# Rumsfeld- resignation called for by ret. generals



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/11/ ... topstories

Top retired generals who worked for the US military have called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld has fed the country a constant stream of lies and half truths, from "six days, or six weeks, but surely not more than six months" (in respect to how long the war would take) to claiming that we had enough troops on the ground, his actions have in large part resulted in the mess that is now the Iraq War. It is time to see heads roll in this administration, and Rumsfeld should be at the top of the list.



> In the past month, three former generals have accused Rumsfeld of bungling the occupation of Iraq by refusing to commit enough troops to secure the country after taking Baghdad.
> 
> In a Time magazine essay published this week, retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold said the war plan was "fundamentally flawed," and many senior officers "acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard." (Read Newbold's criticism)
> 
> ...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Rumsfeld launches his own volley.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... 20459/1009



> WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued his strongest rebuttal to date Tuesday of recent comments by retired generals criticizing the Iraq war planning and calling on Rumsfeld to resign.
> 
> In particular, Rumsfeld said he doesn't recall retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold raising any objections to the war planning when he was working in the Pentagon for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
> 
> ...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... eld13.html

Another general calls for Rumsfeld's resignation. I can't imagine who would know better that Rumsfeld has goofed than the generals themselves.



> WASHINGTON - The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called Wednesday for Donald Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the secretary of defense's authoritarian style for making the military's job more difficult.
> 
> "I think we need a fresh start" at the top of the Pentagon, said retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-05. "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork."
> 
> ...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The total number of retired generals who want Rumsfeld out has now grown to six. If we will not trust our military to tell us when the strategy has gone wrong and who is to blame, who will we trust?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12313869/


----------



## Troller1 (Oct 15, 2004)

MT- Do you know how many Generals there are in the military. Six is a relatively small number.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Considering that the military as a whole has been very pro-Bush administration it is quite significant that any generals are calling for the resignation of Rumsfeld.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Even John McCain, a staunch supporter of Bush has stated that he has no confidence in Rumsfeld.

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/04/15/1575112.htm

Donald Rumsfeld is incompetent and a threat to the security of our troops. He must be removed.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> staunch supporter of Bush


 :withstupid:

McCain is a liberal in conservative costume. He hates Bush since he lost the nomination, and *****es about anyone in Bush's administration to get even. He is a childish poor looser. A looser to be certain. The head shrinkers in North Viet Nam did a good job.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

He has supported Bush at nearly every turn. He has supported Bush at nearly every turn. Whether he is sincere or not is unknown, but actions speak louder than words. You are welcome to continue fabricating personalities to suit your preferences, but it doesn't make them true.


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

So if the Generals never took him seriously , and they can do the job without him , at this point who really cares ??


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You are welcome to continue fabricating personalities to suit your preferences, but it doesn't make them true.


Lets see during Bush's first run for president you would have been eleven, hardly qualified to make any statements about McCain's reactions to loosing the nomination. I doubt if you can remember what old McCain acted like, and the media loves him so they don't write about it. However, everyone on here who is serious about politics remembers as I do. We remember McCain as a spoiler.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Change is hard to take ...

Seems to me the Old Man (73 year old Rumsfeld) is making changes to accommodate new times.

These relatively young buck retired Generals are likely all "Old School" and maybe can't stomach the idea that "Times, They Are a Chang'in."

Doing "The Right Thing" and doing "The Hard Thing" ... quite often are "One in The Same Thing."


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> These relatively young buck retired Generals are likely all "Old School" and maybe can't stomach the idea that "Times, They Are a Chang'in."


A nice thought but it couldn't be farther from the truth. Rumsfeld along with this administration as a whole is completely opposed to change. They form a plan and continue to push with it whether conditions change or not. This is precisely why we didn't have enough troops in Iraq. The plan didn't call for more, so no matter if they were needed or not, we weren't going to send them.



> Lets see during Bush's first run for president you would have been eleven, hardly qualified to make any statements about McCain's reactions to loosing the nomination. I doubt if you can remember what old McCain acted like, and the media loves him so they don't write about it. However, everyone on here who is serious about politics remembers as I do. We remember McCain as a spoiler.


So because he lost the race in 2000 and was angered by the low blow personal attacks that were used by the Republicans, he is a spoiler? He has had nothing but good to say about Bush for years now, and has been the only person to support him on just about every move.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think he supports Bush, because he must try change the image he created in the primaries. He was a spoiled child then because he lost the center of attention. I wish you were right, I really do, but I doubt if the perceived change we see in McCain is real. Then again it doesn't make much difference to us conservatives he is far to liberal to be any good. That's why you like him. I doubt if he will be well accepted as a true conservative.
He would make a better democrat candidate.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT ... I see the point of what is going on with the Military has blown completely over your head ...

I wouldn't expect a Narrow Minded, Subjective Thinking person to have any Objectivity regarding the Long Term or Big Picture.

You do indeed keep a strangle hold grip on the Liberal "Talking Points" ... 
l give you credit for that :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> That's why you like him. I doubt if he will be well accepted as a true conservative.


The "conservatives" don't like him because they aren't conservative. They are neo-conservatives, and have very few relations to the classical conservative.



> He would make a better democrat candidate.


I don't care what he runs as. He is reasonable and experienced. He has my vote.



> MT ... I see the point of what is going on with the Military has blown completely over your head ...


Please, explain what the situation is.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The "conservatives" don't like him because they aren't conservative. They are neo-conservatives, and have very few relations to the classical conservative.


MT without you around I lean towards the liberal side of conservative. I see you as radical left, and shift my position to try hold center. I am very concerned about environmental issues, but the liberals have gone so far left that I support a much stronger right agenda to try keep us politically centered. 
As a liberal your not the best judge of what is centrist conservative. I have explained this many times in the past that a far right conservative will see a centrist as liberal, and a far left liberal (that would be you) will see a centrist as far right. You are not in a position to judge conservative political perspective. As a conservative myself I will tell you McCain is not a conservative, he is liberal. I have heard the term neo conservative, or neo con, before. The humorous thing is it is uttered only by radical liberals. Using the term tells us your true political perspective. You see the term as derogatory and have a certain amount of satisfaction in feeling that you are calling us names. We know we don't fit the term, so are not offended.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT without you around I lean towards the liberal side of conservative. I see you as radical left, and shift my position to try hold center.


Rather unfortunately your center is the rest of the country's far right.



> I have explained this many times in the past that a far right conservative will see a centrist as liberal, and a far left liberal (that would be you) will see a centrist as far right.


I've taken a test in my ap gov class which was meant to determine your political leaning and I came out as a moderate liberal. Then again we must understand that you are judging my position from your far right camp, and I from my supposedly far left one.



> As a conservative myself I will tell you McCain is not a conservative, he is liberal.


You are trying to judge based on this old system where Republicans are conservative. The Reagan days are long gone. A new system has arisen.



> I have heard the term neo conservative, or neo con, before. The humorous thing is it is uttered only by radical liberals.


It is used by most people middle and left. The right refuses to acknowledge this because they would like to align themselves with their conservative roots, when in fact most of them have jumped ship in favor of the economically liberal side of the Republican party.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

A quote from a Retired Army Major General John Batiste

"We... served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn't build a strong team."

Where do you put your faith, in a politician or in the U.S. military?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> The total number of retired generals who want Rumsfeld out has now grown to six. *If we will not trust our military *to tell us when the strategy has gone wrong and who is to blame, who will we trust?
> 
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12313869/


But in the past two weeks MT has repeatedly said:



> Most of the site you listed are put up by the military. That source seems about as biased as can be. That is kind of like asking kids to grade their own assignments in my book.





> One may argue that they are still biased based on the names alone, but they are better than .mil sites.





> I wouldn't say that anything ending in .mil is terribly credible either.





> The military is the one involved in the conflict, of course they are going to portray even the worst events in the best light.


MT if you desire credibility you really should make up your mind.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The military is indeed not credible when it comes to support for a war. They have an active hand in it and want to make events seem as positive as possible. On the other hand when the military derides the government or the operation it is a significant event, as the status quo would be to support the mission and the government hell or high water.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Maybe they are simply disgruntled generals who didn't get their way. As a matter of fact that is the most likely scenario. They are perhaps politically motivated also. He's staying so this is pointless.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Hearing out greivences that could save lives is never pointless. As to disgruntled people not getting their way, why would they bother as retirees? What would they have to gain, while they had their reputation to lose?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> What would they have to gain, while they had their reputation to lose?


Public admiration from people like you. Earn points with politically powerful people. National attention. Promises of political appointment. Need I continue. This should have been evident without you having to ask.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I have not seen any of these things present themselves, have you? Could it be that they are sincerely concerned with the leadership of the military who they had been involved with for most of their lives?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I really think they were thinking only of themselves. Now there is no way for either of us to prove our point and it looks like this is degenerating so I am done. If your adult enough it's time to drop this thread.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

General Richard Myers, who supports both the Bush administration and Donald Rumsfeld believe said



> "He was inappropriately criticized, I believe, for speaking out," General Myers said in an interview on ABC, speaking of the former Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who is retired.


It appears that he too believes that at least one of the generals spoke from his heart.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That's better I guess the thread didn't need to die. If that is true it would appear that one did it for honorable reasons. One thing is questionable, why didn't they speak up when they could have done so in the planning process? It makes them look dishonorable. It would make sense that at least six would disagree when so many participated. I would have expected more.
Still the reality is we are beating a dead horse here MT, and I am tired. I think I reacted to the nice day like an old lizard and went lethargic.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

On a Fox news story Saturday morning, 6:15 am CST, Apr 15, 2006, it was reported that there are roughly 9,000 admirals and generals, both retired and active who have served under Rumsfeldt.

So 6 out of 9000 are complaining, I guess I don't put much credence in what these 6 are saying at this point. If quite a few more jump in and say the same thing, the ***** may be legit, at this point it ain't.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> One thing is questionable, why didn't they speak up when they could have done so in the planning process?


They did speak up. There were call for more troops. They simply didn't raise hell out of respect for the administration. I'm certain that you would have admonished them had they done so as being counterproductive towards the war effort.



> It would make sense that at least six would disagree when so many participated. I would have expected more.


As I stated earlier the military has been very pro-administration during these past six years. To see anyone speaking otherwise is rather out of the ordinary. Many government and military men who have spoken out against this administration have said that others who are currently working for said agencies praise them for telling it how it is while they are incapable of doing so.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/11/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
> 
> Top retired generals who worked for the US military have called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld has fed the country a constant stream of lies and half truths, from "six days, or six weeks, but surely not more than six months" (in respect to how long the war would take) to claiming that we had enough troops on the ground, his actions have in large part resulted in the mess that is now the Iraq War. It is time to see heads roll in this administration, and Rumsfeld should be at the top of the list.
> 
> ...


Ignore this person starting threads just to pi9ss everyone off. This person doesn't care about the military whatsoever, is just trying to prey off neg press. uke:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

This is what Bloomberg has to say about the issue.

On another note, the number of Generals who are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation has risen to seven.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 8&refer=us



> April 17 (Bloomberg) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be permanently damaged by failed U.S. planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion even if he survives calls for his resignation from seven former military commanders, defense analysts said.
> 
> The retired generals, who made their views public in interviews and essays over the past month, are adding to criticism from Democrats and some Republicans over what they say was Rumsfeld's failure to anticipate the instability in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled three years ago.
> 
> ...


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Rumsfeld is not going anywhere so what other SPIN could you put on this thread.

THIS THREAD IS DEAD!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

His record is nevertheless worth being discussed.

Thanks for declaring that the thread is dead. I will continue to post new information as it arises.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Just keep rambling on till IT GETS LOCKED that's what you do.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT I think if you can't have your way you will do your best to destroy civil discussion. You have told me in the past by PM that you will continue to post what you want even after I lock threads. This isn't going to be a whizzing match between you and I, if you continue this attitude it's going to be MT looses. I hope that is clear enough for you.
Oh, by the way for everyones information MT informed me that he fully expects himself to be banned, but will continue anyway. He thinks of himself as a martyr. Don't let him tick you off and take you down with him.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Clear that I cannot continue to post related articles on threads that I have created?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't care who created them. You don't own them because you started them. I am locking this one, and if it cools down will reopen it. Until then leave it alone MT.


----------

