From: "Rich Gauszka" 


"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 >

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