From: "Rich Gauszka" 


"Gary Wiltshire"  wrote in message
news:op.s74ir108eipai0{at}dsl40.bgtnvtpl.sover.net...
> 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.
>
>
> --

I find Cheney's hypocrisy fascinating. While I would vote for Clinton (
Bill ) over Bush in an election that's just a lesser of two evils choice
for me 

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