Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

FIRING DON....Steve Benen makes a point about all those generals calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation:

Not all of the retired generals are making the same argument. Some want Rumsfeld to go based on his incompetence, others because of his inept management style, others because of his misplaced disregard for advice from military commanders, and still others because of the scandals that have erupted during his tenure.

He's right: There's no good reason to fire Rumsfeld. There are dozens.

Kevin Drum 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (98)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

OK Rummy is incompetent. He gives bad advice to the President. We all know that. So what is the point of all this sudden fire Rumsfeld talk. On the merits he should have been fired just after it became apparent he wasn't up to the job of the occupation.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 14, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Steve Benen makes a point about all those generals calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation:

Conservative bloggers have already exposed the lies of the Clintonista "retired generals."

Link

"These generals appear to be mostly from the Clinton era. Why is that important? Because, while progression through the rank of Colonel is more or less based upon military performance, elevation to flag rank is by direct presidential appointment. They are, in a sense, Clinton appointees.

Typically, presidents don't hand out stars to people who object to their philosophies; think of LBJ and Gen. William Westmoreland. So the first assumption is that if President Bill Clinton elevated an Army colonel to a Brigadier General -- or made him Commander in Chief of CentCom (paging Anthony Zinni) -- that general is probably a Clintonista."

Posted by: Al on April 14, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers >"...So what is the point of all this sudden fire Rumsfeld talk..."

The military command structure does NOT want to even seriously think about using nuclear weapons in the Middle East

They are far smarter than the ReThuglican power structure on this

"...playin with matches in a pool of gasoline..." - Swamp Mama Johnson

Posted by: daCascadian on April 14, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

I think those are all different ways of saying he's incompetent.

Incompetence, the kind that is spawned by arrogance, is the central flaw in the Bush administration.

Posted by: Paul on April 14, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

I see these supposedly various reasons as being like the ways various blind men might describe the same elephant made of shit.

One thing they all know: it stinks like hell.

Posted by: Aadam Aadam on April 14, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

I am disappointed in these generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. They should be demanding his arrest.

Posted by: Hostile on April 14, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Oops, Aadam Aadam was me, still wearing my last alias.

Posted by: frankly0 on April 14, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Is it possible some of the generals want Rumsfeld fired for petty reasons?

How many of these guys are bitter for being passed over for promotions? How many are peeved that Rumsfeld changed/re-organized their pet programs?

Posted by: Paddy Whack on April 14, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

PowerLine points out alot of these guys are Clinton appointees.

I also wonder how many of them came of age during the Cold War, and their thinking is still in the Cold War mindset.

Posted by: BigRiver on April 14, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Rumsfeld isn't just a hawk, he's a shrewd business man.

Why should he go?

Isn't he a key player for the military-industrial complex?

And don't forget....

"I don't do quagmires."

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on April 14, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Paddy Whack are BigRiver are right. We're just dealing with a couple of Clinton pampered disgruntled "generals" who are angry they were passed over for promotion because they are incompetent.

Posted by: Al on April 14, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

The tragic reality is that the officer corps is willing to sacrifice their lives for their country, but not their careers. One notable commonality among these Generals is that they are all retired and thus safely out of Don's vindictive wrath. Military brass has been reduced to Stepford Generals.

NyTimes link

Posted by: Jon Karak on April 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Is it possible some of the generals want Rumsfeld fired for petty reasons?


PowerLine points out alot of these guys are Clinton appointees.

I know what you're saying. I mean, Rumsfeld is so OBVIOUSLY doing a bang up job in Iraq, what GOOD reason could they have to criticize the man?

Posted by: frankly0 on April 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

This is all a conspiracy by the Bushistas to blame all the problems of the Iraq fiasco on someone other than their dear leader. At the moment, Rumsfeld appears to be the convenient target for this deflection.

The campaign appears to be quite successful.

Posted by: lib on April 14, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Let me try that post again, with proper html.

Is it possible some of the generals want Rumsfeld fired for petty reasons?

.....

PowerLine points out alot of these guys are Clinton appointees.

I know what you guys are saying. I mean, Rumsfeld is so OBVIOUSLY doing a bang up job in Iraq, what GOOD reason could they have to criticize the man?

Posted by: frankly0 on April 14, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

So the former commanders of the 1st Infantry Division and the 82nd Airborne Division IN IRAQ are not to be listened to because they reached high rank during the Clinton Administration? How pathetic--and typical--is that?

Posted by: Wombat on April 14, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

all the reasons sound like incompetence to me

perhaps criminal incompetence to boot

Posted by: Carol on April 14, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

(parody?) Al on April 14, 2006 at 12:45 PM:

Conservative bloggers have already exposed the lies of the Clintonista "retired generals."

So the talking point from the rightie bloggers is that Clinton appointed military personnel that would try to sabotage Rummy, Dubya (who weren't SecDef and POTUS at the time), and a military action that hadn't occurred yet?

Soooo...Clinton could see the future? That's way cool...No wonder the far right-wing fears Clinton so much.

Posted by: grape_crush on April 14, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

The tragic reality is that the officer corps is willing to sacrifice their lives for their country, but not their careers.

Those retired generals don't drop their contacts to the military the minute they leave active service. They maintain them, and, make no mistake, they are speaking out loud and clear for the officers who are still in service.

Posted by: ExBrit on April 14, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

"still wearing my last alias"

Frankly0 forgot to stop being a hot lesbian cheerleader. :-)

I agree with several people here that all of these reasons are the same reason: criminal, even willful, incompetence.

Posted by: EmmaAnne on April 14, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Exbrit makes the real point here.

These guys are not just speaking for themselves. Like Jack Murtha they still have many friends in the military and would not be saying these things is this was not a sentiment reflected more broadly within the military (not necessarily unanimous, but broad).

The notion that somehow these are "Clinton appointees" is so ludicrous it is not worth a response, like most mindless right-wing talking points.

Posted by: David P on April 14, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Al on April 14, 2006 at 12:45 PM:

Typically, presidents don't hand out stars to people who object to their philosophies...

Typically Secretaries of Defense get fired for loosing a war. Only a conservative hack would blame Rumsfield's warfighting failures on Clinton appointees.

Posted by: Jon Karak on April 14, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Frankly0 forgot to stop being a hot lesbian cheerleader

Yeah, like I'd ever stop.

Posted by: frankly0 on April 14, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

There is an interesting paradox at work here. One of the central tenets of the US military is the absolute subservience of the military to civilian direction. This is in the revolutionary tradition and is to be praised.

That is one of the reasons why serving officers (and soldiers) are prohibited from appearing at political rallies in uniform. One could make the argument that serving officers should not criticise civilian direction; they should resign.

We now appear to have the situation where the military is losing confidence in the civilian direction of the military. Although I hope it does not reach this point, it will be interesting to see what the military will do if the Bush Administration implements plans to attack Iran with nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Wombat on April 14, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder how many of these generals are pissed because they see a risk of the Iraq quagmire putting the US military (primarily the Army) back into the same post-Vietnam funk it had just barely crawled out of. Andrew Bacevich wrote about the post-Vietnam malaise in his recent book about the new American militarism.

Bacevich said the brass, once they had re-built the military's self-confidence, had vowed that nevermore would they allow a bumbling civilian leadership to put the military back into an unwinnable war. Colin Powell was one of the principal proponents of this position. Guess the rock-ribbed generals didn't have quite as much backbone as they thought they had, huh?

Posted by: Taobhan on April 14, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Jon Karak,

The tragic reality is that the officer corps is willing to sacrifice their lives for their country, but not their careers. One notable commonality among these Generals is that they are all retired and thus safely out of Don's vindictive wrath. Military brass has been reduced to Stepford Generals.

But this is a good thing. We don't want the active-duty officer staff to get used to criticizing the civilian command of the armed services, nor do we want them to get used to getting their way when they complain about it. In spite of the fact that I don't view this as a political matter (more of a performance judgment), you don't want to encourage officers to criticize their superiors in public. There have been cases where some of these officers have criticized the civilian leadership in policy discussions. One of the now-retired generals criticizing Rummy was demoted at least in part because of his insistence on disagreeing with them. But he didn't do it publicly until he was retired. That's how it should be.

Posted by: Rick on April 14, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

"That is one of the reasons why serving officers (and soldiers) are prohibited from appearing at political rallies in uniform. One could make the argument that serving officers should not criticise civilian direction; they should resign."

The problem with this is that while serving officers are quite clearly unwilling to publically criticize thier civilian leadership some of them are willing to praise it.

I agree that they should not be criticizing, there are very good reasons to very rigerously keep them out of politics, however General Pace and others should also not be defending Rumsfeld in public. If they are not allowed to criticize they must not be allowed to praise either.

Posted by: jefff on April 14, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK
We're just dealing with a couple of Clinton pampered disgruntled "generals" who are angry they were passed over for promotion because they are incompetent.
People who have individual personal problems do not join a chorus all saying pretty much the same thing.

I first joined the military in 1961 and know people who went back to before WW II. I have never seen the upper ranks of the military this upset publicly. It just isn't done. This is outside the military tradition, and it really takes major problems to get that many military top rankers to go public in this way.

These are almost uniformly people who did not like Clinton from even before he was first elected. To imagine that for some reason they turned into Clinton-clone-Generals who will politically turn on the civilian leadership because they got miffed over not getting the assignment they wanted and then joined together in a chorus of politics is utterly ludicrious.

These are men who come from the culture of Duty-Honor-County and service to their nation. They survived a really rigorous weed-out process based mostly on competence to reach the highest levels of the military and each of them served at those highest levels with distinction. Failure to get the assignment or promotion wanted is simply part of the process. Such men do not break with tradition and speak out unless there is a truly major problem that is not being addressed and they do so only with the support of their active duty compadres.

Remember - Duty-Honor-Country. These are men who see a real threat to our nation, see their duty and honor wrapped up in dealing with it, and are stepping out to do what the active duty military cannot do. They are speaking for all the rest of the military.

Anyone who thinks these are unhappy "Clintonista - Generals" who didn't get the next promotion or assignement each wanted is simply throwing up a political smoke screen to try to take the public's eyes off the opinions of the experts with a lifetime of experience and understanding.

This experience is like living in earthquake country and suddenly seeing all the animials get upset and nervous. It is a disaster warning.

The disaster is Rumsfeld and his protectors, Bush and Cheney. It is evidenced by the utter incompetence in so many areas, but especially in the Middle East wars and failed diplomacy.

Anyone who understands the military and thinks the Generals are doing this for purely personal motives is an utter fool.

Posted by: Rick B on April 14, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.cnn.tv/2006/POLITICS/04/11/rumsfeld.iraq/

Gen Peter Pace on Rumsfeld: "He does his homework. He works weekends. He works nights. People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld."

"A" for effort. But how many answers did he get right? Would you be satisfied if the AMA licensed surgeons for effort rather than the results they got? "Yes, Mrs. Beemish, Dr. Rumsfeld did leave a scalpel in the incision and it killed your husband. He's done it over and over with lots of patients. But dammit, he's a hard worker. He performs more surgeries than anybody else, and often goes short on sleep to do it. Sure his judgment may suck, but he means well. We've turned down his resignation many times."

