Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Top officer defends Rumsfeld from ex-generals (Gen. Pete Pace)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Barrett808 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:12 PM
Original message
Top officer defends Rumsfeld from ex-generals (Gen. Pete Pace)
Top officer defends Rumsfeld from ex-generals
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. military officer on Tuesday defended Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against three retired generals demanding his ouster, and denied that the United States invaded Iraq without sufficiently weighing its plan.

Standing next to Rumsfeld at a Pentagon briefing, Marine Corps Gen. Pete Pace said critics could legitimately question the defense secretary's judgment but not his motives.

"People can question my judgment or his (Rumsfeld's) judgment," Pace said. "But they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld."

Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton and Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni have recently separately called for Rumsfeld to be replaced. This comes as opinion polls show eroding public support for the 3-year-old war in which about 2,360 U.S. troops have died.

"I don't know how many generals there have been in the last five years that have served in the United States armed services -- hundreds and hundreds and hundreds," said Rumsfeld, whom critics have accused of bullying senior military officers and stifling dissent.

(more)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060411/pl_nm/iraq_usa_rumsfeld_dc

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's what we're doing, General -- questioning your judgment
Don't you think you owe the people (your bosses -- remember?) an explanation for your poor judgment? How about your boss, Mr. Rumsfeld? Doesn't he owe us an explanation, too? And if it's not too much trouble, how about we ask the questions Mr. Rumsfeld answers, for a change? We're pretty fed up (about 2,359 deaths' worth) with his schtick of asking and answering his own questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. Dedication, patriotism and work ethics have nothing to do with it
Dishonesty and incompetence are what it's all about, Pace, you lying bastard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. Pace gets on his Knees and services the NeoCons


PETER PACE WAR CRIMINAL KILLS CHILDREN

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
handsignals4theblind Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. Rusmsfield is a failure-remember what he said about the Soviets
Many of the same parasitical neocons today were around in the 70's. Their specious arguements back then were the same as now. Even after the CIA could find no evidence of ' super weapons' being developed by the Soviets, they still perpetuated these same myths because they did not like detente (bad for the arms industry)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spag68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. neocons
including rummyand chaney are still mad that we got rid of nixon. He was the one they made their bones with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Pace is a fundie lunatic and a willing lapdog, like Jodl was to Hitler
What a pig!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. Like Jodl --Pace belongs in the dock as a DEFENDANT WAR CRIMINAL
At the Hague
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spag68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. generals
I doubt that there have been hundreds of generals in the last five years. So this is just another rummy bs story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. If there were, "too many Chiefs and not enough Indians" comes
to mind. It's an old saying, don't call me a racist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. Rummy implies these Retired Gens are just a few bad applies!


Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton and Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni have recently separately called for Rumsfeld to be replaced. This comes as opinion polls show eroding public support for the 3-year-old war in which about 2,360 U.S. troops have died.

"I don't know how many generals there have been in the last five years that have served in the United States armed services -- hundreds and hundreds and hundreds," said Rumsfeld, whom critics have accused of bullying senior military officers and stifling dissent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. Pace
Is just an American version of generals in the past whose loyalty to a tyrant was more important then his loyalty to his oath.

The 21st Century, Americanized version of one of Hitler's generals!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
10. Excuse me Gen Pace, but I'll question Rumsfailed's motives
any damn time I please

Go back to lapping Herr Rumsfailed's miserable ass and get off my TV screen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MSgt213 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. Number of General officers allowed by service.
Release date: 2005-07-12


(a) Limitations.— The number of general officers on active duty in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and the number of flag officers on active duty in the Navy, may not exceed the number specified for the armed force concerned as follows:
(1) For the Army, 302.
(2) For the Navy, 216.
(3) For the Air Force, 279.
(4) For the Marine Corps, 80.
(b) Limited Exclusion for Joint Duty Requirements.—
(1) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may designate up to 12 general officer and flag officer positions that are joint duty assignments for purposes of chapter 38 of this title for exclusion from the limitations in subsection (a). Officers in positions so designated shall not be counted for the purposes of those limitations.
(2)
(A) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may designate up to 10 general and flag officer positions on the staffs of the commanders of the unified and specified combatant commands as positions to be held only by reserve component officers who are in a general or flag officer grade below lieutenant general or vice admiral. Each position so designated shall be considered to be a joint duty assignment position for purposes of chapter 38 of this title.
(B) A reserve component officer serving in a position designated under subparagraph (A) while on active duty under a call or order to active duty that does not specify a period of 180 days or less shall not be counted for the purposes of the limitations under subsection (a) and under section 525 of this title if the officer was selected for service in that position in accordance with the procedures specified in subparagraph (C).
(C) Whenever a vacancy occurs, or is anticipated to occur, in a position designated under subparagraph (A)—
(i) the Secretary of Defense shall require the Secretary of the Army to submit the name of at least one Army reserve component officer, the Secretary of the Navy to submit the name of at least one Naval Reserve officer and the name of at least one Marine Corps Reserve officer, and the Secretary of the Air Force to submit the name of at least one Air Force reserve component officer for consideration by the Secretary for assignment to that position; and
(ii) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may submit to the Secretary of Defense the name of one or more officers (in addition to the officers whose names are submitted pursuant to clause (i)) for consideration by the Secretary for assignment to that position.
(D) Whenever the Secretaries of the military departments are required to submit the names of officers under subparagraph (C)(i), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall submit to the Secretary of Defense the Chairman’s evaluation of the performance of each officer whose name is submitted under that subparagraph (and of any officer whose name the Chairman submits to the Secretary under subparagraph (C)(ii) for consideration for the same vacancy).
(E) Subparagraph (B) does not apply in the case of an officer serving in a position designated under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary of Defense, when considering officers for assignment to fill the vacancy in that position which was filled by that officer, did not have a recommendation for that assignment from each Secretary of a military department who (pursuant to subparagraph (C)) was required to make such a recommendation.<(3) Repealed. Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title V, § 504(c), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1457.>
<(c) Repealed. Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title X, § 1041(a)(3), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2645.>
(d) Exclusion of Certain Officers.— The limitations of this section do not apply to a reserve component general or flag officer who is on active duty for training or who is on active duty under a call or order specifying a period of less than 180 days.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000526----000-.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. Ah yes, Pete Pace. One of the most disliked officers around.
The stupidest, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. His people are undisciplined thugs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
16. I wonder who Pace's barber is. I can't imagine
him being able to look in the mirror in the morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
17. (Gen. Pete PAN Pace) flying wing nut
the terrorism on war continues
..er the war of terrorism
....mmm the wah on terrAH ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. One of his medals was for guzzling the Kool-Aid bowl at a WH party
He's in the tank, big time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
19. A general defends his BOSS and I'm supposed to be impressed?n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
20. What does that mean?!?
You can question our judgement, but you can never question our motives?!?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC