Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 45
  1. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I think I suggested we compile a list of the commanders first to determine if there even is a majority. Instead you've jumped right into attack mode.
    I am not attacking anyone. I am questioning their sudden vocalness. Based on their histories that I cited above, I believe there is ample reason to question their motives.

    So even if there is a majority you seem more inclined to impugn each and every one of them rather than grant that Sanchez's comments have credence, as you've suggested you would.
    As opposed to those, like yourself, who seem to believe automatically believe that Sanchez's words are some sort of indictment of the war or of the leadership?

    The point was made before, and it seems it has to be made again. Commanders getting relieved, then speaking out disfavoring military conflicts they were involved in, is nothing new.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Exactly. Where is the outrage by my friends on the right now?
    Were you outraged by the treatment of Petraeus? Did you express it?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3.    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I am not attacking anyone. I am questioning their sudden vocalness. Based on their histories that I cited above, I believe there is ample reason to question their motives.
    We've established that. I think you said that if a majority supported Sanchez's position that you'd lend more credence to it. I'm still stuck on establishing that list.

    As opposed to those, like yourself, who seem to believe automatically believe that Sanchez's words are some sort of indictment of the war or of the leadership?
    You're distorting my position and you know it. I absolutely said that I recognized that he had an axe to grind, but that his comments, when supported by other ex-generals seem to have at least some merit.

    The point was made before, and it seems it has to be made again. Commanders getting relieved, then speaking out disfavoring military conflicts they were involved in, is nothing new.
    A majority of them or only a few? Which conflict? I think you ought to back that up with specifics if you're going to broad stroke this thing and make it seem like its all the norm in all wars.

    So since we're speculating, I'd venture to guess - but don't know for sure - that in conflicts we lost due to politicians you'd see more vocal opposition. In conflicts we won there probably isn't much at all except by a small minority.
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Were you outraged by the treatment of Petraeus? Did you express it?
    I don't remember what I said about it to be honest. FWIW - I don't think it is right to attack vets from either side of the aisle. But I am equally outraged that the same neocons that smeared other veterans were so hypocritically outraged over the Betray-Us ads.

    I have also said that I don't read moveon.org and for the record think they are too extreme and do more harm than good to the Democratic party. The same can be said for the Swift-Boaters or any number of neocon talk show hosts though.

    Not sure where you are going with all of this?
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Were you outraged by the treatment of Petraeus? Did you express it?
    Whether the testimony comes from Paul Bremer or Petraeus, they are held to the same standard of veracity. Yes, I realize the difference in roles, so don't bother going down that road. However, the point is that it matters not if the current 'architect' wears a uniform or not. God almighty could be sitting in the same chair testifying before the Senate, and if he chose certain administration talking points to frame and cloud his testimony, 'he' should be held accountable also. The only remaining question is if the media ad is warranted or not. That is a matter of opinion as Petraeus was less than brutally honest by most accounts. It's my opinion that after the Bush-media buildup of high expectations about the candor of the Petraeus 'Report' that many felt quite underwhelmed, once delivered, considering all the independent reports and many former administration officials accounts.

    Were you outraged by the treatment of Max Cleland and John Kerry? Did you express it?
  6. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    We've established that. I think you said that if a majority supported Sanchez's position that you'd lend more credence to it. I'm still stuck on establishing that list.
    Well then, have at it...then report back to us.

    You're distorting my position and you know it. I absolutely said that I recognized that he had an axe to grind, but that his comments, when supported by other ex-generals seem to have at least some merit.
    I also highlighted a point where I thought Sanchez actually had some substance.

    But I will remind you of your title to this thread:

    "Another wacky ex-General breaks ranks...."

    Smells like sarcasm.....unless you were actually saying Sanchez is "wacky".

    A majority of them or only a few?
    No, not the majority of them. I think I cited 30% of sub commanders being relieved - for whatever reason.

    Which conflict?
    I cited World War II. You know, the "good war".

    I think you ought to back that up with specifics if you're going to broad stroke this thing and make it seem like its all the norm in all wars.
    Oh please.....just look at the Romans and Mark Antony, McCellan and his poor use of the calvary in the Civil War - which eventually got him relieved, MacArthur being shown the door, Patton very nearly getting kicked out of the army himself......etc etc....

    Warriors butting heads with politicans is nothing new.

    So since we're speculating, I'd venture to guess - but don't know for sure - that in conflicts we lost due to politicians you'd see more vocal opposition. In conflicts we won there probably isn't much at all except by a small minority.
    In the event of a war with Iran, if there were only 5 or 6 commanders being relieved - I'd say that victory would be far from assured. If 30 to 40 commanders walk or get fired - then it will be a bloodbath for the Iranians.

    The more infighting there is in the military - the better they perform, as odd as that sounds. The Nazi's lost for many reasons, one of them being that they were all "yes men".

    It is a paradox on its face, but history bears the fact out rather clearly.
  7.    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    But I will remind you of your title to this thread:

    "Another wacky ex-General breaks ranks...."

    Smells like sarcasm.....unless you were actually saying Sanchez is "wacky".
    Sarchasm indeed because he is one of many not one of only a few. But the title has little to do with the fact that I acknowledged the obvious axe he has to grind.

    Warriors butting heads with politicans is nothing new.
    I think we can agree on this. But I think you'll find a much higher rate of dissent in wars whereby the politicians frigged it up and caused us to lose. They did it to us in Vietnam and they're doing it again.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I don't remember what I said about it to be honest.
    Fair enough.
    FWIW - I don't think it is right to attack vets from either side of the aisle.
    Why? I can see if one is discussing someone who was drafted being a little more forgiving, but we have had a professional military for quite a while. It may even be fair to say mercenary.
    But I am equally outraged that the same neocons that smeared other veterans were so hypocritically outraged over the Betray-Us ads.
    I see hypocrisy on both fronts here. ISTR Petraeus being lauded as a virtual sword of Damocles for the Bushies. It was only when his report didn't make things out quite as bleakly as some would seem to want that the criticisms started coming from some of the same fronts.
    Not sure where you are going with all of this?
    I'm not 'going' anywhere with this. I have no agenda other than to find out other interesting perspectives.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Whether the testimony comes from Paul Bremer or Petraeus, they are held to the same standard of veracity.
    So, we are in agreement that whether someone has 'served' in a 'military' capacity should be irrelevant?
    Yes, I realize the difference in roles, so don't bother going down that road.
    I'm not going down any particular road at the moment. A mite pre-emptive there.
    However, the point is that it matters not if the current 'architect' wears a uniform or not. God almighty could be sitting in the same chair testifying before the Senate,
    That would be impressive.
    and if he chose certain administration talking points to frame and cloud his testimony, 'he' should be held accountable also. The only remaining question is if the media ad is warranted or not.
    That may be your only remaining question. It's a question to which the answer doesn't interest me that much, which is why I didn't ask it.
    That is a matter of opinion as Petraeus was less than brutally honest by most accounts.
    Why does the brutality matter?
    It's my opinion that after the Bush-media buildup of high expectations about the candor of the Petraeus 'Report' that many felt quite underwhelmed, once delivered, considering all the independent reports and many former administration officials accounts.
    Reality is often far less melodramatic than fantasies.
    Were you outraged by the treatment of Max Cleland and John Kerry?
    Why would I be? I'm not outraged about Patraeus either.
    Did you express it?
    I expressed my thoughts on John Kerry by voting for Badnarik.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #30  
    On Face the Nation today (CBS), McCain cited Gen Shinseki as having spoken his mind when asked to do so by Congress. He was fired as a result (McCain's words). McCain attributed that as possible reason why Generals in uniform were/are reluctant to differ with their civilian leadership. As someone said.. no one in the military is indispensable.

    On Chris Matthews today, Elizabeth Bumiller (NYT) said that there is a vigorous debate going on in the military about this very issue.. When is it appropriate for the uniformed to speak out against their civilian bosses. This is a very complicated issue. Carried to an extreme (down the slippery slope), it leads to military overthrow of governments.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I'm not 'going' anywhere with this. I have no agenda other than to find out other interesting perspectives.
    Fair enough. And I agree there is hypocrisy on both sides - hypocritical for the supporters of the swift boat ads to criticize the Petraeus ad and hypocritical of moveon.org to retaliate in such a hypocritical fashion.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Fair enough. And I agree there is hypocrisy on both sides
    Well, that seems to happen with people. It must be built into the DNA somewhere along the line.
    hypocritical for the supporters of the swift boat ads to criticize the Petraeus ad and hypocritical of moveon.org to retaliate in such a hypocritical fashion.
    Personally, I'm more confused when having been in the military became like some sort of character armor. I think the repressed guilt from the left for the way they treated Vietnam vets has become just as bad as the blind ultra support that the right seems to bestow on 'good soldiers'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    On Face the Nation today (CBS), McCain cited Gen Shinseki as having spoken his mind when asked to do so by Congress. He was fired as a result (McCain's words). McCain attributed that as possible reason why Generals in uniform were/are reluctant to differ with their civilian leadership. As someone said.. no one in the military is indispensable.
    Wow, I am impressed that McCain said that. I largely agree with him. But it runs deeper than that; speaking to the media or handling disagreements outside the chain of command are just plain taboo. Yes, you should oppose unlawful orders but much of this stuff was not known to be unlawful and was more of a conscientious objection than objections based in law. Thus, I can completely understand why a General would not be so outspoken when they are operating as an active duty officer. If nothing else, McCain nailed it - Bush Co. made sure all Generals after Shinseki fell in line....or else.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Wow, I am impressed that McCain said that. I largely agree with him. But it runs deeper than that; speaking to the media or handling disagreements outside the chain of command are just plain taboo. Yes, you should oppose unlawful orders but much of this stuff was not known to be unlawful and was more of a conscientious objection than objections based in law. Thus, I can completely understand why a General would not be so outspoken when they are operating as an active duty officer. If nothing else, McCain nailed it - Bush Co. made sure all Generals after Shinseki fell in line....or else.
    After Bush's illegal chop-block on McCain back in 2000 in South Carolina, McCain has been neutered and kept on a short leash. Now that Bush almost irrelevant, except for the cleanup necessary following him, these little episodes of truth-telling from McCain show up every now and then. Not exactly the "Straight Talk Express", but it's something.
  15.    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Personally, I'm more confused when having been in the military became like some sort of character armor. I think the repressed guilt from the left for the way they treated Vietnam vets has become just as bad as the blind ultra support that the right seems to bestow on 'good soldiers'.
    I understand what you are saying. Especially if a former member of the military runs for office - I'd agree their character should be examined just as much as the civilian that is running. But each of these attack ads were offensive is different ways. The Kerry ads were appauling because they trivialized his service to his country more so than challenging his character from other vectors. He certainly had plenty of other character flaws. I was just appauled that a man who received 3 purple hearts was attacked for putting his life on the line when the other candidate had trouble proving he even completed his USAF National Guard committments.

    The Petraeus ad is offensive because it was a tooth-for-a-tooth approach to shred a decent man who has served an honorable military career for his country. I think dragging him through the mud just because he wasn't providing a report that met the expectations of those opposed to the war was wrong. Again, I also think moveon.org really hurts the Dems more than it helps sometimes. I'm willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt - he earned it IMO. If for no other reason, he is likely under the very same pressures that the other active-duty generals that followed Shensinki were.
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    After Bush's illegal chop-block on McCain back in 2000 in South Carolina, McCain has been neutered and kept on a short leash. Now that Bush almost irrelevant, except for the cleanup necessary following him, these little episodes of truth-telling from McCain show up every now and then. Not exactly the "Straight Talk Express", but it's something.
    I used to respect John's politics but I lost all respect after Rove's 2000 smear campaign (I'll always respect his service to his country). Truly vile stuff but John rebounded and went on to actually support the guy that had smeared him. Politics makes for stange bedfellows I guess...

    Small story FWIW - a fellow vet and I were talking about McCain back in 2000 and I was all for him getting the nomination and eventually, the Presidency. My friend, who has famously been mentioned in several combat story books, unlike myself - had a theory about John that wasn't too flattering. Basically his theory was that John was particularily good at telling people what they wanted to hear, for if he weren't, he would not have survived as a POW. The premise being that McCain was wishy washy and changed positions to survive the political challenges of the day but that he had no solid stances on the issues (yes...this was back in 2000, but it was a different John we were talking about!). I dismissed this whole notion, yet my friend continued to rant how much he thought he and I would have been killed before we told the enemy what they wanted to hear. Now my friend was an ardent Kerry hater as well and quite radically right-winged (he has now become a libertarian and is a Bush hater...thank god because I used to get flooded with his right-wing propaganda emails just to pis$ me off )...but that is neither here nor there.

    In any event, since 2000 I never forgot that conversation and always wondered how true it might be. Could it be that those years in those bamboo cages were more formative than perhaps we really appreciate? I don't mean this to disparage John. I think he has lost his way politcally and disagree with much of his political viewpoints these days (if one can figure out what those viewpoints are for the day). But he has certainly earned many a vets respect and should be respected by all as a war hero for all that he went through. I am just not sure I can vote for him...and for me, that is a deeply personal and painful thing as I so wanted him to be the moderate rebel that he pretended to be back in 2000.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I understand what you are saying. Especially if a former member of the military runs for office - I'd agree their character should be examined just as much as the civilian that is running.
    Meh...I think 'character' can be manufactured just like anything else in politics these days.
    But each of these attack ads were offensive is different ways.
    I think we disagree here. I didn't think either of them should have been particularly offensive other than to their targets.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #38  
    MCCain suffered gravely as a POW

    N. Vietnamese knew he was an important Admiral's son -- and wanted him to make anti-US propaganda

    But once any POW was publicly known, they did not want them to die.

