5th General Joins Ranks Opposing Rumsfield

oldsam · 04-14-2006, 04:37 AM

Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld
Defense secretary 'carries too much baggage,' Swannack says

Friday, April 14, 2006; Posted: 12:48 a.m. EDT (04:48 GMT)

Retired Gen. Charles Swannack says Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has "micromanaged the generals" in Iraq.
Image:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday.

Swannack is the second general who served in Iraq under Rumsfeld to call for him to resign. (Watch as more retired generals join chorus against Rumsfeld -- 1:29)

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste -- who led the 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005 -- called for Rumsfeld's resignation during an interview Wednesday on CNN.

He also suggested other changes among the top brass at the Pentagon.

Rest of Article

Rodeo · 04-14-2006, 05:09 AM

Typical "leftie" post. Please don't bother us with reality. We have a course to stay.

Anyway, retired generals know nothing. I wonder what Nul thinks about Rumsfeld's job performance, that's the only true indicator.

fastpat · 04-14-2006, 06:19 AM

As a measure of job performance, that is to complete an assigned task, of all Sec. of Defense, Rumsfeld is a collossal failure.

lendaddy · 04-14-2006, 06:20 AM

Is this historically rare during war? I honestly don't know. How many, if any generals came out against the administrations/SoD during/after Vietnam?

Tim Hancock · 04-14-2006, 06:21 AM

Thankfully it is only the retiring guys who are spanking their monkeys to the Hanoi Jane beat.

fastpat · 04-14-2006, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
Is this historically rare during war? I honestly don't know. How many, if any generals came out against the administrations/SoD during/after Vietnam?

During Vietnam, I don't remember any. The most famous person to take a contrary position during Vietnam was the late David Hackworth, the most decorated soldier to have ever served in the military. His book is still the gold standard about the course of that war, "About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior" is the title.

Rodeo · 04-14-2006, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Thankfully it is only the retiring guys who are spanking their monkeys to the Hanoi Jane beat.

If you are active duty, you either work from the inside for change, or you muster out. Calling for active duty officers to take on the Secretary of defense is dangerous and unwarranted. I think Rumsfeld's handling of the war has been criminally incompetent, but I don't want active brass to do anything but follow orders from the president, speaking through Rumsfeld.

Civilians control the Pentagon. Until Bush replaces him, active duty officers either do the best they can to work around his incompetence, or retire.

Hancock, you're the only "Hanoi Jane" here. Rumsfeld has given more aid and comfort to the enemy than all the "lefties" in the world combined. By supporting incompetence, you support the enemy.

slakjaw · 04-14-2006, 06:31 AM

I do not understand this. The people on the right feel that because these 5 guys are retired they do not know anything?

IMO, there are 5 Generals saying there is a problem here. Maybe we should look into the problem and come up with a solution???

Unless these 5 Generals are leftys and what not.

lendaddy · 04-14-2006, 06:33 AM

These generals have not come out against the war Pat, just Rummy. So that was my question, is this post career vetting of disagreements with superiors that rare? How many Generals are there even (I looked to no glory). Is five of them disliking their boss a big percentage? I don't know, but playing it up as a big deal without knowing those things seems unfair as well.

Rodeo · 04-14-2006, 06:34 AM

The latest "lefty traitors" in the whacko world of the Bush supporters:

lendaddy · 04-14-2006, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
The latest "lefty traitors" in the whacko world of the Bush supporters:

Which ones are against the war?

Rodeo · 04-14-2006, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by slakjaw
I do not understand this. The people on the right feel that ***

They are not "people on the right," slackjaw.

They are "people of the Bush." Big, big difference.

hunter914 · 04-14-2006, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
By supporting incompetence, you support the enemy.

Pithy statement of the year.

fastpat · 04-14-2006, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
If you are active duty, you either work from the inside for change, or you muster out. Calling for active duty officers to take on the Secretary of defense is dangerous and unwarranted. I think Rumsfeld's handling of the war has been criminally incompetent, but I don't want active brass to do anything but follow orders from the president, speaking through Rumsfeld.

It's more than that, anyone serving at O-6 (Colonel) and above serves at the leisure of the President, particularly if over 20 years service. They can be retired at any time by the stroke of a pen.

Quote:

Civilians control the Pentagon. Until Bush replaces him, active duty officers either do the best they can to work around his incompetence, or retire.

Hancock, you're the only "Hanoi Jane" here. Rumsfeld has given more aid and comfort to the enemy than all the "lefties" in the world combined. By supporting incompetence, you support the enemy.

You have that right. Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam because she was in sympathy with communism, not for any special animous otherwise, and certainly not because the war was being run poorly by the Sec. Def. (which it was).

Hancock, and other cultists, think loyalty to the government in it's every activity consitututes patriotism.

Not only is that not true, loyalty to a government as dangerous as this one is to Americans is at the heart of treason towards America.

Tim Hancock · 04-14-2006, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo

Hancock, you're the only "Hanoi Jane" here. Rumsfeld has given more aid and comfort to the enemy than all the "lefties" in the world combined. By supporting incompetence, you support the enemy.

Rodehard, you obviously do not know me very well. No doubt, there are more than 5 people in the military that do not always agree with their superiors, so what? I would bet that 25% minimum of all employees think that their boss is a stupid @sshole...this does not mean it is necessarily true.

PS Calling people Hanoi Jane to their face could result in an ugly scene.

Rodeo · 04-14-2006, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Thankfully it is only the retiring guys who are spanking their monkeys to the Hanoi Jane beat.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
PS Calling people Hanoi Jane to their face could result in an ugly scene.

So I guess you will be avoiding these guys.

fastpat · 04-14-2006, 06:59 AM

"War is a racket" - retired Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, twice.

Tim Hancock · 04-14-2006, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
So I guess you will be avoiding these guys.

Yup, and I basically stated they were acting in a manner similar to Hanoi Jane by lashing out at Rumsfeld in a public way which has the same affect on public opinion on Iraq as Jane Fonda's misguided efforts did during Vietnam. It does nothing but encourage the enemy to continue their efforts in hopes that the US will lose the fortitude to finish the job.

Rodehard OTH, flatly stated that I am a "Hanoi Jane", which I actually think is kind of funny.

Rodeo · 04-14-2006, 07:12 AM

Your blind support of the president is profoundly unAmerican and unpatriotic.

fastpat · 04-14-2006, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Yup, and I basically stated they were acting in a manner similar to Hanoi Jane by lashing out at Rumsfeld in a public way which has the same affect on public opinion on Iraq as Jane Fonda's misguided efforts did during Vietnam. It does nothing but encourage the enemy to continue their efforts in hopes that the US will lose the fortitude to finish the job.

Rodehard OTH, flatly stated that I am a "Hanoi Jane", which I actually think is kind of funny.

First, you're completely wrong about the effect Fonda had on most folks, she was considered just another hippie chick who spent a lot of time on her back with a huge variety of men, who had been in the movies. She wasn't considered a serious opinion maker, ever.

Lumping these military professionals in with Fonda is demonstrating both your desperation and your historical shallowness.

And last, I have news for you, no Iraqi is an American enemy unless he comes to America and commits crimes. The Iraqi Freedom Fighters that are defending their nation against a ruthless mass murderer and the most powerful military on the planet are genuine heroes.

You wouldn't be able to muster a sliver of their courage, few would.