He said members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff signed on to the war plan presented by Gen. Tommy Franks, then-commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, before it was presented to Rumsfeld and President Bush, and top officers had "every opportunity to speak our minds."

"And if we do not, shame on us, because the opportunity is there. It is elicited from us, and we're expected to," Pace said.

What does General Shinseki say about that? He wasn't retired until he disagreed with Rumsfeld. That was a great example to set to encourage no-holds-barred, independent feedback from officers.

I'm more amazed by the lameness of Pace's "defense" of Rumsfeld than I am by the attacks directed at him by retired generals.

Posted by: cowalker on April 14, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Rick B: "Anyone who understands the military and thinks the Generals are doing this for purely personal motives is an utter fool."

Well, Al qualified for this status long ago. Through his comments since then, he has just kept confirming that he still belongs in the category. But it has to be a tough life to keep coming here and being mocked for being an utter fool. You have to admire a guy who doesn't mind constantly embarassing himself in public.

Posted by: Taobhan on April 14, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

I think Al is actually Dick Cheney.

Posted by: Paul on April 14, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Rick B is SO wrong, and Al is SO right. it is all clinton's fault. just memorize that, and fuck the military generals who have given their lives for America. they hate america too, probably.

Posted by: elfranko on April 14, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Several people here have made the point that it is only retired Generals who are speaking out publicly, and the NY Times article makes a big point that active duty officers don't speak out because they fear for their careers. That is a load of crap. Here is why the active duty officers do not speak out against the civilian leadership. It is against the law, and carries a felony conviction.

Essentially is is not against the law to say good things about Rumsfeld or Bush. It IS against the law to say negative things. Besides these comments by retired Generals, Commissioned officers are getting out of the services at unpredented rates. But once a mid-level officer resigns, who listens to him? But a General can get media attention.

Read this:

Article 88Contempt toward officials

Text.

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Elements.

(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

Explanation.

The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither Congress nor legislature includes its members individually. Governor does not include lieutenant governor. It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

Lesser included offense.

Article 80attempts

Maximum punishment.

Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

Note: While only commissioned officers can be charged under this article, DOD Directive 1344.10- POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES ON ACTIVE DUTY, extend these same requirements to all individuals on active duty. Enlisted members and warrant officers who violate these provisions can be charged under Article 92, of the UCMJ, Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation.

Next Article> Article 89-Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer >

Above Information from Manual for Court Martial, 2002, Chapter 4, Paragraph 12

Posted by: Rick B on April 14, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton's generals! That's rich. I'm sure they've all taken every opportunity they can get to undermine Bush since they were appointed by Clinton, if they really were. I mean, does the president get to pick anyone he wants or does he sign off on a list from the Pentagon? Gimme a break, Al.

Posted by: tomeck on April 14, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

jefff >"...General Pace...must not be allowed to praise either."

I agree totally; he knows better

General Pace is a disgrace to the uniform he wears & should be discharged at the rank he entered the Corps if for no other reason than to signal that his recent behavior is not acceptable

In public no officer should ever praise civilian leadership nor should they slam them

And I couldn`t care less what you ReThiglican talking point (scum) bots think about this

Semper Fi (1965-1969)

"Every once in a while, you've got to do something hard, do something you're not comfortable with. A person needs a gut check." - Corporal Chad Ritchie, U.S.M.C.

Posted by: daCascadian on April 14, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

I'm pissed at all you liberals dissing our military!

Oh, wait, Al, help me out here.

It's okay to disrespect soldiers if they don't support a Bush appointee?

I want to make sure I follow the rules.

Posted by: Tripp on April 14, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

"PowerLine points out alot of these guys are Clinton appointees."

Isn't that always the way? It takes a while for a soldier to work up the ranks through 1, 2 then 3 stars.

And remember, Clinton's SecDef was a Republican't!

Posted by: Cal Gal on April 14, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

I was interested in Pace's comments "in support" of Rumsfeld as well. No one disputes that Rumsfeld is a hard worker. That Pace couldn't or wouldn't go beyond that speaks volumes.

Posted by: Wombat on April 14, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

"... the brass, once they had re-built the military's self-confidence, had vowed that nevermore would they allow a bumbling civilian leadership to put the military back into an unwinnable war. Colin Powell was one of the principal proponents of this position. Guess the rock-ribbed generals didn't have quite as much backbone as they thought they had, huh?"

What I don't see, if this assertion is true, is just HOW the brass thought they were going to thwart their civilian bosses. I suspect the probably did everything they could, but when the SecDef is a stubborn mule and the President has a messiah complex, what could the brass have done? I don't think we really want a military coup, do we?

Posted by: Cal Gal on April 14, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Why does AL hate are men in uniform?

Posted by: Tbroz on April 14, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

We're just dealing with a couple of Clinton pampered disgruntled "generals" who are angry they were passed over for promotion because they are incompetent.

General Batiste turned down a promotion (offered by the current administration) and retired.

Zinni was a general under Bush Sr.

Posted by: Stephen on April 14, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Resigning en masse would have gotten the country's attention, if not the Bush Administration's.

Posted by: Wombat on April 14, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

So the former commanders of the 1st Infantry Division and the 82nd Airborne Division IN IRAQ are not to be listened to because they reached high rank during the Clinton Administration? How pathetic--and typical--is that?

Wow, I'm actually surprised Po'LineBlog hasn't taken the next step and accused those Clinton appointees for losing the war in Iraq.

Posted by: ogmb on April 14, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK
Wow, I'm actually surprised Po'LineBlog hasn't taken the next step and accused those Clinton appointees for losing the war in Iraq.

They would, but that would involve admitting that the war wasn't being won.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 14, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

There's something vaguely weird about this whole Generals-attacking-Rummy storyline. I think it's easy for us liberals to enjoy watching Rummy squirm, but I get a bit uneasy when general after general "blames" his civilian master. Don't get me wrong, it's fun bashing Rummy. But it sets a moderately troubling precedent for the future...

Posted by: owenz on April 14, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

This is why the Founding Fathers left the strategic decisions about wars to the civilian leadership. If it were up to the Generals, we would forever be fighting wars that we could easily win, like, may be, a battle for the Virgin Islands. At the same time, in this alternate scenario of which the liberals have suddenly become so fond and enamored, dictators of the world would, of course, be left alone to kill their citizens at will, and Saddams of the world would rule most of the nations.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 14, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

The levels of absurdity in this story are legion. The military hated the Clintons for 8 years - remember that whole "gays in the military" thing? In fact, Cohen, the Defense Secretary was a Republican.

The military got what they wanted - a Republican administration. A competent grown-up GOP set of managers! And now, like many little kids on Christmas Day, they're regretting that they got their wish.

And unfortunately, I too, have to echo that it's really too little to late for Iraq. But, let's be thankful that they're doing it before we march into Iran. After reading Hersh's article, it was pretty clear the senior brass is panicking and trying to stop that foolishness now.

BTW - Kevin, you left out the "one" in "no "one" good reason to fire Rumsfeld.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on April 14, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

This is why the Founding Fathers left the strategic decisions about wars to the civilian leadership. If it were up to the Generals, we would forever be fighting wars that we could easily win, like, may be, a battle for the Virgin Islands. At the same time, in this alternate scenario of which the liberals have suddenly become so fond and enamored, dictators of the world would, of course, be left alone to kill their citizens at will, and Saddams of the world would rule most of the nations.

Tbrosz is right, thank God for the Chicken Hawks !! Where would this country be if we left the military decisons up to people who had actual military training and experience ?

Posted by: Stephen on April 14, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Man, between these generals and the possibility of nuking Iran, the chickenhawks are really incensed, aren't they?

I mean, nobody is better suited to rebut the claims of these generals and assert that "we" need to bomb the shit out of Iran than those who have never and would never be part of the "we" in the first place.

The 101st Fightin' Keyboardists have been mobilized! Fire up the cable modems! Lock & load the talking points! Pass around the Mountain Dew - it's gonna be a long night, lying the country into another war fought by other people!

Posted by: Arr-squared on April 14, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK
'This is why the Founding Fathers left the strategic decisions about wars to the civilian leadership.'

Nice one, fake tbrosz...Each posting is sounding more and more truth-y. Not true, mind you, just 'truth-y'...

Posted by: grape_crush on April 14, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

The Pro-Bush Partisans are hoping our military will fail in Iraq, so they can blame the media. See? It's all clear now.

Posted by: CT on April 14, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

I'll reserve judgement until I see how many book deals come out of these generals "speaking out".

Posted by: pencarrow on April 14, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

If you're the commander of a division that's being misused by the SoD, resigning in protest only to replaced by a Rumsfeld Bootlicker may be too much like abandonment of your men.

I can't fault these guys too much for not resigning.

Posted by: Boronx on April 14, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Threads like this make me revert to my former views that the trolls are issued orders and paid to carry them out from a central office. Too quick, too much uniformity no matter the troll's "identity," never a doubt about Bush's correctness -- it's got conspiracy written all over it.

Posted by: David in NY on April 14, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

ogmb: "Wow, I'm actually surprised Po'LineBlog hasn't taken the next step and accused those Clinton appointees for losing the war in Iraq."

They may be why the generals are launching preemptive strikes on Rumsfeld. They've probably noticed how the administration tried to stick the CIA with "bad intel" charges as the reason for not finding WMD in Iraq. The CIA wasn't smart enough to blame the Bushites first.

Posted by: Taobhan on April 14, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK
There's something vaguely weird about this whole Generals-attacking-Rummy storyline. I think it's easy for us liberals to enjoy watching Rummy squirm, but I get a bit uneasy when general after general "blames" his civilian master. Don't get me wrong, it's fun bashing Rummy. But it sets a moderately troubling precedent for the future...

Yeah, I mean,what kind of nation are we living in where citizens who have previously served in government are free to speak their mind, even when it means criticizing their former superiors.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 14, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Cal Gal: "What I don't see, if this assertion is true, is just HOW the brass thought they were going to thwart their civilian bosses. I suspect the probably did everything they could, but when the SecDef is a stubborn mule and the President has a messiah complex, what could the brass have done? I don't think we really want a military coup, do we?"

Not at all, Cal Gal! Check Wombat's comment at 2:17 PM - that's how the military folks get an administration's (and the public's) attention. However, when the generals had to choose between career and the principle of protecting their beloved branch of service from fighting a bad war, career seems to have won out in every case, except for Gen. Newbold.

That's why it's hard for me to have a lot of respect for the griping generals right now, much as I enjoy seeing them roast Rummy. It's no cost to them now but they didn't want to do it when it would have been a lot more effective but at great personal cost. Some example of leadership, huh?

Posted by: Taobhan on April 14, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Boronx: "If you're the commander of a division that's being misused by the SoD, resigning in protest only to replaced by a Rumsfeld Bootlicker may be too much like abandonment of your men."

