More Lunatic Spin at WaPo: "Reasoned Debate" is DANGEROUS!!!

[Sparkly]

Why Are They Speaking Up Now?

By Melvin R. Laird and Robert E. Pursley
Wednesday, April 19, 2006; Page A17

The retired general officers who have recently called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld want to convince the public that civilian control has silenced military wisdom regarding the war in Iraq. They have chafed at Rumsfeld's authoritarian style and they may even have legitimate differences of opinion with his decisions. But, while their advice and the weight of their experience should be taken into account, the important time for them to weigh in was while they were on active duty.

The two of us have experienced many of the circumstances confronting Rumsfeld. Our experience and connections at the Defense Department tell us that these generals probably had numerous opportunities to advise and object while on active duty. For them to now imply otherwise is disingenuous and quite possibly harmful for our prospects in Iraq. And it misrepresents the healthy give-and-take that we are confident is widespread between the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and the capable military hierarchy. A general officer is expected to follow orders, but he is also entitled to advise if he thinks those orders are flawed.

(Yes, and when everything an officer says and advises is dismissed, or if he wasn't IN the Pentagon while Rummy was screwing everything up, he should now shut up; otherwise, all the failures in Iraq from here on are the fault of retired general sharing their expertise and speaking their minds. :crazy:)

(snip)

The retired officers who have criticized Rumsfeld have served their country with distinction. The military -- active duty and retired -- has a wealth of intelligent, articulate and motivated people. Their sense of duty, integrity and patriotism are of the highest order. But each of them speaks from his own copse of trees and may not have a view of the larger forest. In criticizing those with the broader view, they should be mindful of the risks and responsibilities inherent in their acts. The average U.S. citizen has high respect for the U.S. military. That respect is a valuable national security asset. Criticism, when carried too far, risks eroding it.

We do not advocate a silencing of debate on the war in Iraq. But care must be taken by those experienced officers who had their chance to speak up while on active duty. In speaking out now, they may think they are doing a service by adding to the reasoned debate. But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801172.html

This is getting ABSURD!!!

P.S. -- About the authors: "Melvin R. Laird was a Republican representative from Wisconsin before serving as secretary of defense from 1969 to 1973. Robert E. Pursley, a retired lieutenant general in the Air Force, was military assistant to three secretaries of defense."

[wtmusic]

1. I like this one:

"the healthy give-and-take that we are confident is widespread between the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and the capable military hierarchy"

One of those Kool-Aid induced hallucinations of confidence...

[Sparkly]

4. Yeah -- and the "time for them to weigh in??"

If "the important time for them (the generals) to weigh in was while they were on active duty," why the heck are THESE two hacks "weighing in" on what's going on at the Pentagon, and how "confident" they are, when they haven't been active there in decades???

[wtmusic]

5. Exactly

like Richard Clarke or Paul O'Neill "weighing in"...didn't do them a damn bit of good either.

[0007]

18. Man, are these guys full of it. junior indeed is desperate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801172.html

Yet recently retired Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Richard Myers and his successor, Gen. Peter Pace (from the Air Force and Marine Corps, respectively), have rebutted the argument that the military was sidelined. Myers and Pace are in a position to know.

These two dipshits that wear a propeller on their hats always tells how wonderful things are going in Iraq and how Mr. Wonderful is running the show.

The two writers inject their Omnipotent Wisdom.
Sometimes we all must wait for hindsight to be able to make accurate judgments.

No secretary of defense has made every decision correctly, and because lives are at stake, those decisions are critical.

The result is that some advice comes with selfish motives attached and some never arrives at all.

But each of them speaks from his own copse of trees and may not have a view of the larger forest. In criticizing those with the broader view, they should be mindful of the risks and responsibilities inherent in their acts.

Criticism, when carried too far, risks eroding it.

The enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Check the authors ... that'll help you understand .....

I'm older than you, darling. Ya gotta check with yer elders ... :)

laird was Nixon's SecDef and Pursley was top dog pilot in Japan at the same time. They're old RW buddies. Nether has been heard from since the 70s ... till now. Buscho is trotting out all the toothless old dogs.

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/laird.htm

http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6825

[Sparkly]

6. Yeah, remember how it was the Peacenik's fault that we failed in Vietnam??

Now whatever shambles Iraq ends up in, it'll be the fault of retired generals. "We coulda WON if they hadn't made any noise!"

And PS, I don't think they wrote this, any more than the four who signed the WSJ editorial -- barely paraphrasing the Pentagon memo -- wrote that. These are cookie-cutter rightwing scripts. BushCo shops around for support, and all the supporters have to do is put their name to a piece of propaganda. Call me cynical.

[Nomen Tuum]

3. How much more BS are we gonna allow the Post to produce.

BOYCOTT THE WHORESHINGTON POST NOW!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

[gratuitous]

7. What manner of shit be this???

"Our experience and connections at the Defense Department tell us that these generals probably had numerous opportunities to advise and object while on active duty. For them to now imply otherwise is disingenuous and quite possibly harmful for our prospects in Iraq."

How do Laird and Pursley know that the generals didn't speak up while they were on active duty? For them to now imply that they know what was going on during Rumsfeld's meeting with these generals while they were on active duty is not just disingenuous, but an outright lie. Which means that it fits seamlessly with the corrupt Bush administration's conduct and prosecution of the Iraq invasion, and it's no wonder they were chosen to pen this little op-ed for the Washington Post, house organ of the corrupt Bush administration.

Two-faced, lying, motherfucking assholes. That's right, Melvin and Robert: I'm talking to you.

[Sparkly]

8. IF they even penned it at all...

(See my post #6.)

[gratuitous]

12. It was published with their names on it

That makes it theirs, even if it was ghosted.

[Jacobin]

16. Yeah. They had an opportunity to be fired if they didn't agree with

Herr Rumsfeld, and Mel Laird, the doddering idiot, pretends that this is 'legitimate give and take of ideas."

In some ways, its kinda neat to see them pull out all the old utterly failed doddering sleazebags from the Nixon era, to prop up the old utterly failed doddering sleazebags from the Nixon era who are still running things.

[McCamy Taylor]

9. The enemy does not appreciate pork either, but I still like a BLT.

What morons these authors are! And they actually put their names on this drivel? Since when do Americans model their moral behavior on the standards of other people? People with whom we are at war no less! We do what we think is right, the way that John Wayne and Gary Cooper would have wanted us to. We have a Constitution that tells us to practice Free Speech and so we do it. We had a Founder who said that the price of liberty and democracy was eternal vigilance, so we keep our eyes (and our mouths) open.

Just because the other side in a military confrontation might misconstrue something that we are doing or saying, that is no reason to do the wrong thing. Next thing you know, they will be telling us we can not have women in the military, because muslims would not approve. Or they will tell us that because drawing a picture of the Prophet is punishable by death by THEIR side, we must punish anyone who does the same on our side.

These bozos need to remember that when you fight a war, you are fighting FOR SOMETHING---like protecting your home or your family or a values ideal---not fighting to win.

[hadrons]

10. "Americans model their moral behavior on the standards of other people?"

I like the Repuke flip-flop where in some cases we must be the opposite of "the enemy" and in this case we must be just like them.

[annabanana]

11. WaaaPoooo.....WaaaaaPooooo

The world is calling you out......

[myrna minx]

13. OK WaPo. I guess we, as Ari Fleisher warned, should:

Watch what we say and watch what we do.

Um, ok. :crazy: What the hell in wrong with the WaPo's editorial page? Sheesh. They're as nutty as Rumsfailed.

[Mz Pip]

14. Hmmm

<But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.>

So now we're supposed to care what the enemy thinks? I thought that was called appeasement.

I don't give a rat's ass about what the enemy thinks. They are not the boss of me. They should not be influencing our political discourse.

Melvin Laird and Robert Pursley are appeasers.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Supersedeas]

15. Debate is seen as a sign of disloyalty to the shillers

[Jai4WKC08]

17. The final sentence says it all

"But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve."

This isn't about the generals. This is about ALL of the American people and our right to dissent. We're aiding the enemy and ought to shut up. Or be shut up. If Laird and Pursley have an issue with the generals, it's ONLY that they have more credibility and get more media attention than the rest of us.

There's a bright lining to this op/ed, tho. If Bush/Rummy are having to dig this deep to find another general to come to their defense, they are running scared. They sent a memo out to the normal gang of Repub media generals, practically begging them to speak out. Guess they haven't found many takers.

Reminds me of that list of "250 generals" who endorsed Bush. I only saw the list as it scrolled across the screen behind the podium at the RNC--it was never released to the public--but I KNOW they weren't all flag officers, and most I saw were one- and two-stars. On stage, Franks and a former Marine Corps commandant (his name escapes me right now, but he's a long-time Repub from the Reagan years, and a delegate to the convention... PJ something) were the only four stars anyone had ever heard of at all. I'm guessing some of them were as old and out of it as Laird and Pursley.

[karlrschneider]

19. Laird was a senile old bastard back when he was a senile young

bastard.
:grr: