if the GENERALS are revolting against RUMSFELD,

[flordehinojos]

1) can their statement also be read as a revolt against bush?

2) will the foot soldiers follow the generals?

3) will they too say NO to RUMSFELD. NO TO WAR. NO TO BUSH?

4)will they give us an AMERICAN BASTILLE DAY? A modern dan 4TH OF JULY DAY?

5) WILL THEY PRY THE WHITE HOUSE OUT OF THE BUSHES'(ALL) HANDS?

[Ian David]

1. George Bush stands behind Rumsfeld 100%

That means that Bush approves of everything that Rumsfeld has said and done.

That means the real problem isn't Rumsfeld-- it's Bush.

Our troops deserve a smarter president.
Bush has got to go!

[flordehinojos]

6. AMEN TO THAT.

:yourock:

[goclark]

24. Remember he is the "DECIDER"

so that means BUSH has to go!

[northzax]

2. that would be a military coup

and end the american experiment with constitutional democracy. but if that's worth it to you..

remember, the military officer corps is incredibly 'conservative' (as a whole) especially socially conservative, you really want them in power? The constitution was carefully framed to put the military under civilian control, there's a good reason for that, militaries tend not to relinquish power once they have it.

[Junkdrawer]

5. "end the american experiment with constitutional democracy"...

King George II is doing a pretty fair job of that without the help of a military coup.

[northzax]

19. talk to me when he doesn't surrender power in 2009

until then we're still a democracy.

[Junkdrawer]

21. "He'll" pass the baton to the next puppet....

I'm in the "King George II is just a figurehead" camp.

[flordehinojos]

8. do we even have any constitutional democracy left?

:cry:

[bryant69]

Yes, no, no, no, no

And I don't think a military coup is a solution to America's troubles.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Junkdrawer]

3. Not yet. This is notch 2 of heat on a 10 notch scale..

The two big questions are:

how much heat will it take?

how far will our military go?

[Dhalgren]

4. Let's see...

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. No.

5. No.

If there is an Army/Marines revolt, expect a lot of imprisonments and a goodly number of executions...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Even Bush is preferable to a military dictatorship.

As dangerous and moronic as he is, he can still be controlled by a courageous congress and people. A questionable proposition, I know, but better than having the generals in charge.

[flordehinojos]

10. bush? controlled by congress? and the people?

it hasn't happened. it isn't happening. and he keeps tightening the chains and screws of his repression. he is, after all, part of the MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, isn't he?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Who would control the generals?

The congress has the ability to cut off the funding for his hare-brained schemes. Just as they did Nixon and ended the Vietnam debacle.

The Generals aren't complaining about the war, they're complaining about the running of the war. If they were in charge, who would, or could, control them?

[tomp]

20. bingo!

"The Generals aren't complaining about the war, they're complaining about the running of the war." (a position many dem politicians will get behind).

"If they were in charge, who would, or could, control them?" there's a reason i have stayed out of the military. the only thing i'll grant the military is that they may be very smart about how to conduct war, so they know what they're talking about as far as that goes. but i want a foreign policy that includes ONLY defensive war. with a serious peace-oriented, non-corporatist, earth-friendly foreign policy, the miltary becomes almost moot. in other words, if we become friends of the world who will want to attack us? i definitely do not want someone in charge who's expertise is making war and giving orders.

[HereSince1628]

9. The generals aren't in revolt, they're simply revolted by the

military incompetence demonstrated by senior administrative officials. They are simply saying so out loud while the dummy Rumsfeld is still in charge.

None of them has suggested that active military refuse to follow directives from civilian authority.

What they have suggested is that the administration put some people in charge who are competent and not driven by wacky ideology.

[flordehinojos]

11. no, none of them has suggested that active military refuse to follow

directives from bushit boy and his goons. that is, they have not overtly done so. the question is, can their criticism of the current civilian authority be heard as an overt message, REFUSE TO FOLLOW ORDERS FROM A CRIMINAL/INCOMPETENT CIVILIAN AUTHORITY?

[RDU Socialist]

13. no

because they are retired generals and have no control over troops stationed in iraq

[HereSince1628]

17. Spreading fear of dissenting generals serves the purpose of BushCo

It is an important part of what they want to do. Discredit the generals, make them look insubordinate, dangerous, rebellious, etc. Anything to turn the nation against the generals.

BushCo's interest is and always has been to deny the nation information and to silence the vocal who have expertise and firsthand, credible knowledge of BushCo's incompetence.

These retired generals are not suggesting active military refuse civilian authority. I do not believe that we need to fear these retirees will lead the military to mutiny.

The generals are making publically known that they believe,the civilian leadership of the military is incompetent. What they are doing is conditioning the political environment with those comments, and leaving it up to civilians to respond.

Is the behavior of the generals unusual? Yes, but it hardly matches in novelty the bizarre implementation of BushCo's Neocon policies of miltary pre-emption, global military hegemony, and messianic authority.

[RDU Socialist]

12. answers

1. No. These generals are upset with the civilian leadership in the Pentagon (for the most part). They have felt, rightly, that Don Rumsfeld is making the wrong decision every single time a difficult decision has to be made.

2. No, because the foot soldiers are required to honor and defend America, and dissent in the military can be considered treason and lead to severe punishment.

3. No, no, and no. They're in the military, so they're clearly not going to say "no to war." They're not going to say "no to Bush" because he's their commander, and it's considered mutinous.

4. Of course not. This is just fantasy, and if the military did inssurect and take control away from Bush do you honestly think a military leader coming into the capital removing the civilian in charge is going to be a good thing? How good was it for Chile when Augusto Pinochet to remove the elected Allende?

5. Name the last military coup to ever occurr in this country that led to anything spectacular. You can't because it never happened. During the depressions of the 1930s and the 1890s people were starving and the military was severely neglected, no military insurrection. Shays Rebellion was the last large scale attempt by former military men to stop the wheels of government and they were successful at stopping the judiciary of some parts of New England and that's it.

[flordehinojos]

14. AS TO YOUR NUMBER 5,

there is a first time for everything. if the pot of water boils long enough and hot enough, we, you and i, might live to say the day when a military revolt happens.

[RDU Socialist]

23. and we should pray that it doesn't occurr

because as bad as bush is, a government run by the military would be ten times worse. again, i point to Chile under Pinochet.

[flordehinojos]

26. Pinochet was a BAD SOUL, just like bush is.

when we are in the grips of bad souls ... does it really matter whether they are part of the, "military", or, of the, "industrial/military complex", like bush is? i think there is not much difference.

[AngryOldDem]

16. Probably not, but at least they're speaking out

Heard former JCOS head Richard Meyers on CNN this morning. He said that the generals have no place criticizing the civilian leadership. I beg to differ. If these generals are charged by their superiors to put their enlisted and officers in harm's way, damn right they have a say in how those troops are deployed. Their first and sole responsibility is to their troops.

Just the fact that they are critizing Bush is enough to further damage his credibility (whatever little he has left) as well as point out just how senseless this whole war has been, almost from the start. I applaud them all for speaking out. Not even the generals are for this shit anymore. What does that tell the world?

I'm a little young (and how often to I get to say THAT anymore, LOL???!!!) to remember details, but I wonder if anything like this happened toward the end of Vietnam -- say late '60s? Did any retired military speak out like this then? And I don't count Robert McNamara's mea culpa -- way too little, way too late.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

18. Sale old stuff - criticize the messenger and ignore the message

Heard former JCOS head Richard Meyers on CNN this morning. He said that the generals have no place criticizing the civilian leadership.

It is very rare for these guys to criticize the civilian leadership. That they are is just more testimony to the degree of incompetence in the BushCo admin in general and Rumdum in particular.

[Sinti]

22. If they fuss too much they'll be demoted or dismissed n/t

[baby_mouse]

25. Nopey nope.

That's not how the military works, see. Not in the States, anyhoo.