Revolt of the Generals
 

This is serious!

http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...i?ArtNum=24148

Revolt of the Generals
 

I'd be more worried if the Generals tried to take
over the government, like in the declining years of the
Roman Empire.

"Bob Crantz" wrote
http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...i?ArtNum=24148

Revolt of the Generals
 

I'd be more worried if the Generals tried to take
over the government, like in the declining years of the
Roman Empire.


I don't think there's a realistic prospect of that. At
least, not now.


Dave wrote:
I think the four retired generals writing in today's Journal got it right.
The ones carping are the generals who were on the losing end of the argument
over whether to stick with the conventional weapons of the past and WW II
strategies, or move to lighter more mobile forces to deal with a new type of
enemy.


Yeah, right. "Losing end of the argument" meaning that they
tried to make a realistic plan for Iraq and got fired for it.

Or do you think that Iraq situation is just fine & dandy?
Maybe you also have rosy words to share about the Bush
Administration's handling of Iran?


Change is difficult, and always puts somebody's nose out of joint in a
bureaucracy.

Especially when the change is predicted to be a disaster,
and turns out to be one.

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

Something must be up. In general, (pun aside) these are men of honor and
duty. The fact so many of them have spoken up (not a common occurence, ever)
says something is astray.

Did you know that the Rumsfield/Bush agenda was to REDUCE the size of the
beloved Marine Corps?

Has oil revenues from Iraq paid for the occupation? Remember, that was
Rumsfeld's plan.

Bush and the Bushbots are trigger happy, very quick to shoot the messenger.

Compassionate Conservative = Outspend the Liberals

Next stop - War with Iran!

Glory to God!

Revolt of the Generals
 

Yeah, right. "Losing end of the argument" meaning that they
tried to make a realistic plan for Iraq and got fired for it.


Dave wrote:
So I take it you're a fan of sticking with conventional weapons of the past,
and WWII strategies to meet current and future threats.

Yeah right, Dave. Attack that straw man. What did I say, or
do you even know?

The Pentagon war planners tried to take measures to prevent
the very instability which has occured. The Bush
Administration (more precisely, Cheney & Rumsfeld)
interfered with the chain of command, including firing
people (some of the disgruntled generals but not all), so as
to do away with this type of planning. They publicly scoffed
at the idea of planning for post-invasion security forces &
stabilizing the country.

Now they've been proven wrong, in a big way. So, shall we
learn from the mistakes and do better? Of course not! Why
bother when you can fling mud and insist it's all the fault
of those fag-loving libby-rull traitors?

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

Bob Crantz wrote:
Something must be up. In general, (pun aside) these are men of honor and
duty. The fact so many of them have spoken up (not a common occurence, ever)
says something is astray.


And while there has often been background grumbling about
mismanagement of a war, AFAIK there hasn't been so many
senior people agreeing on so much, so specifically.


Did you know that the Rumsfield/Bush agenda was to REDUCE the size of the
beloved Marine Corps?


They didn't think they needed 'em.


Has oil revenues from Iraq paid for the occupation? Remember, that was
Rumsfeld's plan.


Well, he got the idea from the "New American Century" guys
who were unabashed imperialists back in the 1990s. One of
the things they hate Clinton for is that they told him to
invade Iraq and he wouldn't listen.


Bush and the Bushbots are trigger happy, very quick to shoot the messenger.


That's because their aim is too poor to shoot the cause,
which is always further away.


Compassionate Conservative = Outspend the Liberals


On advertising.

Next stop - War with Iran!

Glory to God!


That's right, maybe we can reverse the age-old historic
dictum about getting involved in a land war in Asia.

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:49:27 -0400, DSK said:

Yeah, right. "Losing end of the argument" meaning that they
tried to make a realistic plan for Iraq and got fired for it.

So I take it you're a fan of sticking with conventional weapons of the
past,
and WWII strategies to meet current and future threats.

Japan and Germany were occupied by US forces and Democracy was installed in
each country.

How is this different from the current strategy?

Revolt of the Generals
 

Rumsfeld has twice offered his resignation to Bush.

Did he try to resign because he was doing an exemplary job?

Is Bush a dope?

Revolt of the Generals
 

Yeah right, Dave. Attack that straw man. What did I say, or
do you even know?


Dave wrote:
Hardly a straw man. The very point you were disputing.


Not at all.

The point I am disputing is that the Bush Administration has
ignored advice that turned out to be correct. Their answer
seems to be to shoot the messenger, or accuse the messenger
of not being patriotic. This has been repeated with energy
policy, foregin policy, economic policy, tax policy, etc etc
etc. Now it's the military's turn... and they have a much
more concrete grievance than most.


In my initial message I summarized the four generals who wrote the piece.
Here's the full quote:

"Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics
appears to stem from his efforts to 'transform' the military by moving to a
joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile"

Uh huh. Can we get a quote from the generals, wherein they
say that?

Sounds very much like a red herring in a straw man suit.

What I have heard from the generals is criticism of Vice
President Cheney's interference with the chain of command,
and Rumsfelds mismanagement of the post-war strategy.




You were disputing the four generals' position. IOW, while they were against
"conventional weapons of the past like the Crusader artillery piece and
World War II war-fighting strategies which proved practically useless
against lawless and uncivilized enemies engaged in asymmetrical warfare."
you were in favor of those things.

If you say so, Dave, then that must be right. Right?

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

Uh huh. Can we get a quote from the generals, wherein they
say that?


Dave wrote:
Er Doug.....

That _is_ a direct quote from the four Generals. They were the authors of
the piece.

I don't think so, it does not sound like what I have
read/heard from other sources. I bet this is some
pro-Bush/Cheney source putting words in their mouths so as
to discredit them... a popular game with Rush Limbaugh and
his many imitators on the right.

From what I have heard & read, the generals chief complaint
is that the Bush Adminstration ignored all serious advice
about planning for post-war Iraq and are now planning on
using the overstretched military to try & solve the problem
they have let fester with Iran for so long.

I though Bush & Cheney ran on a platform of rebuilding the
military, not relying on the Reserves for long-term
international security? What happened to their promises?

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:31:48 -0400, DSK said:

Dave wrote:
So I take it you're a fan of sticking with conventional weapons of the
past,
and WWII strategies to meet current and future threats.

Yeah right, Dave. Attack that straw man. What did I say, or
do you even know?

Hardly a straw man. The very point you were disputing.

In my initial message I summarized the four generals who wrote the piece.
Here's the full quote:

"Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics
appears to stem from his efforts to 'transform' the military by moving to
a
joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in the future to
meet the nation's current and future threats. Many senior officers and
bureaucrats did not support his transformation goals -- preferring
conventional weapons of the past like the Crusader artillery piece and
World
War II war-fighting strategies which proved practically useless against
lawless and uncivilized enemies engaged in asymmetrical warfare."

Iraq:

1. Largest tank battle since WWII.

2. Largest movement of military equipment ever.

Lighter, more mobile? Got some news for you. That transformation occured
way before Rumsfeld.

3. The Crusader was a transformational weapon designed to keep up with the
Abrams and be air transportable. Read he
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/crusader.htm

It's a far cry from any WWII weapons sytem and is not a weapon of the past.

4. What WWII war-fighting strategies proved useless? Maybe if they looked
more closely at WWII things would be different today. It took over two
months after the flag was raised on Iwo Jima to secure the island. Lots and
lots of asymetric warfare there. What about the impending invasion of Japan?
One can argue that the current situation in Iraq is from a failure to apply
lessons learned in WWII. Things went better in WWII because civilian
populations were bombed, no regard was given to collateral damage. The Iraq
War will take longer than WWII.

Revolt of the Generals
 

Maybe North Korea.

The last Marine Amphibious assualt was in Korea, over 50 years ago.

If the reduction of 5,000 men wasn't so drastic how come it did not occur?

hmmm?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:22:48 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

Did you know that the Rumsfield/Bush agenda was to REDUCE the size of the
beloved Marine Corps?

Yes. From 180,000 to 175,000 over a period of 5 years. A drastic
reduction.
Where do you figure we'll have to make a beach assault against Al Queda
over
the next 5 years?

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:02:03 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

If the reduction of 5,000 men wasn't so drastic how come it did not occur?

Ever hear the phrase "squealing like a stuck pig?

My understanding is that the troop reduction would have come out of very
specialized units and the operational cost was much, much greater than the
monetary savings.

I'm sure if the 5,000 men was of no consequence, the Marines would have
obeyed.

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:45:52 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

My understanding is that the troop reduction would have come out of very
specialized units and the operational cost was much, much greater than the
monetary savings.

I'm sure if the 5,000 men was of no consequence, the Marines would have
obeyed.

Dream on. In government nobody likes to see the size of his empire
reduced,
and regardless of the size the subject of the reduction will find any
excuse
to avoid it.

That contradicts Rumsfeld own words (testimony to Congress) regarding Marine
Troop strength:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/...ony2-16-05.pdf

Read his own words. Is Rumsfeld lying?

hmmmm?

Revolt of the Generals
 

I can't help thinking about the old comic dialog:

Messenger sez: Sire, the peasants are revolting.

King replies: Yes, I quite agree!

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote
"Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics
appears to stem from his efforts to 'transform' the military by moving to a
joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in the future to
meet the nation's current and future threats. ....

I'm disappointed if that is their only beef and I suspect that the above quote
is spin designed to turn attention away from the dual blunders of attacking
Saddam to begin with, instead of concentrating on the real threat, and then
sending too few resources to subdue the country once Saddam's forces were
beaten.

Saddam was never a threat to the USA, he had no WMDs and had NO part in the 9/11
or other attacks on us. His support for terrorism was limited to support for
Palistinians attacking Israel. OTOH, he was a bulwark against the real threat -
Islamic extremists like al Qaeda. Attacking him was the equivalent of attacking
Stalin while trying to beat Hitler in the middle of WW2!

Worse, by sending only enough troops to topple Saddam, but not enough to control
the country thereafter, Rummy has effectively turned Iraq over to the real
enemy - the Islamic jihahists - and fostered their goal of world domination.

Modernizing the military to suit new weapons, technology and threats has nothing
to do with it.

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:50:25 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

That contradicts Rumsfeld own words (testimony to Congress) regarding
Marine
Troop strength:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/...ony2-16-05.pdf

You mean that part where he says:

"Under the Emergency Authority the Marines have _temporarily_ increased
strength by nearly 3,000 above their base of 175,000?"

Seems to me a temporary increase is fully consistent with returning to
that
number over 5 years, no?

Where does the 5 year number come from?

That increase was done by calling up reservists to fill specialty billets.

It's more than 3,000 if you read the whole thing.

So now, if 5,000 is such a trivial number why wasn't it reduced, especially
in light of the fact it's reservists doing the job?

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote
"Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics
appears to stem from his efforts to 'transform' the military by moving to a
joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in the future to
meet the nation's current and future threats. ....


That's a crock

Vito wrote:
I'm disappointed if that is their only beef and I suspect that the above quote
is spin designed to turn attention away from the dual blunders of attacking
Saddam to begin with, instead of concentrating on the real threat, and then
sending too few resources to subdue the country once Saddam's forces were
beaten.


Of course it is.

I heard one of the generals on the radio the other day. He
gave quite a good summary of Rumsfeld's mismanagement of the
war in Iraq, and didn't mention anything at all about
downsizing, the Crusader artillery (you'd think George W.
would *love* this item, just on the name alone), or World War 2.

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

A:
My understanding is that the troop reduction would have come out of very
specialized units and the operational cost was much, much greater than
the
monetary savings.

I'm sure if the 5,000 men was of no consequence, the Marines would have
obeyed.



B:
Dream on. In government nobody likes to see the size of his empire
reduced,
and regardless of the size the subject of the reduction will find any
excuse
to avoid it.



C:
That contradicts Rumsfeld own words (testimony to Congress) regarding
Marine
Troop strength:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/...ony2-16-05.pdf

Read his own words. Is Rumsfeld lying?

B attempts to trivialize A. C supports A. If B is true then A and C are
false.

So is Rumsfeld throwing up any excuse to avoid troop reduction? Or is B,
which generally may be true, not true applied to this specific case? If B
is true applied to this case then A and C are false. If A and C are true,
then B is false.

Real Conservatives in government automatically make B false.

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more
efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote
welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to
repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones
that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or
that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not
attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first
determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later
be attacked for neglecting my constituents ``interests,'' I shall reply that
I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I
am doing the very best I can. "

Bushbots have done to the word "Conservative" what FDR did to the word
"Liberal".

Amen!

Revolt of the Generals
 

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:39:45 -0400, DSK wrote:



Well, he got the idea from the "New American Century" guys who were
unabashed imperialists back in the 1990s. One of the things they hate
Clinton for is that they told him to invade Iraq and he wouldn't listen.

Rumsfeld was a member of the PNAC way back in the 90s. His signature is
on that letter to President Clinton.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Revolt of the Generals
 

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:22:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:49:27 -0400, DSK said:

Yeah, right. "Losing end of the argument" meaning that they tried to make
a realistic plan for Iraq and got fired for it.

So I take it you're a fan of sticking with conventional weapons of the
past, and WWII strategies to meet current and future threats.

Personally, I'm a fan of letting professionals do what they have trained
for. I'm not a fan of putting our soldiers lives at risk to prove a
point. Remember what happened to Gen. Shinseki when he stated the
occupation forces needed? Perhaps, if Rumsfeld had listened to the
professionals, Iraq would be a far more peaceful place now.

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Bob Crantz" said:
B attempts to trivialize A. C supports A. If B is true then A and C are
false.


Dave wrote:
Sorry, Bob it ain't worth effort to try and parse that.

Not surprised you think so.
It's very similar to transitivity, one of the fundamental
axioms of math.

This is just another one of those "water does *so* run up
hill, if President Bush (or any of his media cheerleaders)
says it does!" type of arguments.

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:17:13 -0400, Vito wrote:


Saddam was never a threat to the USA, he had no WMDs and had NO part in
the 9/11 or other attacks on us. His support for terrorism was limited to
support for Palistinians attacking Israel. OTOH, he was a bulwark against
the real threat - Islamic extremists like al Qaeda. Attacking him was the
equivalent of attacking Stalin while trying to beat Hitler in the middle
of WW2!

On that particular point, I'm wondering if we will ever get the full story
about Chalabi's ties to Iran. I have read some speculation that the
Iranians played Bush for the fool that he is. It is possible Iran got us
to do their work for them. Possible, but probably doubtful. The current
crop of Iranian leaders just don't seem to have that kind of subtlety.

Revolt of the Generals
 

didn't mention anything at all about
downsizing, the Crusader artillery


Dave wrote:
But of course, Doug. That's why the bureaucratic game is called back
stabbing rather than frontal assault.

In other words, it doesn't matter what they said. The
important thing is, can you convince the public what you
want them to have said.

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:46:16 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

B attempts to trivialize A. C supports A. If B is true then A and C are
false.

Sorry, Bob it ain't worth effort to try and parse that.

I never said Rumsfeld was lying. I asked you if Rumsfeld was lying.

Revolt of the Generals
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:17:13 -0400, Vito wrote:


Saddam was never a threat to the USA, he had no WMDs and had NO part in
the 9/11 or other attacks on us. His support for terrorism was limited to
support for Palistinians attacking Israel. OTOH, he was a bulwark
against
the real threat - Islamic extremists like al Qaeda. Attacking him was
the
equivalent of attacking Stalin while trying to beat Hitler in the middle
of WW2!

On that particular point, I'm wondering if we will ever get the full story
about Chalabi's ties to Iran. I have read some speculation that the
Iranians played Bush for the fool that he is. It is possible Iran got us
to do their work for them. Possible, but probably doubtful. The current
crop of Iranian leaders just don't seem to have that kind of subtlety.

Sure they do. They are goading the US into an attack on their "nuclear"
facilities. Also they want to sell oil in Euros, not dollars.

Another invasion, another war. Oil prices will skyrocket and who will
profit?

The Iranians are just someone else's puppets.

Follow the money, follow the strings...


Glory!

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:18:46 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

I never said Rumsfeld was lying. I asked you if Rumsfeld was lying.

And of course you had no intention of suggesting he was.

Why would I want to suggest anything when I could have you answer the
question based on Rumsfeld's own words.

You answered my question with a question and now attack the messenger with
your suggestion of intent, rather than address the original issue.

So, is Rumsfeld lying?

You can't answer the question. Ever.

Amen!

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:59:33 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

You can't answer the question. Ever.
PLONK!

hehehehe!!!

The troop withdrawal was an error on the part of the WSJ. They retracted it
today.

Jumped a little too fast to defend Rummy for something he didn't do, eh?

Revolt of the Generals
 

You can't answer the question. Ever.

PLONK!


Bob Crantz wrote:
hehehehe!!!

The troop withdrawal was an error on the part of the WSJ. They retracted it
today.

Jumped a little too fast to defend Rummy for something he didn't do, eh?


But you just *know* that WSJ op-ed article was totally 'fair
& balanced' as well as 100% accurate, right?

Sometimes I think Dave is working to be President Bush's
next pick for the Supreme Court.

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
You can't answer the question. Ever.

PLONK!


Bob Crantz wrote:
hehehehe!!!

The troop withdrawal was an error on the part of the WSJ. They retracted
it today.

Jumped a little too fast to defend Rummy for something he didn't do, eh?


But you just *know* that WSJ op-ed article was totally 'fair & balanced'
as well as 100% accurate, right?


It's their opinion. I do value it but I don't have to believe all of it.



Sometimes I think Dave is working to be President Bush's next pick for the
Supreme Court.

He's a Bushbot. He took it hook, line and sinker to defend Rummy even though
Rummy did nothing wrong. That's the problem with the Bushbots. There's no
critical thinking, criticism is not acceptable and they destroy the
critics - even if they are loyal Republicans. Bush and his minions has done
more to destroy the Republican party(and America) than anyone else.



DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

In article , Dave
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:46:16 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

B attempts to trivialize A. C supports A. If B is true then A and C are
false.

Sorry, Bob it ain't worth effort to try and parse that.

Wasn't that difficult but then I had to learn predicate logic, not
chop-logic as is mandatory in law school.

PDW

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:02:35 -0400, DSK said:

Bob Crantz wrote:
hehehehe!!!

The troop withdrawal was an error on the part of the WSJ. They retracted
it
today.

Jumped a little too fast to defend Rummy for something he didn't do, eh?


But you just *know* that WSJ op-ed article was totally 'fair
& balanced' as well as 100% accurate, right?

Sometimes I think Dave is working to be President Bush's
next pick for the Supreme Court.

Hmm. I'm puzzled. I have no idea what troop withdrawal he's talking about.
Nor do I find a retraction of anything in today's Journal, which I have in
front of me. The only correction they published today has to do with an
error in a review of a book entitled "Why People Die by Suicide" which
appeared on April 15. So what troop withdrawal is he talking about, and
where does this supposed retraction appear in the paper?

You supplied the numbers and date on the troop reduction for the Marine
Corps. Where did you get the data from?

Rumsfeld never talked about a troop withdrawal. But you defended him on it.
It's obvious you have no idea what he is talking about.

Revolt of the Generals
 

Sometimes I think Dave is working to be President Bush's next pick for the
Supreme Court.


Bob Crantz wrote:
He's a Bushbot. He took it hook, line and sinker to defend Rummy even though
Rummy did nothing wrong. That's the problem with the Bushbots. There's no
critical thinking, criticism is not acceptable and they destroy the
critics - even if they are loyal Republicans.

Heck, they even went after AARP for not ballyhooing their
plan to loot Social Security.


... Bush and his minions has done
more to destroy the Republican party(and America) than anyone else.


This explains it so perfectly, it's scary:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19635

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

Republican Spin:

"Of three thousand retired generals only a half dozen have been critical of
the handling of Iraq by Rumsfeld"

Three thousand generals:

Over one thousand in medical, supply and support who can offer no valid
opinion.

Fifteen hundred working for defense contractors, if they spoke up they'd
lose government business. Their business is continuing the war.

Five hundred on life support.

That doesn't leave too many left.

Funny, though, that the ones who did criticize operated in theater with very
recent commands. Yet their word is negated by the absence of speech from
hundreds of retired supply clerks and generals on respirators.

With that kind of logic one could not prove the sky is blue because the
occupants of a cemetery can't confirm it!

The Republican spin is getting desperate.

Medicare prescription program costs over twice what the administration said
= Bush lied!

Compassionate Conservative = Bush lied!

Swears, on a Bible, to uphold the Constitution = Bush lied!

Spending goes through the roof, Bush claims he is Republican = Bush lied!

Operation gridlock full steam ahead!

Amen!

Revolt of the Generals
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Sometimes I think Dave is working to be President Bush's next pick for
the Supreme Court.


Bob Crantz wrote:
He's a Bushbot. He took it hook, line and sinker to defend Rummy even
though Rummy did nothing wrong. That's the problem with the Bushbots.
There's no critical thinking, criticism is not acceptable and they
destroy the critics - even if they are loyal Republicans.

Heck, they even went after AARP for not ballyhooing their plan to loot
Social Security.


... Bush and his minions has done more to destroy the Republican
party(and America) than anyone else.


This explains it so perfectly, it's scary:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19635

DSK


It's Rumsfeld and the Pentagon that want to reduce the force numbers because
of costs and Congress won't have it:

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/apr06-08.php

Remember, this is the free spending Republican Congress and George "what is
a veto" Bush.

Bush = no vetoes ever = wimp!