the President's unwillingness to listen to any data that contradicted the picture he had in his head of sweeping into Iraq, taking over the country in two seconds, for which all Iraqis will call him blessed. And now, his attitude is that getting out of Iraq will be somebody else's problem. :barf: Rumsfeld refused to listen to most of the senior staff because he thought he knew everything - and he f*ck*d up.

And you also discount the experience of the generals who were on the ground in Iraq, and they know a lot more than either one of us  (or Rumsfeld, for that matter) about what's happened and is still happening there.

Edited by Rhea, 17 April 2006 - 11:10 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

#49 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 11:11 AM

The Dems have made it personal???? :Oo:  Seems to me that the GOP sucess has been largely due to an expertise at the well oiled smear campaign, that's one of the main things that turned me off the party. Some of the distortions and personal attacks were so beyond repugnant to me that I simply refuse to support a party that embraced that strategy to the degree the GOP did.

Quote

Asking the question alone just asks a question. Adding the unneeded personal stuff makes personalities and identities a part of the point, thus infusing into the sentence the presupposition that what it's all really about is who said something rather than what was said. And there are times when that does matter; an expert's word is worth more than a non-expert's on the particular subject of his/her expertise. But this isn't such a case, so adding in personal references is making it about people instead of about the actual subject

Given the positions held by those who have called for Rummy's resignation, I'd say it IS relevent to the discussion. Do those retired military personel have some stake in coming forward now? Do they have books coming out or something? If there is no financial stake/benefit to those speaking out now than for *me* I give them a bit more credibilty than I do Tommy Franks. Why? Because he DOES have something to lose, he does have a stake/benefit to be had or lost.

Quote

Iraq gave many officers who were ticked at Iraq a stick to beat Rumsfeld with that the public will actually listen to. Since they wonít actually listen when people say some doctrine or that x weapon system is a bad idea. So it isnít a case of ruffled feathers at work but rather being ticked off over something Rumsfeld has done to the doctrine of the military for years now.

So you're saying this is all about "you sank my battleship" project kinda thing? That they're going after Rummy because of projects he nixed and the revamping of the military? Now I can see where they'd not like the revamping (particularly if they felt it was detrimental to the security and effectiveness of our forces) but I don't know that I'd consider it a "personal" thing. I think some of them are saying "We told you this was not a good idea and guess what, it wasn't". It's one thing to send in enough forces to win the battle but it's quite another to send in enough to keep the peace and win the war. We won the battle but we haven't won the war and this "lighter, faster" military lacks sufficient numbers to do that IMO.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#50 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 11:29 AM

In case anyone missed it, the Wall Street Journal had other generals speakingout in support of Rumsfeld:

<in part>
"Praise Secretary Rumsfeld's Effectiveness As Secretary Of Defense. "Despite criticisms, Mr. Rumsfeld is arguably one of the most effective secretaries of defense our nation has ever had. Under his watch, the U.S. military has been transforming; it brilliantly deposed Mullah Omar's barbaric Taliban regime (Osama bin Laden's sanctuary) and Saddam Hussein's ruthless Baathist regime, freeing 50 million people from oppression and placing the countries on democratic paths. With these actions, terrorists have been denied secure home bases. These are a few key factors why terrorists have been unable to attack the American homeland again. The policy and forward strategy implemented by Secretary Rumsfeld has taken the fight to the enemy as did the nation in World War II and the Cold War." (John Crosby, Thomas McInerney, Buron Moore And Paul Vallely, Op-Ed, "In Defense Of Donald Rumsfeld," The Wall Street Journal, 4/17/06)

Further, we had Retired Marine Corps General Michael DeLong in The New York Times saying that while Rumsfeld wasn't easily swayed by his military commanders, he never took tactical control away from them, which seems to reiterate Franks' and Myers' opinions.
Anyway.  I think commanders in many situations would desire more boots on the ground.  If we had two hundred thousand guarding the border to Syria, we're grinning, but there's other things they apparently have to consider and despite "an atmosphere of arrogance", you could speak up.  I mean, really, I wold expect all top brass and anyone vying for a powerful seat to have some of that in them, and the where-with-all to contend with it in others.
Saying 'he was mean!' as the chief complaint isn't getting it done for me.
Their secondary complaint about how to fight the war on terrorism boils down to differences of opinion on strategy.  Military and Civ. Leaders often knock heads over that, history shows.  And within the Military itself, there's differences- how they come to any kind of consensus as much as they do is a marvel to me, given the strong personalities of the career-minded military, who study and come to diff. conclusions about efforts in history as well as their own commands.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#51 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 11:44 AM

Nope, I heard and read about that as well, I just look at the results we're seeing (or not seeing) to determine who I believe has more accurately assessed the situation. As I mentioned before, the amount of troops it took to win against a 4th rate military power is not anywhere close to the troop strength required to maintain order during a transition. THAT is what I fault the administration for most of all (aside from taking us into Iraq in the first place). The post war planning was a mess and there certainly aren't nearly enough troops their to police the country as they try to establish a functional government of their own.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#52 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 02:04 PM

View PostDelvo, on Apr 17 2006, 10:38 AM, said:

View PostSpectacles, on Apr 17 2006, 07:25 AM, said:

Imagine a bizarro world where Scherzo had said "does the stamp of military authenticity only carry weight when you're hearing stuff that supports an already well nourished pro-war position?" and followed it up with an implication that Newbold used "Republican party attack rhetoric."  Same thrust, different perspective. Would Scherzo then be guilty of "personalizing," as you put it?
No, just describing what's wrong with what was said in the article (s)he's describing.


So it's accurate to dismiss one's views as "Democrat party/Republican party rhetoric" even when we don't know the party affiliation of the speaker?

A general's saying that the Iraq War is "unnecessary" or its poor planning was pushed by "zealots" with unrealistic expectations in the DOD is logical grounds for dismissing his opinion as mere partisan rhetoric?

Edited by Spectacles, 17 April 2006 - 02:05 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

#53 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 03:13 PM

From a Wall Street Journal op-ed by 4 retired generals who support Rumsfeld (and by extension, Bush) that appeared today, via CNN.com.

Quote

It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93."

Which proves (yet again) that these people aren't at all familiar with our earth-logic.  

For the billion-and-twelfth time: IRAQ. HAD. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. 9/11. OR, for that matter, with "Islamic extremism."  

Morons.

Edited by _ph, 17 April 2006 - 07:11 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#54 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 04:15 PM

View PostRhea, on Apr 17 2006, 12:08 PM, said:

And you also discount the experience of the generals who were on the ground in Iraq, and they know a lot more than either one of us  (or Rumsfeld, for that matter) about what's happened and is still happening there.  Now I can see where they'd not like the revamping (particularly if they felt it was detrimental to the security and effectiveness of our forces) but I don't know that I'd consider it a "personal" thing.
Where did I discount their experience?  I'd like to now where I said their experience in Iraq doesn't add up to what they are doing now.  I simply said there is more at work here than Iraq and most people have many other reasons to be ticked at Rumsfeld than just Iraq.  Iraq is the issue though that has the attention of the public compared to his "reforms".  

Quote

Lin731: So you're saying this is all about "you sank my battleship" project kinda thing? That they're going after Rummy because of projects he nixed and the revamping of the military?

It is more than a simple thing of cancelled projects but that is part of it.  What I am saying is a major part of the reason why Rumsfeld is hated by many in the military is because he is attempt to radically change doctrine that has been in place and evolving since World War II.  He has done this by going after projects that are needed to maintain that doctrine or represent that doctrine.  A few like the Crusader deservedly needed cutting others like the Comanche should have been pressed forward.  The other aspect is Rumsfeld is going directly at the doctrine that the military operates on.  This is stuff that has serious and at least in my opinion wide reaching implications that will be with us well beyond Iraq.

As for the personal aspect of it I think you have to consider our own situations.  Consider the situation if you had devoted 25 to 30 years of your life to a institution that had as important of a role as defending your nation and your people.  Now some politician comes in and states everything you have been doing doesnít fit in the world that exists today so it has to be tossed out.  You see capability and your hitting power being destroyed in favor of lighter and faster forces.  You are smart enough to realize that faster and lighter forces historically donít do very well once they meet a real enemy.  

If they didnít take that situation somewhat personally then I would be concerned and alarmed.  This isnít a personal dislike in the sense of some petty way.  This is a dislike based on the fact that they feel he is radically changing a institution devoted to the defense of the country in a manner that will make it less capable of defending the country.  Personally I think they have a very legitimate gripe against force transformation for that reason.
"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

#55 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 04:36 PM

View Post_ph, on Apr 17 2006, 04:13 PM, said:

From a Wall Street Journal op-ed by 4 retired generals who support Rumsfeld (and by extension, Bush) that appeared today, via CNN.com.

Quote

It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93."

Which proves (yet again) that these people aren't at all familiar with our earth-logic.  For the billion-and-twelfth time: IRAQ. HAD. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. 9/11.  OR, for that matter, with "Islamic extremism."  

Morons.

Good Lord. Surely they know better. Which means they're deliberately resorting to an emotional--and false--appeal to bash Rummy's opponents.  

I would expect more from our top brass.
"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

#56 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 04:37 PM

Quote

CJ: This isnít a personal dislike in the sense of some petty way. This is a dislike based on the fact that they feel he is radically changing a institution devoted to the defense of the country in a manner that will make it less capable of defending the country. Personally I think they have a very legitimate gripe against force transformation for that reason.

Well-said.
I agree.
"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

#57 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 04:43 PM

Quote

As for the personal aspect of it I think you have to consider our own situations. Consider the situation if you had devoted 25 to 30 years of your life to a institution that had as important of a role as defending your nation and your people. Now some politician comes in and states everything you have been doing doesnít fit in the world that exists today so it has to be tossed out. You see capability and your hitting power being destroyed in favor of lighter and faster forces. You are smart enough to realize that faster and lighter forces historically donít do very well once they meet a real enemy.

Ah okay, that was my take on it as well. That it wasn't personal in the "I hate your guts because you nixed my pet program" but based on disagreeing with a plan they felt was detrimental to the armed forces. So we agree on that.

Quote

If they didnít take that situation somewhat personally then I would be concerned and alarmed. This isnít a personal dislike in the sense of some petty way. This is a dislike based on the fact that they feel he is radically changing a institution devoted to the defense of the country in a manner that will make it less capable of defending the country. Personally I think they have a very legitimate gripe against force transformation for that reason.

Gotcha and again we agree. Glad you popped back in!
Posted Image
Posted Image

#58 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 07:01 PM

Quote

Which proves (yet again) that these people aren't at all familiar with our earth-logic. For the billion-and-twelfth time: IRAQ. HAD. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. 9/11. OR, for that matter, with "Islamic extremism."

Morons.

Or as we say in the evil depths of DU:  Morans!
Posted Image

#59 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 07:58 PM

View PostSpectacles, on Apr 17 2006, 02:37 PM, said:

Quote

CJ: This isnít a personal dislike in the sense of some petty way. This is a dislike based on the fact that they feel he is radically changing a institution devoted to the defense of the country in a manner that will make it less capable of defending the country. Personally I think they have a very legitimate gripe against force transformation for that reason.

Well-said.
I agree.


Me three (or is that four??  :hehe: )
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

#60 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 17 April 2006 - 07:58 PM

View Post_ph, on Apr 17 2006, 01:13 PM, said:

Which proves (yet again) that these people aren't at all familiar with our earth-logic.  

For the billion-and-twelfth time: IRAQ. HAD. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. 9/11. OR, for that matter, with "Islamic extremism."  

Morons.

Absolutely.
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



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