Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should we be AGAINST Rumsfelds resignation...?

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 » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 07:37 AM
Original message
Should we be AGAINST Rumsfelds resignation...?
I'm a bit bothered by the ex-generals...it is surely their right. However - it sort of looks like they are usurping power from the president...who is a CIVILIAN...(like him or not)

We cant have the military usurping power from the civilian leadership...that is bad. One step closer to a military dictatorship...?

I'm guess Im for Rummy resinging...but to be honest - assuming new administration is around the corner...I dont know what good it would do...

And from a purely cynical point of view...keep Rummy, why give Bush a chance to redeem himself...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. thinking of the troops first, he need sto go
NOW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
2. The OP is absolutely off base here!
The Generals took an enormously bold step for military men, or so says this old military vet, contravening the ethics of the Service to deliver their criticism. Things like this are simply not done, the fact that they have done so expresses the depth of feeling behind it. We ignore their thoughts at our own peril.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. I do find it ironic that
some positions have changed. Dems are now pushing their military experience as qualification for office. And we do seem to be giving more credence to the opinion of military folks than we used to.

You rightly point out that some Dems do seem to be leaning toward more military control over the military rather than civilian.

Finally, the idea that only veterans can offer legitimate opinions on the war is too close to the "Starship Trooper" crap of having to serve in order to gain "citizenship."

Where is the party of taking a stand against "shoot first and never ask questions" that I thought (or at least, hoped) was the Democratic Party? In trying to run to the middle and avoid confrontation with the rightward swing of America, we have lost our soul.

I say let Rummy and Shrub fuck things up as much as they can (and their potential is unlimited) and not throw them a liferope. Abandoning Democratic principles has not been effective, either in affecting policy or winning elections. Could we do any worse by adopting and sticking to a real progressive agenda?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
personman Donating Member (959 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's not like they are pulling rank on him
They are putting their thoughts out their to inform the people. Ultimately if the president is forced to can him, which I doubt, it would be the result of public pressure.

If Rummy goes, Bush will find someone just as bad. Canning Rummy when Bush is the problem is like covering up a symptom instead of treating an illness. That's one reason it's sort of pointess to get him out, however, there is no good reason not to try IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnlal Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
5. I think many were trying to set the record straight.
Rumsfeld relied on military discipline to misrepresent the conditions in Iraq. Knowing that the military would not undercut his authority, he put words into the Generals' mouths that they did not say. He would say things like "I would put more troops in if that's what the commanders on the ground wanted. They have not expressed the need for more troops to me". He also indicated that the commanders in Iraq were not asking for more armor, and that they did not indicate that morale was down among the troops.
This made the officers the scapegoats for the troops. Once these Generals retired, I'm sure they were just itching to put the blame back on Rumsfeld.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
6. This is the Right Wing spin to scare you. It's BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jose Diablo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
7. I don't see why the UCMJ would ban the military for speaking their minds
Sure, there is the issue of 'proper' discipline.

But as long as it's prefaced with a "Sir" and there is a "Sir" at the end, then respect has been shown.

If Bu$h and Rumsfeld have been shown to be undeserving to lead by the decisions they have made, then the critisism the Generals are saying should be an obligation, a duty to the country. It is the country/constitution that their oaths were taken for, not some individual or even an office.

In fact, it is the failure of Congress to remove Bu$h/Cheney/Rumsfeld that have caused the Generals to speak-out. It is they that have failed this country, not the Generals.

I say it is these Generals right, and more, that it is their duty to speak-out on this Iran cluster-fuck the administration is planning.
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, 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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