I think I'd have to mildly disagree with that, Boronx. If you stay and follow orders you think are bad in a war you think is bad, how are your troops any better off? It's not likely you're going to disobey those orders; so, effectively you're not doing things any differently from the bootlicker who would replace you. So, the struggle is within the general himself as to what's the right option to follow and it has no impact on the troops. Only a general with a massive ego would think that the troops can't function properly without him (I've never met an officer at that level who was that far over the edge.)

Posted by: Taobhan on April 14, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Is Karl setting up a "Retired Flag Officers For The Truth" yet? We'll see......

Posted by: neil on April 14, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK
If you stay and follow orders you think are bad in a war you think is bad, how are your troops any better off?

Because if you recognize the problems with them, you can do your best to mitigate those problems, while continuing to exert what upward pressure you can to alter their nature. Whereas someone committed to the bad ideas would do neither.

Admittedly, it may not be a giant effect, but if you feel responsible, its an understandable impulse.


Posted by: cmdicely on April 14, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Would that you had nominated a candidate who actually won the 2004 presidential election and you coulda fired whomsoever you wished.

Meanwhile, back to the "Reality-Based Community"...

Posted by: Birkel on April 14, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel, as usual, has a comprehension problem.

The Generals want Rummy fired. Liberals are just gloating.

Posted by: lib on April 14, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Rick b wrote:"...Anyone who thinks these are unhappy "Clintonista - Generals" who didn't get the next promotion or assignement each wanted is simply throwing up a political smoke screen to try to take the public's eyes off the opinions of the experts with a lifetime of experience and understanding.

This experience is like living in earthquake country and suddenly seeing all the animials get upset and nervous. It is a disaster warning.

The disaster is Rumsfeld and his protectors, Bush and Cheney. It is evidenced by the utter incompetence in so many areas, but especially in the Middle East wars and failed diplomacy.

Anyone who understands the military and thinks the Generals are doing this for purely personal motives is an utter fool."

I agree 100% with this characterization. I grew up in a military family. The road to becoming a carrer officer is very treachorous and not for the faint of heart. Any one of the top brass mentioned could easily fetch twice their current salary in the private sector. They stay in the military for HONOR. To characterize the fine men as having any other motives is DASTARDLY!!

ITMFA

Posted by: imbroglio on April 14, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

I also wonder how many of them came of age during the Cold War, and their thinking is still in the Cold War mindset.

You mean like Rumsfeld and Cheney? But keep grasping trollies - you're hilarious.

Posted by: ckelly on April 14, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

".....in this alternate scenario of which the liberals have suddenly become so fond and enamored, dictators of the world would, of course, be left alone to kill their citizens at will, and Saddams of the world would rule most of the nations."

Name JUST ONE dictator, Saddam Hussein excepted, overthrown by ANY republican administration.

OK, OK...there was that clown Noriega. A pipsqueak. Name another.

Posted by: kaptain kapital on April 14, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

The idea that these generals have a vendetta against Rummy or Bush is ridiculous. These are all outstanding professional soldiers. On CNN last night, one of the generals said he voted for Bush twice, and was a lifelong Republican. But even given that, it doesn't really mean anything - the important idea here is these generals have a serious concern about Rumfeld's competence. Let's look at exactly what these generals are criticizing, and whether their critique is valid before we start attacking their credentials. It's amazing how some right-wingers can't even begin to accept the fact that Rumfeld is, in fact, incompetent. The kneejerk reaction of these Republicans is to instantly attack the messenger. I mean, the depth and breadth of how poorly planned the aftermath of the invasion was is stunning. And this isn't just incompetence like recognizing how risky Operation Marketgarden would be.. this is incompetence like failing to recognize that tanks was the future of warfare in WW1.. It shows a total lack of understanding of the nature of the warfare we would encounter in Iraq.

Posted by: Andy on April 14, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

We're just dealing with a couple of Clinton pampered disgruntled "generals" who are angry they were passed over for promotion because they are incompetent.


We have a winner! Most tired old RNC talking points woven into one post. Pathetic.

Posted by: ckelly on April 14, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:"Because if you recognize the problems with them, you can do your best to mitigate those problems, while continuing to exert what upward pressure you can to alter their nature. Whereas someone committed to the bad ideas would do neither."

I understand what you're saying but it doesn't usually work out that way in practice. One reason is that general officers rotate through assignments rather quickly (as do officers at lower levels). The military services want their officers to strongly identify with the branch of service but not necessarily with a particular group of soldiers (or airmen, seamen or marines). It's not that the officers don't care about their troops but that they know not to get too attached to them since they'll be moving on to a new assignment within 3 years. This is especially true at the general officer level, where they tend to be more like corporate managers than battlefield commanders.

I don't want to make a big deal about this point but I just wanted to say that loyalty to troops probably wasn't the overriding factor in the decisions of any of these generals to resign on principle or stay in the service. At this level, these guys have considerable perks which are difficult to replace in civilian life - that was probably a bigger factor in their decision to stay.

The thing is that if Rummy's plans had gone swimmingly in Iraq (as unlikely as that might have been), the public would have never heard of any of these generals. They would have had no reason to pop off in public about Rummy's autocratic style, even if they did grumble about it among themselves.

Posted by: Taobhan on April 14, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Taobhan, I agree that its probably not loyalty to a particular unit of troops that motivates it, but I do think that a lot of it is motivated by loyalty to the service and a perception of being able to do more good from within than from without.

Also, the expectation, or at least hope, however irrational, that things will change, and that resigning in protest is a one-way street.

But, yeah, self-interest, consciously or unconsciously, probably played a role for some of those sticking it out. But, even so, that's no reason not to take their criticism now seriously.

It seems to me many liberals are in too much of a rush to visit personal condemnation on people who are bringing a message to the public that it is in the direct interests of liberals to highlight, and by doing so they shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to effecting political and social change.

"Shoot the messenger" is bad enough when you are attacking people for bringing an unwelcome message. Its worse, though, when you attack people for bringing the right message for not doing it sooner, and by doing so drown out the message itself.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 14, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Question for you.

Bush fires Rumsfeld. He recognizes that both Iraq, and now Iran, will require a truly bipartisan approach. In 1996, President Clinton appointed William S. Cohen,a Republican, as Secretary of Defense.

If Bush could appoint a Democrat as Secretary of Defense, what names would you put forth that would stand a realistic chance of being confirmed. (Clearly, he would not appoint a Democrat who has been calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.)

Posted by: Jody Z. on April 14, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

The real reason is the streamlining and re-tooling of the military for new doctrine purposes. This has been an ongoing decades long battle, and every defense secretary that pushes it runs up against Pentagon Brass.

Posted by: Matt on April 14, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

The reason we are even talking about the possible role of our top military Since we want to maintai/appropriate role of our military leadership in getting Rumsfield fired is that our top civilian leadership is neglecting its job. When President's stay committed to the wrong leaders, it is Congress's task to set this right.
Not that I am holding my breath.

Posted by: Kevin on April 14, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, I believe that what these guys are saying about Rumsfeld is the right thing and I'm glad they're saying it now than never saying it. But I can't treat these guys as heros for telling the truth now when they could have told the truth in 2003 and possibly prevented thousands of deaths. They also could have prevented possible long-term damage to the services they represent (it'll be some time before we know if there's an Iraq Syndrome similar to the Vietnam Syndrome).

I would have considered these generals as great men in 2003 for doing the right thing then at great personal cost to themselves. Now, they're hardly any more noble than you or me since they're speaking out at no great risk to themselves. They're just stating what you and I already know from observing what's happened since 2003.

In the final analysis, what we've learned is that these generals probably aren't much different from the average person who takes the path of least resistance in tough moments and passes on the opportunity to do something of greater service. It just seems ironic that these men who were willing to give up their lives in combat chose the easy way out when the price of sacrifice was less than that.

I wonder how many of these generals would do it differently if they could go back to 2003 and choose again. It's interesting to me that many of the young men who avoided signing up for duty during Vietnam later came to regret passing on the opportunity to serve. Maybe the generals understand that feeling now.

Posted by: Taobhan on April 14, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Would it be possible for the organizers that have been so effective in handling the immigration issue across the country to organize a one-day protest against Rumsfeld i.e a Dump Rumsfeld campaign? If nothing it would highly objectify the contempt for which the man is held. It would be the first protest I've ever heard of in America against a single official...well, at least since Nixon. Start with Rumsfeld and work our way up...

Posted by: tat on April 14, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, I could have said what I said in my above comment much more concisely: the generals are good guys for speaking up now and possibly preventing the Bush Regime from doing further damage to the nation ... but they could have great men if they had taken advantage of the opportunity they had to speak out in 2003. The nation is much poorer for the decision they made earlier but the generals are trying to atone for it now. How's that?

Posted by: Taobhan on April 14, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Taobhan,

I can agree with that, mostly, though I don't think they are necessarily trying to atone; I think in many cases they saw themselves doing the best they could while in uniform, and are still doing the best they can now. That we might disagree and think they could have done something better earlier doesn't mean that, in many cases, they weren't doing the best they could as they understood it to minimize the harm caused by the Bush Administration while they wore the uniform.

And, given how little influence those who had been on the inside outside of the military who left the administration had, I'm not even sure I disagree with them, even if I think that them speaking out publicly even if it meant leaving the service ought to have been more effective than trying to minimize the damage from within.

But, really, I'm more concerned with what will make the best change to the course now than what would have then.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 14, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Taobhan: a lot of what the generals are complaning of has to do with Rumsfeld's handling of the war itself. It would've been hard to criticize Rumsfeld for things that hadn't happened yet :)

Posted by: Mithrandir on April 14, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely and Mithrandir, I'm probably guilty of a bit of projection regarding the generals. Even someone as uninformed as I could foresee in 2003 the very serious problems with which the Iraqis and the US military are struggling with now. That's why I opposed the war then and disbelieved all the shifting reasons we were given for it. I think I expected these generals to be at least as cautious as I might have been before committing the forces they commanded to such a reckless mission.

Maybe I should be more generous towards these guys and not ask them to meet such high standards ex post facto. Mithrandir is, I think, correct in saying that the generals are criticizing the execution of the war and not the decision to go to war in the first place. cmdicely is also correct that maybe they were just doing the best they could with what the understanding they had.

I could continue to be critical of the generals' support of the war decision but I see that's being too hard on them. Therefore, I relent and applaud them for their candor. I hope their criticisms help in some way to diminish the problems in Iraq soon. And maybe, maybe their speaking out now will encourage military officers in the future to be just a wee bit more willing to question the wisdom of such military adventures.

Posted by: Taobhan on April 14, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

The Generals are the incompetents? What a desperate stretch. First of all, getting stars on your collar is about as high as you can go, so the "passed over for promotion" theory is bunk.

Second, Generals do not become Generals by luck or good fortune. They become Generals by being adept politicians as well as proving supreme competence and gaining the trust of those they command as they rise through the ranks.

Third, no one who is a discipline problem ever put stars on their collar other than for a costume party. When General Riggs spoke out and lost a star and was forced into retirement, he most certainly took a calculated risk and knew full measure what the fallout from those actions would be.

Posted by: Global Citizen on April 14, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin

From what I've read, these are clearly Clintonistas with axes to grind. I wouldn't be surprised if Bubba himself weren't masterminding this whole smear campaign himself from his Harlem offices.

Another lib fantasy deflated.

Posted by: egbert on April 15, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

"From what I've read, these are clearly Clintonistas with axes to grind."

Clintonista generals? WTF?

You're wearing your tin foil hat mighty tight these days, egbert.

Posted by: Joel on April 15, 2006 at 7:00 AM | PERMALINK

shorter egbert: i support only the troops that support staying the curse....


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on April 15, 2006 at 7:07 AM | PERMALINK

Clintonista Generals? That made me laugh hard enough that I woke up enough to get through the rest of my shift!

Simple logic (try to follow the bouncing ball egbert - I'll go slow so you can keep up.)

The former commanders of two legendary units, the Big Red One and the 82nd Airborne have joined the fray. This is huge, and unprecedented. To discount them and what they have to say is desperate at best and possibly even flat-out stupid, as well as intellectually dishonest. Deny, lie and obfuscate...Deny, lie and obfuscate, just like your heros.

Generals do not lose credibility with the troops they commanded just because they are retired. (They certainly have more credibility in this area than you do.) The troops are listening. And morale has been flagging in the field for a while. (It started to wane with the first stop-loss orders.) Troops are on their third rotation through Iraq. It's become a war of attrition. Poorly planned, poorly executed, and poorly manned. This all falls on the shoulders of Rumsfeld.

These men have never failed to stand up when all around them, other people were taking a seat. That they are so easily dismissed by this administration is a sad commentary. Instead of listening and weighing evidence, and making a bold decision or taking any bold action is not in W.'s repertoire.

Instead, he opts to pledge blind fealty to a failed autocrat.

Posted by: Global Citizen on April 15, 2006 at 8:15 AM | PERMALINK

These men have never failed to stand up when all around them, other people were taking a seat. That they are so easily dismissed by this administration is a sad commentary. Instead of listening and weighing evidence, and making a bold decision or taking any bold action is not in W.'s repertoire.

These guys are looking for their 15 minutes and a payday. Generals are a dime a dozen and retired generals even cheaper. They're also the same kind of egomaniacs as Senators. Finding a bitter ex-general to trash the current crop is an idea as old as the press and as easy as making a phone call. These men are easy to dismiss because they are cowards and they've allowed their vanity to exceed their common sense and become political pawns. They're glorified hookers.

Rummy has already resigned 2x's. He's not going anywhere. GWB knows these demands are solid evidence Rummy is doing an excellent job. He's pissing off the people he's been hired to piss off.

This is the same situation that occured after William Bennet was appointed Education Secretary. He went out and pissed off liberals just as he was expected to do. After an especially raucus period of criticism of Bennett including an NYTs editorial he be fired, Bill was a tad apprehensive going into a cabinet meeting. Reagan pulled out a folder of these press clippings and noted Bennett was the only one generating this kind of firestorm. He then asked the other cabinet members, "Isn't anyone else working?"

Liberals screaming are like the canary in the coal mine. The chirping means all is well.

Posted by: rdw on April 15, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

Last night Paul and John commented here about David Ignatius's Washington Post column supporting the removal of Secretary Rumsfeld. This morning at RealClearPolitics, Tom Bevan posts an officer's response to Ignatius. The officer writes:

I would beg to differ with that assessment by Mr. Ignatius. I am a combat arms officer, a combat veteran of the Global War on Terror, currently serving on the faculty of one of the Staff Colleges.

My assessment from extensive and continuous contact with young field grade officers, most of which are combat arms branch, combat veterans, is that Secretary Rumsfeld is considered the finest Secretary of Defense of the last forty years. This is in addition to my "peer group," of which many of us maintain contact with each each other regardless if we are in CONUS or SW Asia...

This is one example of the effectiveness of the alternative media. The MSM still leads the news but they don't write the only story. Rummy has a very large fan club among influential people. We know what he's trying to do and what he's getting done. He will have the time he feels he needs to finish it.

BTW: Just with his "Old Europe" line he's earned immortality.

Posted by: rdw on April 15, 2006 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

Undergirding the operational aspects of the services where decisions have to be made instantly is a huge planning organization which worries about the future -- the near future, where quick fixes are feverishly sought (as with HumVee Armor and roadside bombs), and the far future, where the changes in the services, which policy and technology demand, are agonizingly investigated, discussed, and finally approved. These arguments are incessant, and sometimes bitter, especially when the ultimate decisions are made (as they should be) by civilians who may have little or no detailed knowledge of the issues in question.

Yet there is a discipline in force which defines the military role: make your arguments before the decision is made; after the decision, execute it. Period. If you don't like it, resign. That's it. If you resign, you become a Monday-morning quarterback who can vent to the extent supported by the MSM and allowed by security considerations which are in effect until the day you die.

Ex-generals should shut up, but that's really not the problem. The problem is the credence the media give to such people.

Sincerely,
John C. Toomay, Major General, USAF (ret.)


As Toomay points out. These are merely Monday morning quarterbacks who lost the argument. They are a dime a dozen. We have them every war. If you knew a nickles worth of history you'd know Churchill was attacked the most by these clowns. To the extent they are remembered, they are remembered for biting the ankles of a Great Man.

Posted by: rdw on April 15, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Rumsfeld Stays, Says Commander in Chief

By LOLITA BALDOR
Associated Press Writer

Bush Says Rumsfeld Has His 'Full Support'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- At least twice during the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered President Bush his resignation. On Friday, amid growing criticism of his stewardship of the war from retired generals who waged it, the issue never came up.

In a private phone call, Bush offered Rumsfeld his full support. And at no time did Rumsfeld offer to step down, according to a senior defense official familiar with the call.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the call was private, said the idea of a resignation "wasn't even in the same stadium as the discussion they were having. That's not where anybody's head is."

Posted by: rdw on April 15, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

egbert:"From what I've read, these are clearly Clintonistas with axes to grind. I wouldn't be surprised if Bubba himself weren't masterminding this whole smear campaign himself from his Harlem offices."

Awww, egbert's dipping into the Powerline wine again. Hey dude, that idea was discussed and debunked way upthread. Show up a little sooner if you want to have an impact on the conversation.

Posted by: Taobhan on April 15, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the call was private, said the idea of a resignation "wasn't even in the same stadium as the discussion they were having. That's not where anybody's head is."

Added the official: "If you want more information on where there heads are, you'll have to talk their respective proctologists."

As an aside, though, am I the only one who is annoyed with the upshot of all the hullaballoo about abuses of anonymity? We get the exact same use of anonymous sources selling stories that its clear their masters want in the press, with the added value-free inclusion of the excuse the source offered for anonymity.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 15, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

"I believe secretary Rumsfeld hasn't done an adequate job. He should go," General Wesley Clark told Fox News Channel in an interview.

Clark said Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had pushed the United States into Iraq, and said the invasion "had no connection" with the war on terror".

"They pressed for this, they pressed for open warfare before the diplomacy was finished," said the retired general and Fox News analyst.

"It was a tragic mistake, a strategic blunder."

Asked whether it was appropriate to comment on the defense secretary's performance while the United States is at war, Clark replied: "It's more than an appropriate time. This country needed a better policy from the 2001 period on.

Posted by: on April 15, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

As an aside, though, am I the only one who is annoyed with the upshot of all the hullaballoo about abuses of anonymity? We get the exact same use of anonymous sources selling stories that its clear their masters want in the press, with the added value-free inclusion of the excuse the source offered for anonymity.

Did you really think anything was going to change? This has been the way of the press your entire life. It will continue to be so.

Equally non-sensical is the complaint of 'selective leaking'. Of course it's selective. Every story that's ever been written has used data sleectively. No reporter has ever included all of the fact available to them and when they try to make a point, 98% of the time, they select those facts which support their agenda.

Posted by: rdw on April 16, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

sked whether it was appropriate to comment on the defense secretary's performance while the United States is at war, Clark replied: "It's more than an appropriate time. This country needed a better policy from the 2001 period on.


Oviously Clinton agreed. That's why he was fired.

Posted by: rdw on April 16, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: We know what he's trying to do and what he's getting done.

That's because you live in a world of delusion and lies, most of them coming from your own lips and keyboard.

Liberals screaming are like the canary in the coal mine. The chirping means all is well.

rdw says "2000 plus American soldiers dead and Iraq spinning down the toilet. All's well!"

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 17, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Bush 60% disapproval. 39% approval.

Clinton's second term low? 53%

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 17, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

A suicide bomber blew himself up today in a restaurant at the old central bus station in Tel Aviv, Israel, killing eight other people, police and ambulance services said.

Roadmap to Nowhere coming along just fine.

Condi's plan to have Hamas govern Palestinians coming along just fine.

Bush's plan to deliberately keep the Middle East in turmoil and war and terrorism on the rise, so he can justify more inroads into American civil liberties, coming along just fine.

Why does rdw hate America and its freedoms?

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 17, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Why does rdw hate America and its freedoms?

We are the greatest nation on earth. GWB is extending our greatness.

The roadmap being uses is the one written by Sharon and aproved by Bush. Pullback to defensible borders and isolate the two populations as necessary. Sharon understood Arafat would never make peace and the Palestinains people are incapable of creaitng a civilized state. The only serious alternative is separation.

After this bombing Gaza will be totally sealed from Israel for a long time, if not permanently. GAZA becomes an even worse Ghetto with no economy and no hopes for an economy. They have their own little civil war and start killing each other. Egypt will maintain sealed borderd as well.

The West Bank will also be sealed further and more work continued on the fence. The plan for peace is a permanent secure fence. Israeli military technology will allow increasingly painful retribution in the form of a video game whereby the Israeli Army can safely launch missles against the Hamas leadership almmost as will.

Eventually there will be total separation. The Israeli economy will continue to boom as it has for several years while they continue to invest in their security. The Palestinians are in incredibly horrible shape. The Iranains and others will continue to fund their extremists and they'll continue to become more dominant. The culture knows only death and misery. The eventual result is total separation from all neighbors and then self-destruction as they turn on each other.


Posted by: rdw on April 17, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

For the first time ever, a majority of Americans (52%) say that the U.S. mission in Iraq will be judged a failure. Just 32% believe history will judge it a success.

rdw's low standards for "greatness".

rdw: We are the greatest nation on earth.

And yet you hate your own country!

Again, why?

. . . the Palestinains people are incapable of creaitng a civilized state.

Your racism is showing again, rdw!

The plan for peace is a permanent secure fence.

The Berlin Wall for Peace proposal from rdw.

The culture knows only death and misery.

The racism continues . . .

The eventual result is total separation from all neighbors and then self-destruction as they turn on each other.

Sounds more like the GOP!


Posted by: Advocate for God on April 17, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly