Rumsfeld gets Bashed

**JAG** · 04-15-2006, 10:26

Kinda miss the point - we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

**Alexanderofmacedon** · 04-15-2006, 15:10

Originally Posted by JAG

Kinda miss the point - we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

Oh, oh I know...

**BigTex** · 04-15-2006, 18:39

Originally Posted by JAG

Kinda miss the point - we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

Were there though, so there's little point in arguing over why we got there till we've fixed the place.

**doc_bean** · 04-15-2006, 18:48

Originally Posted by BigTex

Were there though, so there's little point in arguing over why we got there till we've fixed the place.

Maybe, but it might be wise to not have the guy responsible for the US being there in a position of power anymore.

**Hurin_Rules** · 04-15-2006, 20:02

Can anyone with more knowledge of the US military comment on Rumsfeld's statements that there are 'thousand and thousands' of generals and admirals in the US military? That seems very high to me. He made the comment to minimize the criticism of him. He said:

"The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views," he said. "But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round."

Now, he certainly minimized the number of people criticizing him-- it wasn't two or three or four but at least six senior figures publically denounced him (those in uniform, of course, can't speak out against him very forcefully). But did he exaggerate the number of generals/admirals too? Just curious.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 04-15-2006, 21:30

If the figure includes retired generals and admirals, it probably isn't too far off of thousands, maybe even ten thousand.

Literally thousands of thousands (millions) is quite high.

**BigTex** · 04-15-2006, 22:20

Thousands and thousands seem high for active generals and admirals. More then likely he was including retired generals. Or he could have included the coast guard and national guard

.

**Major Robert Dump** · 04-16-2006, 00:47

It still wouldn't be anywhere near thousands. What, does he think each company has its own general?

I think he is referring to not only current retiress and active duty in judgement of him, but likely all retiress and active duty EVER in the history of the US who sat in judgement of ALL SODs in the history of the US. That may not be how it came out, and maybe there are americans stupid enough to think that we have 1000s of Generals and Admirals alive right now, but it simply isn't the case.

He likely meant presidents dont fire SODs everytime a few generals complain. But even the accuracy of that statement could be debated, and you also have to consider that its typically bad protocol for people still serving to engage in the type of finger pointing towards a superior, so assuming that because active duty officers arent complaining means they love him is assuming wrong, maybe they just don't want to get MacArthured.

But Don't expect him to get fired, that would imply that someone made an error, and errors arent made in this administration. It's better to stay the course on an bad decision than be a terrible flip flopper and change direction a bit. RUMMY 4 EVER

**KafirChobee** · 04-17-2006, 04:52

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Can anyone with more knowledge of the US military comment on Rumsfeld's statements that there are 'thousand and thousands' of generals and admirals in the US military? That seems very high to me. He made the comment to minimize the criticism of him. He said:

"The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views," he said. "But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round."

Now, he certainly minimized the number of people criticizing him-- it wasn't two or three or four but at least six senior figures publically denounced him (those in uniform, of course, can't speak out against him very forcefully). But did he exaggerate the number of generals/admirals too? Just curious.

By one report I read, there are 16 Field rank officers for every hundred troops (or maybe that is just officers in general). The report denoted that most officers are just sorta hanging out and playing politics - and that the ratio of officers (today) serving in a combat situation is minimal (especially for Westys - they go there get the ticket punched for having been and get reassigned to a safe area to play politico). It seems about right though. In 'nam the Westy's that got put on the line served about 4 months on average, the Annapolis boys (marines) spent 6 months and the OCS guys spent their tours there (or died there).

Still, if the arguement is if 6 qualified generals have a beef about the military versus the war? Well, consider that one Lt. Gen. (3 stars) gave it up - the youngest Lt. Gen. in 50 years - to protest the handeling of the war.

Don't you get it? It ain't about them - these are men of the highest honor - it is about the way the war was, is and has been conducted. It is about a return to the Vietnam style of warfare where the civilians blame the military for not being able to carry out their brilliant plans. It is, "Sure there have been thousands of tactical errors (those of the troops and their commanders), but the strategy (Bushy's) is still sound". Condi Rice.

What amazes me is that we haven't had a coup d'etat. I mean, it's the military that botched Rummy's, Wolfowitz's, Cheney's, and Bushy's (well, actually I doubt he had a clue ... was to busy praying that he was right) plan. It is fortunate for Bush that officers take an oath to the presidency - where as enlisted men take an oath to the country. Were it reversed, maybe they would act .... though I doubt it, after all the only ones with balls quit or retired.

**Redleg** · 04-17-2006, 06:05

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

What amazes me is that we haven't had a coup d'etat. I mean, it's the military that botched Rummy's, Wolfowitz's, Cheney's, and Bushy's (well, actually I doubt he had a clue ... was to busy praying that he was right) plan. It is fortunate for Bush that officers take an oath to the presidency - where as enlisted men take an oath to the country. Were it reversed, maybe they would act .... though I doubt it, after all the only ones with balls quit or retired.

LOL you might want to read the oaths that enlisted and officers actually take and sign. Here to help you out since you it seems you have forgotten what the oaths actually state. (you actually got it reversed. LOL)

Enlisted oath

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Officer Commission Oath

I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

You might want to stay away from those liberial blogs.

**KafirChobee** · 04-17-2006, 06:30

So, what you are saying Red is that the officer corp has broken its oath by supporting Bush. No?

so, Officers accept the duty of Congress over the president? That being the people (nation) over a man? While the enlisted men swear an allegiance to a man - like the nazis did to Hitler.

Sorry, Red, your wrong. In thinking i got it wrong. The officers have, if they are not bound to a president, but to the nation? Then why are they so acquiescent to? Why haven't they stood up for their beliefs, allowed the most qualified to be retired or fired? Been rubber stamps to a bunch of wimps that are willing to send others sons to die but not their own? What is wrong with this picture?

That you are right> I am wrong, somehow makes you right? You jest, yes?

Or, are you so entrenched in the idea that if you can prove me wrong on one subject that all my perceptions are wrong, also?

Do you personally agree with all of Rummy's concepts, policies (torure is OK. 100,000 men can do what it took 350,000 men to do before), etc. Or, are you simply intent on proving me wrong?

I often invert, or revert things - am old and slow, and some times forgetful - but, somethings i do not forget. Like how we lost the last war - Vietnam, and neither do most of the generals now serving. It is just that some still want to make that next star - regardless od the consequences to the nation. The ball-less twits.

So, oh gosh - Kafir got the codes reversed - he bad?

**Shaka_Khan** · 05-05-2006, 07:11

Originally Posted by BigTex

Were there though, so there's little point in arguing over why we got there till we've fixed the place.

I don't know what your position on this was. If you had agreed with the invasion of Iraq before, do you now agree with France, Germany, Russia and everyone else who were against the war?