From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

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."

--
Gary Wiltshire

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