The Generals vs. George W. Bush
(guest blog by Taylor Marsh)
Currently, there are many retired generals appearing in frenetic fashion on television. Sometimes they hype their recent books, or, as during the three-week war, offer sharp interviews about our supposed strategic and operational blunders in Iraq — imperial hubris, too few troops, wrong war, wrong place, and other assorted lapses.
Apart from the ethical questions involved in promoting a book or showcasing a media appearance during a time of war by offering an "inside" view unknown to others of the supposedly culpable administration of the military, what is striking is the empty nature of these controversies rehashed ad nauseam.
What we need, then, are not more self-appointed ethicists, but far more humility and recognition that in this war nothing is easy. Choices have been made, and remain to be made, between the not very good and the very, very bad. Most importantly, so far, none of our mistakes has been unprecedented, fatal to our cause, or impossible to correct.
So let us have far less self-serving second-guessing, and far more national confidence that we are winning — and that radical Islamists and their fascist supporters in the Middle East are soon going to lament the day that they ever began this war.
Dead-end Debates – Critics need to move on, by Victor David Hanson
When push came to shove President Bush took a powder.
Why did he do it? George W. Bush, that is. Why did President Bush choose Donald Rumsfeld over the troops, over the generals’ advice and, let’s just say it, cover?
Six generals saying Rumsfeld needs to be relieved, with 50-plus Fighting Dems, and a few lonely Republican veterans on the side, all saying Iraq is either a mess, was based on flawed policies, or should not have been waged in the first place. John over at Crooks and Liars has the must see video of General Batiste, whom I mentioned yesterday.
Republicans are now attacking the messenger, which just so happens to be a group of U.S. military generals. Hey, why not? They swiftboat any military man or woman who decides they don’t want to sit silent and subservient when the sycophants around the president are taking this country to hell via the Middle East. Remember what Republicans like Ralph Reed did to Max Cleland; what Bush did to John McCain in 2000 (even if McCain chooses to forget); what happened to John Kerry in the 2004 election?
But you really know the Republicans are in trouble when they blame it on Bill. And, of course, don’t miss out on RedstateRacists‘ rhetoric in "Firing Spitballs at Rumsfeld." They’re always good for a giggle, except this subject is deadly serious.
Republicans like their soldiers serving, silent and sucking up to the boss. Hell hath no fury like the Republican rabble when a military man or woman goes off the GOP reservation. Well, they better get used to it.
There’s a reason Democrats have closed the gap on national security.
But embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld no longer stands alone amidst the military criticism. He’s got George W. Bush by his side. The president had a choice and he went with the inside man, leaving the rank and file, the mid-rank officers and even the generals to twist in the neocon wind holding nothing but their rifle and a prayer book. Because, let’s remember, Rummy isn’t even close to being done. He’s resting up and raring to go for Iran.
Why would the commander in chief back Rummy instead of the generals who’ve led our fighting forces and know what’s happening on the ground?
President Bush chose to leave the generals sitting in a darkened studio, with only their truth, outrage and honesty in their hands. They had their say, their 15 minutes of military speak to try and save the situation, but Bush didn’t care, listen or bother to acknowledge their pleas. However, it’s nothing new.
Now, with Bush backing Rummy, the generals can go about their business, quietly, in retirement, because Bush doesn’t want their counsel anymore. Besides, they needn’t worry, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are on the job. Somehow, I’m just not comforted.
It’s the generals vs. George W. Bush. I know which side I’m on.