Pop Quiz, WHO said this about Rummy?

(no this isnt a joke, and it shouldnt be locked becuase like 14 more generals now want his resignation_


The person who said this knows what means to be ruthless bastard, so Rummy must really be something.

[Edited on April 15, 2006 at 2:34 PM. Reason : -]

4/15/2006 2:33:16 PM

"I am not a crook!"

 

4/15/2006 2:43:53 PM

nixon

4/15/2006 2:45:34 PM

you win.

4/15/2006 2:46:25 PM

http://www.whitehousetapes.org/pages/clips.htm

4/15/2006 2:46:58 PM

With as little respect he has for the military i'm surprized it's just 14 generals speaking out.

[Edited on April 15, 2006 at 7:58 PM. Reason : 7, 14 which ever]

4/15/2006 7:57:39 PM

I'm amazed this guy is still the Sec of defense. People (non-democrats) have been calling for his head for years. i don't think it gets much worse when a bunch of senior US Generals very publicly call for his head.

It would be a sign of change for this administration by changing him out, definitely help in the mid-terms. but no, the cold war relic stays.

4/15/2006 8:55:54 PM

condi rice's phd is in cold war russian politics.
rumsfeld aint the only relic. it is what happens when you have people over a certain age in charge.

4/15/2006 10:13:39 PM

I think we should let the Generals pick the Secretary of Defense myself. That whole "civilian control of the military" thing is sooo overrated...

4/16/2006 12:31:29 AM

They couldn't possibly pick a civilian themselves...

4/16/2006 1:26:37 AM

haha [wow], gg...

Were you drunk when you posted that, or just in one of those rabid l3f†-w1ng stupors that doesn't give rise to much intellectual thought? 

4/16/2006 11:39:18 AM

what does left-wing have to do with that post?

go fucking write another lame tech article, k?

4/16/2006 1:10:48 PM

ouch. really. that means a lot coming from someone who actually asked "what does left-wing have to do with that post?"

NoClues might be a better SN for you. Do us all a favor and stick to Chit Chat... 

4/16/2006 1:57:25 PM

How does the specific dislike for a crappy Sec of Defense become the general dislike of a civilian-controlled military? Oh that's right, TGD is now a parody of TGD.

4/16/2006 1:58:48 PM

^
MathFreak at least had an excuse for his shitty English comprehension skills. What's yours?

4/16/2006 2:03:53 PM

i get all my politics from tww, therefore i hate everything

4/16/2006 2:05:08 PM

Quote :

"TGD: Were you drunk when you posted that, or just in one of those rabid l3f†-w1ng stupors that doesn't give rise to much intellectual thought? "

Cute. Were you drunk when you failed to distinguish between complaints about Rumsfeld being Defense Secretary and complaints about civilian control of the military?

4/16/2006 2:12:11 PM

^
let's follow the lineage here...

Quote :

"synapse: i don't think it gets much worse when a bunch of senior US Generals very publicly call for his head."

Quote :

"TGD: I think we should let the Generals pick the Secretary of Defense myself. That whole "civilian control of the military" thing is sooo overrated..."

Quote :

"Gamecat: [some really really really illogical commentary]"

Quote :

"TGD: Were you drunk when you posted that, or just in one of those rabid l3f†-w1ng stupors that doesn't give rise to much intellectual thought?"

Quote :

"Gamecat: Cute. Were you drunk when you failed to distinguish between complaints about Rumsfeld being Defense Secretary and complaints about civilian control of the military?"

evidently I'm not the only one having an issue with distinguishing things.... 

4/16/2006 2:26:37 PM

I stand by this one:

Quote :

"Were you drunk when you failed to distinguish between complaints about Rumsfeld being Defense Secretary and complaints about civilian control of the military?"

4/16/2006 2:29:25 PM

ooh ooh look at me, I can do it too!

Quote :

"evidently I'm not the only one having an issue with distinguishing things.... "

4/16/2006 2:29:50 PM

I'll take that as a yes.

4/16/2006 2:30:46 PM

I'll take that as a yes.

4/16/2006 2:47:35 PM

Quote :

" when a bunch of senior US Generals very publicly call for his head"

so this happens during every war then?

4/16/2006 4:42:39 PM

I think the better question: why the fuck should it matter what the generals think? If they're so fucking important, then let them pick the Secretary of Defense a la Gamecat's preferred universe.

4/16/2006 4:50:11 PM

Quote :

"i get all my politics from tww, therefore i hate everything"

4/16/2006 5:42:43 PM

Quote :

"I think the better question: why the fuck should it matter what the generals think?"

President Bush seems to care what the generals think...anytime he's asked about troop levels in iraq he says he listens to his generals and will let them make troop level decisions.

4/16/2006 6:21:51 PM

jesus christ, let's play semantics...

Quote :

"TGD: I think the better question: why the fuck should it matter what the generals think about the Secretary of Defense? (e.g. the reason this thread was made)"

 

4/16/2006 6:32:16 PM

Quote :

"anytime he's asked about troop levels in iraq he says he listens to his generals and will let them make troop level decisions."

when did we change our policy about troop levels in iraq?

4/16/2006 7:49:52 PM

We didn't, it's just Bush's way of passing off his resposibilities.

4/16/2006 7:52:04 PM

Quote :

"TGD: If they're so fucking important, then let them pick the Secretary of Defense a la Gamecat's preferred universe."

How cute. I don't even have to come up with my own preferences anymore. TGD's happy to do it for me.

4/16/2006 8:18:32 PM

4/16/2006 9:58:31 PM

I'd just like to make a point of clarification:

All of these General officers are retired.

4/17/2006 2:04:19 AM

becuase you get destroyed if you do it when you are not retired.

4/17/2006 2:05:19 AM

i don't think it would even be an option

you would handle it behind closed doors. It's your job to butt heads with the powers that be when you feel it to be necessary, anyway.

if you couldn't get any satisfaction that way, you'd either have to shut up and yield to the civil control of the military (Sell the shit sandwich like it's peanut butter, as we say in the USMC), or you could retire and say whatever you wanted.

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 2:12 AM. Reason : asfd]

4/17/2006 2:10:07 AM

well regardless, we fucked up in iraq ....the fucking sec def should be the first to the resign. he should tell the president he wont stay even if he wants him to.

4/17/2006 2:31:47 AM

Quote :

"you would handle it behind closed doors. It's your job to butt heads with the powers that be when you feel it to be necessary, anyway. "

No its not. The president doesn't want to replace Rummy thats it. Period. Generals are not politicians, they're still sub-ordinates when it comes to the President.

So we can only speculate how the generals of today feel, although I'm sure those 14 retired Gens. are an indication

4/18/2006 10:17:51 PM

eff rummy

4/18/2006 11:53:58 PM

Gotta say, none of these calls for resignation by retired generals surprise me.

I was already shocked when my uncle came back from Iraq on a two week leave a year or so ago (he's back permanently now) and had nasty things to say about Rumsfeld. He's generally all for the war in Iraq, Bush, and conservatism in general, but he had nothing good to say about Rumsfeld. He even said he'd ask for Rumsfeld resignation himself if it were his job to make those decisions.

But, I know my anecdote means jack shit.

4/19/2006 12:03:13 AM

Quote :

"No its not. The president doesn't want to replace Rummy thats it. Period. Generals are not politicians, they're still sub-ordinates when it comes to the President."

Subordinate and "yes man" are two totally different things. General officers the ones who are tasked to advise the civilians who ultimately make the decisions, and they are not only within their rights to butt heads and argue with politicians behind the scenes, they are doing their job by doing so when they feel it to be necessary.

It works all the way down the line. Say I have a Staff Sergeant who's working for me (the Lieutenant). Yes, he's my subordinate, but if he disagrees with me, I'd want to know it, and it is his job to voice his opinion (behind closed doors, generally), even though it's ultimately my decision.

4/19/2006 2:14:13 AM

civilian control of the military is ensrhined in the US Constitution. its an ideal that is held sacred by the military itself, and is drilled into every new recruit or junior officer from day one.

you worry about loss of constitional freedoms now? you think BushCo has subverted the US Government to fulfill the whims of his Evil Corporate Overlords and their Military-Industrial Complex?well, just wait til the military starts dictating the who should be and who shouldnt be Secretary of Defense.

so yeah all these guys are retired, and they probably arent part of any organized movement; they are just venting their opinions.

but its exactly why Bush won't (and shouldn't) give them any relevance.

I mean, i despise the entire Bush Administration as much as the next feller, but really.... what would the response look like if the military started demanding a Democratic President remove his Sec. of Defense?

4/20/2006 3:04:06 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/washington/23military.html?hp&ex=1145764800&en=d9c90a77b877dfd6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Quote :

""This is about the moral bankruptcy of general officers who lived through the Vietnam era yet refused to advise our civilian leadership properly," said one Army major in the Special Forces who has served two combat tours. "I can only hope that my generation does better someday.""

[Edited on April 22, 2006 at 9:21 PM. Reason : quote]

4/22/2006 9:20:47 PM

its nice that these generals can act on moral principles from the safety of retirement, secure in their pensions.

but where were they when their opinions might have actually made a difference? where were they when all the stragegical errors were being made? where were they when Abu Ghraib and Gitmo Bay scandals revealed our leadership's flagrant disregard for the Geneva Convention?

4/22/2006 9:47:26 PM

Quote :

"but where were they when their opinions might have actually made a difference? "

how does getting yourself fired make a difference?

4/22/2006 10:05:53 PM

if the disgust with Rummy is so widespread among general officers, as is alleged, then YES. Getting firedBeing forced to resign for voicing your opinion against strategically flawed war plans would be both morally correct and effective.

but they wouldnt necessarily have to get themselves fired. they could disagree just enough to get reassigned to some shit duty without any hope of advancement for the rest of their career.

[Edited on April 22, 2006 at 10:18 PM. Reason : generals dont get "fired"]

4/22/2006 10:17:01 PM