From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:18:16 -0400, Rich Gauszka  wrote:

>
> "Gary Wiltshire"  wrote in message
> news:op.s739p4dweipai0{at}dsl40.bgtnvtpl.sover.net...
>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:05:23 -0400, Rich Gauszka 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote
in message
>>> news:44426698$1{at}w3....
>>>>
>>>> "Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge">
>>>> wrote
>>>> in message news:44421641$1{at}w3....
>>>>> Mark wrote:
>>>>>> "John Beckett"
 wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>> news:p6a342thgbelan9oo69o8rnmlcdjup4194{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>> "Mark" 
wrote in message news::
>>>>>>>> This I do know, we have a civilian in
control of our military and
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> of line for active or retired generals to
call for his firing in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> press.
>>>>>>> That's a great point, and normally I woud
totally agree. But
>>>>>>> suppose
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> unthinkable: What if the central claim from
the retired generals is
>>>>>>> true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Odds are against that, given their extremely small
numbers. But even
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> so,
>>>>>> it is still not their place to call for a
resignation of their
>>>>>> former
>>>>>> boss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Listen, we're at war, we're in the middle of the
same war that they
>>>>>> claim to
>>>>>> have better ideas for, yet their ideas were
weighed, while they were
>>>>>> active,
>>>>>> against those of many other generals and their
opinions didn't hold
>>>>>> sway.
>>>>>> Perhaps they were right on this point or that, perhaps not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one ever seems to explore what the potential downside
>>>>>> consequences
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> have been had we gone in with double the footprint
as they seem to
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> wanted, not now in the press anyway, but obviously
those concerns
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> bandied about at the time privately during the
planning -- these
>>>>>> guys
>>>>>> lost
>>>>>> their argument, either they didn't make it
effectively enough, or
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> others
>>>>>> were more convincing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That the press and opponents of the Bush
Administration are more
>>>>>> willing
>>>>>> buyers of what they're selling is certainly not a
surprise to me.
>>>>>> Speaking,
>>>>>> as they are about the ongoing war they retired
from, rather continue
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> press their opinions about in theater and in
private, is not ethical
>>>>>> IMHO.
>>>>>> If they're so anxious to opine in retirement, they
should instead
>>>>>> critique
>>>>>> or write books about the first Gulf War and
criticize Bush 41, or
>>>>>> pick
>>>>>> another conflict that's already been determined,
or write novels,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> shouldn't be second guessing this war in the
press, especially not
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> starting point of "Rumsfeld should go."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah it's a political debate. Nice to see you're starting to have
>>>>> them.
>>>>> Here in the UK we've had this right from the start,
but then our mil
>>>>> assume that some civie who's experience has been in
teaching, lawyer,
>>>>> doctoring, etc.etc. would have little knowledge or
experience of mil
>>>>> matters. The problem with "Rummie" is he
considers himself an expert.
>>>>> Remind me again which unit he served in?
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>> http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html
>>>>
>>>> "Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on
academic and NROTC
>>>> scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy
(1954-57) as an
>>>> aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready
>>>> Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative
>>>> assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He
transferred to the
>>>> Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in
1975 and to the
>>>> Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989."
>>>>
>>>> it was Cheney who never served.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cheney did announce that he had better things to do at the time.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Curious how this matters now but didn't when Clinton "despised the
>> military."
>>
>> --
>
> So everytime someone knocks Cheney is it mandatory to mention Clinton? <
> feel free to do it >
>
>
Nope.   I just find the hypocrisy fascinating.  I did during the last
election too.  Suddenly it mattered.


--
Gary Wiltshire

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5