    The fact remains though that as noble as his patroitism and service are, its irrelevant to me in regard to issues that I care about
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  19. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    On Face the Nation today (CBS), McCain cited Gen Shinseki as having spoken his mind when asked to do so by Congress. He was fired as a result (McCain's words). McCain attributed that as possible reason why Generals in uniform were/are reluctant to differ with their civilian leadership. As someone said.. no one in the military is indispensable.
    Tommy Franks spoke with Chris Mathews on Hardball about the friction between Shinseki and Rumsfeld, and about Rumsheld management style as well.

    Below is a transcript of the relevant part of Frank's interview:

    "I think any time that you have as much going on during wartime as we have right now in Iraq, you're going to find people who are going to be calling for shuffling cabinet. I think we've seen that in places other than Rumsfeld and I think that's what we're looking at."

    "I know very few military officers who have ever given him a briefing or given him information and had him immediately say, oh, gosh, that's a great idea, I really love that.

    That's not the way Don Rumsfeld does business. And so from that point of view, the point of view of a guy who is a pretty successful civilian CEO, a pretty successful secretary of defense, at a time when our country is at war, he steps up and he puts people through their paces.

    Now, it is not a thing that very many people who have spent the last 30 years of their life having people listen to them—I'm talking about the generals—it's a pretty hard thing to sit there and find yourself in a pretty serious hardball dialogue with a senior civilian."

    "I think, Chris, you will find personalities that get along and you find personalities that do not get along.

    My personal appreciation was that the personalities of Rick Shinseki, a friend of mine, and Don Rumsfeld, a friend of mine, were not exactly—well, I'll describe it this way.

    It was sort of like oil and water, and this was not something that, as many in the mainstream media presented, well, Rick Shinseki spoke out against the war and Don Rumsfeld canned him.

    Come on, Chris. You know better than that.

    How long was Rick Shinseki the chief of staff of the Army?

    Rick Shinseki retired on time. That part of this discussion has been blown out of proportion.

    Now, the fact of the matter is that there was friction, and the fact of the matter is that Rick Shinseki had concerns about this effort. From my memory, the concerns had to do with logistics support.

    But be that as it may, there certainly was friction there, and I think you're going to find that. That does not imply that from time to time there was not friction between Don Rumsfeld and myself, because there certainly was."

    "Yes. And the fact of the matter is that I said a great many things to Secretary Rumsfeld over the course of our professional relationship, as I think military people and secretaries of defense will.

    There was friction. In fact, I think if you look at some of the reporting of that time, there is mention of the fact that—or the suggestion that Franks was thrown out of his office and this and that, and that's all foolish, that absolutely did not take place.

    But one-on-one, face-to-face dialogue, wherein we discussed the puts and the calls associated with Iraq planning, certainly did take place. And I must tell you that I don't recall Greg Newbold having been involved in many of those sessions."


    MATTHEWS: So he was open to a give and take between the experts and the civilians?

    "Yes, indeed."

    Yes, indeed, but he would make those—Chris, he would make those discussions very hard and very unpleasant. For anyone who knows Donald Rumsfeld well, I think they would agree with this statement and I mean, you can ask Peter Pace. When you—you actually never know which side of an argument Don Rumsfeld is on.

    Because I—I mean, I used to run tests with him. I would take a presentation in, just to have an off-line discussion and present a hypothesis just to try to determine which side Rumsfeld would fall on, on a given issue. He would fall on the side most contrary, and the result of that was to force people around him to do good work. I never said it was a pleasant process, but very effective.

    <END>

    The interview then trailed off into Frank's book, but I found Frank's perspective, that Rumsfeld was a man who made you work, and work hard, pretty fascinating.
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    The interview then trailed off into Frank's book, but I found Frank's perspective, that Rumsfeld was a man who made you work, and work hard, pretty fascinating.
    Strange. I found myself wondering why his story differs so much from the many others that found Rummy to be an incompetent neocon that accepted very little advice from those that knew better.

    Oh well...
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions