From: "Rich Gauszka" 


"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.

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