Rumsfeld gets Bashed

[doc_bean]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Kralizec]

Wesley Clark has joined the call for Rumsfeld to resign.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4913414.stm

[KukriKhan]

US Active Duty General Offiers = about 800
http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/do...32/sec526.html

Retirees = several thousand.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Wesley Clark has joined the call for Rumsfeld to resign.

Probably unhelpful. Since he was a Democratic candidate, the White House can easily characterise the comments as partisan.

[KafirChobee]

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]

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]

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?

[Tribesman]

"I have every confidence in the abitilies and performance of Secretary Rumsfeld , I am very pleased with his achievements in this war on terror , he is doing one hell of a job and I look forward to his continued efforts in his current position"---Osama B .

[Redleg]

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

No, not at all. Has President Bush issued them an illegal order? Has President Bush violated the Constitution? Has President Bush issued some stupid decision - Yes. Notice the difference between the two questions.

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.

So the point is that your initial comment was wrong, however I see your now guilty of attempting to spin your way out of the error. Nice so your attempting to compare American soldiers to the SS. Nice - maybe you should stop while your behind. Since you just compared yourself to being a Nazi (you being the former enlisted soldier.)

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?

Oh you are very much wrong in our initial post - Officers are bound to the nation just like the enlisted in their oath. Your attempting to spin something out of the oath that is not there - when the fault lies in human failure, or the desire of individuals to achieve personal gain over everything else. (Edit: for spelling)

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

Not at all - didn't say I was right - only that you are wrong, providing the actual oaths when doing so. Notice the difference there. To claim I am right without proper material would only be opinion. Providing the actual oaths shows the fact of what the oaths actually state.

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?

Nope only showing you that the oaths state something else then what you claimed - attempting to spin things beyond that is just spin. The failure on this issue is yours not mine.

Your preception is at fault when you compare US soldiers to nazi's, maybe your still upset with yourself for being a hypocrit - working in the military industrial complex if my memory serves me correctly, working for the man and the system that you have issues with to the point that it has clouded your preception of what it means to be a soldier. Or just maybe your still upset with your own experience in the military, the lack of public support for the soldiers who were only doing their duty?

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?

Go back and read my previous posts - you can discover it for yourself. But in short I didn't think the invasion was well planned out, nor have I stated that torture is ok. However go back and read for yourself.

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.

Now that is the only valid point - and it has absolutely nothing to do with the initial post nor the reference to the oaths that you initially made. If you stuck with that one - I would of agreed completely - however that is not what you did.

It seems you have also forgotten a lesson about Vietnam. Expousing your hate for the soldiers who are doing what they believe is their duty to the nation by calling them a bunch of nazis. It seems that it isn't just the military that has forgotten several crucial lessons from Vietnam.

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

Yes indeed - Kafir got the oaths reversed. That was the point. I notice that you attempted to spin your incorrect reponse even farther, making yourself looking even worse. So do you believe that while serving in the military that your service was equilevent with being a Nazi trooper? Do you call your relatives Nazi's for serving in the military?

Your post here reminds me of the attempt at setting people up to be called facists that you did a while back, remember calling my ancestors a bunch of facists there Kafir. Well it seems your up to the same poor logic here, calling servicemen and women a bunch of nazi's.

[BigTex]

Originally posted KafirChobee
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.

The officers arent under the command of the congress (luckily, would be a horrid place if congress had control of the army). They are commanded by their supperiors, the end of the chain is the Commander in Cheif (the president). The president is a servent of the people. As for the enlisted man you may want to read that more carefully, you see here, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the enlisted man swears to uphold the constitution against any enemy. Which is first and foremost before serving his superior (the president). Come on comparing a US soldier to a nazi stormtrooper is bogus. Seriously you may want to rethink your wording on that.

Rummy's concepts, policies (torure is OK

Depends on what your definition of torture is quite honestly. Alot of those liberals out there say sleep depervation is torture. Personally I say anything that doesnt physically harm them is ok. Covering the face with cellyphane and pouring water over them was quiet creative, I sure hope the CIA will continue to use that technique.

To those of you complaining that Rumsfeld is trying to minimize and crack down on the officers criticizing him, you might want to note that it is illegal for them to criticize a superior. Also there arent really, "retired" officers/generals, since any of them could be called back to active duty at any point in the future. Regardless of whether they resigned or age, only exception being the dishonorably discharged. So having a non-active general questioning a superior is a bad idea, it insites other to question their superiors and that is not how the an army should work.

I'd have to agree with Redleg, Kafir you may want to take it easy on the liberal blogs.