Rumsfeld Needs to Go: Retired Generals Tell Congress

[IggyD]

http://vestigialconscience.com/iraq092506_dems2.rm

 

Three retired U.S. Army Officers address a congressional committee on the war in Iraq in starkly harsh words Monday.

 

"I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste told a forum conducted by Senate Democrats.

 

A second military leader, also a retired two-star general, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, assessed Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically."

 

A third officer, retired Col. Paul X. Hammes, joined Batiste and Eaton in testimony before the Democratic Policy Committee of the U.S. Senate.

 

Looks like everything about Iraq is FUBAR

[kapkomet]

Let's see here. Bush says that "mistakes were made" but that isn't good enough. We CAN'T leave now, as much as you people would want us to.

 

So instead of throwing s*** out there and waiting to see what sticks, how about a REAL plan besides running away?

[Rex Kickass]

Apparently McGovern (yes the really liberal 1972 Presidential nominee) actually has one.

 

It seemed plausible when I heard it talked about on NPR - something along the lines of a phased withdrawal of combat troops replaced by a 15,000 strong international police force while Iraq grows its own police force. The US then focuses its efforts primarily on reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure. Overseeing projects but allowing Iraqi businesses and other regional businesses to do the actual work, creating employment throughout the region and taking away the whole "insurgency" impetus (unless Iraq actually is in a civil war, in which case - there's not a lot we can really do anyway.) American support would still be there in the Iraqi government's defense, aiding logistics and structure, etc - but the footprint becomes almost invisible.

[kapkomet]

Take the 15,000 International Police Force and replace them with a ratio of 1-1 - we withdrawl 20,000, they replace 20,000 - and then you're finally talking something.

 

The problem is, the UN (or read: any international 'police force') has no balls. I wish they did so we could do something like this, but it won't happen.

[NorthSideSox72]

We can't pull out troops right now. If anything, we need more (too bad we've worn most of them down).

 

The war was a lie from the beginning - WMD was always a secondary motivation, as was removing Saddam for the sake of Iraq. The strategy was something different, that was never, ever stated publically. And furthermore, regardless of the motivation, its clear that Rummy and the rest of the inner circle were pretty clueless as to what they would face in Iraq.

 

One more thing. Bush saying "mistakes were made" is not even close to enough. Notice how he doesn't even acknowledge HIS mistakes. For a guy who plays so hard to the "straight-shooter" role, he sure does like to avoid responsibility.

 

I have no sympathy on this for Rumsfeld or Bush. But that is no reason to pull out troops and leave all of Iraq and those remaining soldiers to live in an unholy hell.

[Rex Kickass]

Well, here's the thing. If the insurgency is indeed fueled by our presence, reducing our visible presence should weaken the insurgency. If it's a civil war, it's a civil war. And our presence will ultimately make no difference.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, here's the thing. If the insurgency is indeed fueled by our presence, reducing our visible presence should weaken the insurgency. If it's a civil war, it's a civil war. And our presence will ultimately make no difference.

I'm hanging on to the belief that if the current administration (Prez, Congress and military) can just keep things on the brink like this... it can be fixed soon. Congress will become either very close or even split in November, Bush becomes a lame duck, and by 2008 we have recycled the leadership. Since pretty much everyone in both parties (except for Bush's groupies) dislikes the current scenario, someone will change the way we are doing things.

 

That is what I am holding out hope for. The current situation sucks... civil war (which would erupt if we left) is even worse... the only possible good news is a new direction and NOT abandoning ship. Whatever the new direction is, if its different than the current one or withdrawal, it must be an improvement.

[mmmmmbeeer]

Let's see here. Bush says that "mistakes were made" but that isn't good enough. We CAN'T leave now, as much as you people would want us to.

 

So instead of throwing s*** out there and waiting to see what sticks, how about a REAL plan besides running away?

 

It's not a matter of pulling out, it's a matter of accountability within this administration. If I'm Bush, and watched my approval ratings absolutely plummet over the cluster that we're calling a war in Iraq, I would have the heads of those responsible (Rummy target #1) for the failures resign immediately. Maintaining the status quo and just saying, "yeah, there were some mistakes made", does nothing to instill confidence in Bush, his party, nor our government in general. When the man in charge allows these incompetents in his cabinet to run off pure talent like Colin Powell, it's the man in charge who's failed miserably.

 

Push Rummy and pals out of their positions and then we can talk about strategies to deal with Iraq and how to either find success or pull out.

 

 

I'm hanging on to the belief that if the current administration (Prez, Congress and military) can just keep things on the brink like this... it can be fixed soon. Congress will become either very close or even split in November, Bush becomes a lame duck, and by 2008 we have recycled the leadership. Since pretty much everyone in both parties (except for Bush's groupies) dislikes the current scenario, someone will change the way we are doing things.

 

That is what I am holding out hope for. The current situation sucks... civil war (which would erupt if we left) is even worse... the only possible good news is a new direction and NOT abandoning ship. Whatever the new direction is, if its different than the current one or withdrawal, it must be an improvement.

 

 

Bush is already impotent in office; he can't push anything through Congress. Few in his own party want to walk lock-step with the man for fear of hurting their own chances at reelection. If he makes some immediate changes in his administration, he will not only regain the support of some within his party but will also have the opportunity to trumpet effective bipartisanship.

[IggyD]

These Gerneals are saying this thing can be won. With big changes...I say lets win this thing already...but make the damn changes!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Take the 15,000 International Police Force and replace them with a ratio of 1-1 - we withdrawl 20,000, they replace 20,000 - and then you're finally talking something.

 

The problem is, the UN (or read: any international 'police force') has no balls. I wish they did so we could do something like this, but it won't happen.

 

 

Agreed. We saw how well international police forces worked in the Balkans, Lebanon and anywhere else they've been tried. They are totally impotent and would be cut to shreds by Iraqi insurgents and foregin fighters.

 

Bush is already impotent in office; he can't push anything through Congress. Few in his own party want to walk lock-step with the man for fear of hurting their own chances at reelection. If he makes some immediate changes in his administration, he will not only regain the support of some within his party but will also have the opportunity to trumpet effective bipartisanship.

 

 

He cant? What about that terrorism and border security legislation that passed last week?

[mmmmmbeeer]

He cant? What about that terrorism and border security legislation that passed last week?

 

 

Just because a bill became law doesn't mean that it was one of the president's initiatives. That bill has been bipartisan from the get-go. I'm talking about Bush's initiatives....social security reform, amnesty program, etc... Bush and the rest of the Executive are pretty much on their own right now. I wouldn't even call it my opinion, it's just politics. Regardless of party, you don't walk lockstep with a president who has a 30-40% approval rating, it's political suicide. Forcing Rumsfeld's resignation would/could go a long way in improving those poll numbers and thus improving his support in Congress.

 

I voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. I didn't really want to in '04, but I sure as hell wasn't going to vote for Kerry. I voted in OK and you are not allowed to write-in a candidate nor are there any other parties on the ballot. He's completely lost me as a supporter and soured me on the GOP in general. If he showed the same balls within the ranks of his administration as he likes to display to the rest of the world, I'd actually have some faith restored in the man.

[kapkomet]

Just because a bill became law doesn't mean that it was one of the president's initiatives. That bill has been bipartisan from the get-go. I'm talking about Bush's initiatives....social security reform, amnesty program, etc... Bush and the rest of the Executive are pretty much on their own right now. I wouldn't even call it my opinion, it's just politics. Regardless of party, you don't walk lockstep with a president who has a 30-40% approval rating, it's political suicide. Forcing Rumsfeld's resignation would/could go a long way in improving those poll numbers and thus improving his support in Congress.

 

I voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. I didn't really want to in '04, but I sure as hell wasn't going to vote for Kerry. I voted in OK and you are not allowed to write-in a candidate nor are there any other parties on the ballot. He's completely lost me as a supporter and soured me on the GOP in general. If he showed the same balls within the ranks of his administration as he likes to display to the rest of the world, I'd actually have some faith restored in the man.

I actually agree with just about everything you say here. Bush has lost a lot of support, but he certainly was a better candidate then John Kerry.

 

It's a shame that the presidential candidates have sucked so bad since, oh, about 1992ish.