If you’ve ever wondered why I go after Glenn Reynolds, aka Instapundit, the way I do – read this.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Glen is spot on right. That linked article really proved it. I didn’t read the whole screed, but went as far as the diane sawyer interview, which really demonstrated how gutless those guys are.
those generals need to be looking out for their men too, not just their careers. In fact, the military PAYS them to give their supposedly educated opinions. If that was truly what they believed at the time then they are out and out cowards for not speaking up.
You know when you are revulsed by something and you kinda throw up in your mouth alittle? Yeah… thats the feeling I got from this example of chickenhawkery.
OK, Quaker, find me some other positive statements about how things are going in Iraq in the MSM, and you tell me how they’re characterized…
I’m sicking of proving things to people, who then say they didn’t even happen.
Is that going to be the liberal debating tactic de la semaine?
That linked article proves me right because I say so.
Frank I am sure the generals believe what they are saying, but that makes the situation more pathetic.
The arm chair warriors here have a poor familiariaty with the UCMJ. Article 88 refers to disrespect, not disagreement. Particularly in the officer corps, differing opinions are valued and expected. Now once a superior gives a command, your opinion is no longer of any importance. But a flag officer will usually be asked an opinion at some point.
I have no way of knowing which one of these flags spoke out. The one in the Sawyer interview as much said so. Finally if the situation is as bad as all that, a flag officer can also pick up his fat retirement and leave, and explain his reasons for leaving. On a matter of principle.
I don’t see the need to either defend or attack someone else’s opinion, when you can easily form your own without her (or another person who disagrees with or agrees with her).
First of all, I believe that these Generals believe what they are saying. I also believe that they said it, or something like it, while they were in their respective commands. However, publishing disagreement is quite different from expressing disagreement.
So while I disagree with Dr. P that these men are cowards for not speaking out — because I believe they did — I agree with him that they owe it to the men in the field — the men they once commanded — to be more judicious in their comments.
There’s plenty of time after this war is over — I’m thinking it will be under control before, say, springtime ‘08, if you get my drift — to publish your memoirs, without demoralizing troops in combat.
Further, to figuratively “run around” behind a handful of Generals with a pessimistic prognosis, with microphones and videocameras, when you’ve been calling every other field officer “naively optimistic” for the last three years is, to say the least, disingenuous.
Oh and by the way, apparently old Harry Reid didn’t get the memo that the only way to deal with these rogue states is through a “coalition”
“The Bush administration is relying too heavily on other countries in the international effort to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, according to Sen. Harry Reid.”
Oliver you should send a message to Reid’s office telling him to “stay on message!” LOL
the diane sawyer interview, which really demonstrated how gutless those guys are.
Did you read the same interview I did? Gutless? I didn’t get that at all.
As you and dugger have pointed out, ad nauseum, the Code of Military Justice prohibits speaking out while in uniform. While they are in uniform, they are property of the Federal Government. You of all people should know and ackowledge that. As Swannak said to Diane Sawyer, You either salute and execute your orders or you leave the service. These guys chose to stay on in service of their country and the men in their command.
You don’t know for a New York minute whether they ever expressed their concerns to their superiors or not, or what the reaction to such concerns was. Increasingly, we see the reaction of the SoD is “yeah, yeah..”
So until you know what went down, STFU!
You know this how?
And if they spoke out and were overruled or ignored, THEN what does the military pay…er, PAY them to do?
There is no way to win this argument. If they had spoken out before they left the service, you would call them traitors and demand a courts-martial. Now that they have nothing to lose (or gain) by speaking, they are gutless to you.
Quaker, they didn’t speak out. if they had, they would at least be credible now. Like I said, I would have a hard time complaining if it were Shinseki saying these things. That guy had the stones to speak his mind and give his educated opinion. He showed courage.
Duros the reason there is no way for you to win this argument duros is that you are wrong. Funny how that works.
Nimrod, I don’t comment on british politics….how about showing me the same courtesy….
Who said they were “naively optimistic”?
Nimrod, I don t comment on british politics& .how about showing me the same courtesy&
I’m not going to dignify that with a response other than “I’m not going to dignify that with a response”.
Our military has to serve with integrity. If the policy is they must speak behind closed doors (when they have a concern or disagreement), then sobeit. I understand their need to be quiet while serving and not cause a mutiny. It should say a lot to the dense right wing followers when so many Generals not only retired and spoke out, but men who have served 20 to 30 yrs and retired simply because their personal ethics would not let them serve under this administration.
You gotta love Faux news (fox) and their spin , if you don’t support our troops you are a trader, unpatriotic, a bin laden worshiper , and some go as far as saying we should leave the country. BUT.. and big BUT.. if you disagree or disapprove and take the other side, like kerry, Murtha, these 6 generals, and others.. then it is ok to demonize and berate them ..
These men have served their country with dignity for yrs and for the right wing to come down on them , just shows what true scum is in the republican party.
nuff said…
That’s all I’m sayin’.
Except you haven’t proven anything and I haven’t said anything didn’t happen.
Let’s go to the tape:
Frank: “Further, to figuratively run around behind a handful of Generals with a pessimistic prognosis, with microphones and videocameras, when you ve been calling every other field officer ‘naively optimistic’ for the last three years “
Quaker: “Who said they were ‘naively optimistic’? “
Frank: “find me some other positive statements about how things are going in Iraq in the MSM, and you tell me how they re characterized”
No, Frank. I’m asking you what the heck you’re talking about.
The press–especially the cable networks–employ those optimistic generals as “analysts.”
The press is having a field day with these Generals. They are certainly getting more air time than other, more optimistic field commanders in the past. OK?
Or, do you want to quibble about “naive”?
“I m sicking of proving things to people, who then say they didn t even happen.”
You mean like when you denied ever threatening anyone on this board, and then had to be confronted with your own words like the lying thug you are?
duros,
You are confused. I have never made such a statement.
The point here is OWs ongoing nastiness directed to an individual who has been kind to him.
All of this is a bunch of baloney. It is the argument that counts – not the pedigree of the person making it.
If you must know, I have been military and civilian. The military, rightly in some cases, wrongly in others, always tend to resent civilain leadership. Happened before Rummy, will happen after.
Thats why I say this has never been about Rummy – its ‘get Bush’. Always has been IMO. Most progressives would send their grandmothers up the river if it would get Bush. Always lacking is substantive discussion of issues.
Dugger
TomY: Haven’t you shriveled up in disgust at your own existence yet?
The “Frank is violent” meme is over, deceased, ceased to be, it has shuffled off its mortal coil, joined the heavenly choir — it is dead.
And, by the way, Tommy, I didn’t do exactly what you said I did. Like, for example, denying that I ever threatened someone with violence.
If you weren’t such a simian, you’d realize that, and stop beating an extremely dead horse.
No matter how much you beat that horse, it will still be dead, and you will still be, unfortunately… you.
Now, see if you can any positive statements about what’s happening in Iraq, that aren’t accompanied by some negative opinions.
These negative opinions haven’t been accompanied by anything like, “While other field officers are optimistic.”
Just Google Iraq optimism news
Then google Iraq pessimism news
You’re saying you go after Instapundit the way you do because you’re not as smart or as rigorous a thinker/researcher/analyst as Gregory Djerejian?
I have no trouble buying that.
Reid is right, I’ve never said we need a “coalition” in order to deal with Iran. I’m curious what this supposed niceness from Reynolds to me is about.
Unilateral diplomacy was okay for Reagan, wasn’t it?
Doesn’t matter what your credentials are, what your experience is, the depth of your knowledge or the surety of your position. If you command public attention and you criticize the policies of the Bush administration the right will stop at nothing to destroy you. It’s simple as that. The Bush administration must be defended at all cost.
Oliver – So “unilateral” is okay, so long as it is the left’s idea ?
Reid meant the U.S. needs to stop outsourcing negotiations with Iran to Europe when it is abundantly clear that only direct U.S. involvement will have any hope of getting the job done.
Duh.
What, now Pedro, Frank, AND Dugger are all ex-military? Either that’s complete bullsh*t or it goes a long way towards explaining their blinders about this war.
Oh, and Pedro, have you considered Article 134?
“Article 134. General article. Includes offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial and which may “cause disorder and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” Article 134 is often considered to be a “catch-all” for various offenses that aren’t necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ. Article 134 offenses include disloyal statements, unclean equipment, improper wear of military uniform, abuse of public animals, adultery, bigamy, bribery, fraternization, et al.”
–Wikipedia
If Pedro says it ain’t so, it’s almost a lock that it is.
“I am very familiar with the article 134, having done numerous judicial reviews as a Navy officer.”
The ever morphing resume of dr. pedro. Truly a renaissance man.
Why in the world, at this late date, would it be bullshit, that Dugger and Dr. P, and I have been in the military?
You mean you believed it until now?
it goes a long way towards explaining their blinders about this war.
Not for me it doesn’t, Bill. Perhaps you’d care to explain what you mean.
You certainly don’t think Rep. Jack “Sgt. Fury” Murtha has blinders on?
So, what’s it going to be? Do veterans have an opinion on this war? Is it monolithic?
Do any veterans have the credentials to either criticize or defend our involvement in the War in Iraq? Which is it?
I’ll tell what I KNOW: That I learned a lot the Army from being in the Army…
Did I go to a military academy, or the War College? No
Was I ever a field grade or General officer? No
Do I have any “special credentials” to support or criticize the President?
Nope.
I’ve just read a lot of books, and do what I can to keep up with the news.
Maybe I understand a little more of what I read about the military than you do, because I was in the military, and my father was a civilian employee of the Army for most of my life, but that’s pretty much it.
Thanks Bill as you know, most military people are republicans, so it isn’t really all that unusual that we have all served. I am sure you are unfamiliar with the concept, so consider yourself educated.
I am very familiar with the article 134, having done numerous judicial reviews as a Navy officer. I would challenge you to find a SINGLE flag officer who was charged under 134 for voicing an opinion.
Since it doesn’t exist, why don’t you take your Wikipedia-based knowledge of the military and go find a sandbox to play in somewhere…
And Ollie, I suspect most of us republicans think unilateral diplomacy is just peachy….we are just suprised that Reid agrees with us. And even MORE suprised the democrats are so bold faced as to come right out and admit that Bush can’t win as far as the leftists are concerned. If he goes in unilaterally he will be pummelled for that, but if he goes in with a coalition, well, in that case, ……he’ll be pummelled….
You guys have chutzpah, I’ll give you that….
Complete bullsh*t it is then!
Pedro, ever the thick skulled wonder, acknowledges that article 134 could, in fact, be used to charge a flag officer with violating the UCMJ by arguing not that it couldn’t, but that I need to produce an example case. I merely pointed out that the language exists in the code to charge someone in the military with a crime for doing virtually anything that could be construed as being “disloyal.” Guess what, I’m right! Thanks Google and Wikipedia!
And Republican unilateral diplomacy = invasion, while Reid is arguing for direct U.S. talks with Iran, not threatening another “but we’ve got Australia and Poland backing us!…for a while!” assault on a sovereign nation.
Ped, your debating skills are matchless.
frameone: A small point, I know, but all military officers do judicial reviews
see here… Summary Court Martial and Special Court Martial
Bill L. I know you’re all excited and everything, but, in actual fact, you did not claim that Article 134 could be used to punish the “dissenting Generals”, you (really, The World Book Encyclopedia of the Internet WikiPedia) said that “Article 134 is often considered to be a catch-all for various offenses that aren t necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ, [including] disloyal statements”
Dr P is exactly right. Unless someone ever used Article 134 to punish anyone in the military for having an opinion, then you can’t say it can be used for that.
IMHO, “disloyal statement” refers to statements that are disloyal to the speaker’s Service (Army, Navy, whatever), the military in general, or the USA; NOT the President or the SecDef.
If you know of a case where a serviceman was charged with Article 134, for saying something bad about the President or the SecDef, fine, then you’re right.
But, if you don’t, then you are, of course, wrong.
But don’t feel bad, we’ll send you home with the home version of U – C – M – J, the Game of Military Justice!
Frank, don’t burst my bubble and lump yourself in with Ped. Both the President and Rumsfeld have both made statements to the effect that any talk about removing Rumsfeld from office is both “emboldening the terrorists” and “undermining our troops.” It is simply no stretch of the imagination at all to see that as falling under article 134. Catch all rules are created to do just that, get anyone for a “violation” that might otherwise slip through. Just as they are useful for guarding against unforseen contingencies, so to are they ripe for abuse in the hands of the wrong people. Is article 134 the reason the generals waited until they retired to speak out? Almost certainly not, but that wasn’t the point. As I said before I was pointing out a possible source of conflict between the UCMJ and the generals’ statements (were the generals not retired, of course). That’s called a “hypothetical” and you can’t simply label it “wrong” because the article hasn’t been put to use in that fashion yet.
Do I really have to explain the blinders thing? Aren’t the conservatives on this board consistently raising the point that the military tends to be heavy with rabidly loyal republicans? Is it surprising to think that ex-military personnel often cling to the notion that you support your leaders and commanders no matter what, but especially in a time of war? Isn’t that what’s pounded into your head from day one? Semper fi(delis)? And yes, I know that’s the Marines.
Your rant about veterans and who gets to have an opinion was priceless, though. Where did I say you weren’t entitled to your opinion, or anyone else for that matter? Just as you are free to have an opinion, so to am I free to point out how unlikely it is that the chorus of conservative commenters on this board would be increasingly made up of ex-military personnel (though I commend you for at least standing up and countering Pedro concerning the generals’ integrity). Could you all be telling the truth? Sure. Could it all be bullsh*t? Yup.
Welcome to the internet.
As far as I know, I, Dugger, Dr. P, JK and jadegold are veterans…
That’s not five conservatives, now is it?
It is simply no stretch of the imagination at all to see that as falling under article 134.
Maybe it isn’t a “stretch of the imagination”, but that’s like “almost true.”
It isn’t true. It has never happened, and it is not about to happen.
So why bring up the possibility?
And I didn’t say you said I wasn’t entitled to an opinion…
I was asking if you believed there was such a thing as a veterans’ opinion…
I’ve said it before,and I’ll say it again: People are less likely to lie when they are anonymous…
Exaggerate, maybe, but outright lie? Why?
Because they feel it lends extra credibility to an otherwise untenable position frank. You’re inconsistant on this and on the military. Hell, inconsistancy might as be your middle name. You’re a hypocrite, and please know that when I say that, I can think of no worse character flaw.
You guys really are making me sick. You always do. But especially on this issue, you’re really trying to pump my guts out.
You keep saying that these guys “owe it to the troops”. Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, they’re speaking out on behalf of the troops? Don’t you think that perhaps, in the eyes of these generals, who have seen the intelligence, and war, first hand, that what they’re doing is for the good of the service and the country?
How in gods name is it that you claim to know more than these gentlemen? Because Instapundit, fox news, and drudge said so?
I remember somebody raising some bullshit about a guy who had retired a few years ago and was just now raising his voice. Given the way you’ve marginalized every lone voice out there, it should come as no surprise that people, especially people used to thinking tactically, may have thought that the only way to speak without being marginalized and forgotten was to speak with one voice.
If these men were still in uniform and spouting the party line, you’d be cheering and holding them up for evidence. But hey, since they don’t think what you do, fuck ‘em, right. Thirty years down the toilet, their service means shit, right?
Honestly, guys. Just once, I’d like to see you have an opinion on something that stays consistant. You really make me sick.
And, on a serious note (treatment you do not deserve, by the way, I’m just trying to be decent), I haven’t been inconsistent:
That’s what I said.
When have I engaged in the “practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness:?
why is it so unreasonable to ask what motivated flag officers to speak out about actions that occurred three years, now?
Why speak out now, rather than when they were in a position to truly affect a change?
The only answer I can come up with is lack of courage of their convictions. Whether they lacked that courage out of fear of retribution, courts martial or whatever…men of true principal have a responsibility to speak up against injustice.
Alternatively, these are strictly opinions that they can throw out now without any risk to themselves, and possibly some benefit…so talk is now cheap…
Either way, they don’t look like good leaders….
By the way, thanks for schooling these guys in the military and the UCMJ while I was away….
P
q-wolf: You, as usual, are talking out of your pseudo – vulpine ass.
And I seriously doubt that it would be possible to care any less than I do right now about what you consider to be the “worst character flaw.”
And it’s too bad you’re having stomach problems… Drink a couple of cokes and stay away from this blog for a few days.
It will do you, and me, and untold others, a world of good.
Durn, are you full of yourself…
you re really trying to pump my guts out.
What a tool!
Be careful DrPedro, Frank said an argument that begins “The only answer I can come up with…” is for intellectually inferior peoples.
But seriously, though, is that the only thing you can think of even after numerous possibilities have been mentioned in this thread alone? You don’t think it is possible that they voiced their opinion, were ignored, then continued a few years until they couldn’t take it anymore and then decided to go public? No possibility in your mind at all? You don’t think they might have thought “You know, I’ll give it a try…if it doesn’t work I’m quitting” and then did exactly that? What the hell?
Do you have any respect for these men? Do you think they have no respect for the troops in the field? Do you think they are after Bush too? I wonder who these men voted for. Or, wait, let’s take the conspiracy further. Maybe they all got together and decided they were going to throw the war. Yeah, just lead poorly and allow the insurgents to kill 2300 troops, just so Bush would look bad and his approval rating would be in the 30s. Then, in an effort to sell books and make money, blame it all on Rummy. It’s like the Black Sox, except with American Generals.
DrPedro, have you ever taken a job, then you get a new boss and all hell breaks loose? And you say “oh, I’ll suck it up and do it like he/she says, but if things don’t get better I’m gonna quit”? And then, you quit and during your exit interview you get to say what you really think? Sure, it may not have been the “best” thing to do, but it is definitely telling that 3 star generals think Rummy is an a douchebag.
Frank: I know, but, I like saying “intellectually inferior peoples” and said “but seriously” after, so you knew I was playin’.
You are correct though, Frank, we do not know what current generals think to make a judgment one way or the other, but the attacks of the generals that speak out is simply uncalled for, that is why Oliver’s beef with Instapundit is understood by me. Not to mention that Reynolds’ other writings over the past few years have left me with a sense of “why did I actually click on the link to that and read that drivel, I could have watched paint dry and been more intellectually challenged”.
Generals gain credibility by being generals. It’s why CEOs are quoted in business magazines. You’d think general’s opinions about war might mean something. You’d think they would have more credibility than instapundit…
Until they couldn’t ‘take it anymore”…?
It just doesn’t make sense……If they quit because of their beliefs, why not make that public right away, try to be an agent of change? If they gave it their best while in uniform….why wait for 2-3 years before complaining again? I mean, we have been losing less troops recently, how are they helping by coming out now?
Again, you give absolutely no reason or motivation for these people to do this. You are making arguments that have no rationale or logic to them.
You know, there is a possibilty that these General honestly felt that now was the time for this publicity, and that they contacted each other, and said, “Let’s do this together, and make a united front of it… It’s the best way to get those boys out of harm’s way.”
But, that doesn’t mean that that strategy was the best thing to do. It doesn’t mean that they gain any additional credibility because they are generals, which is not to say that they are lying, but, rather, that there are probably X amount of generals who disagree with them.
It would be more instructive to know how many Field Officers feel one way or the other. That we’ll never know.
Also, Pedro, sometimes people keep thoughts to themselves for a long period of time, because they are unsure of their thoughts. Then, they speak with one another and realize “nope, I think I’m right”. Yes, that can take years. Why did the Swift Boat Veterans wait until Kerry ran for president to spew all their filth? Why not when he ran for Senate? Because it mattered to them you will say. So, you grant them the benefit the doubt but not generals who served for 30 years? WTF?
Pedro
why is it so unreasonable to ask what motivated flag officers to speak out about actions that occurred three years, now?
Why speak out now, rather than when they were in a position to truly affect a change?
Maybe they don’t want anymore of their men getting killed. Or do you have a problem with that too?
Mike
I wonder who these men voted for.
If you believe Dr. Ped, they voted Republican, because most military votes that way.
pedro argues that these generals are cowards for not coming forward sooner as if he and every idiot right wing blowhard would not have labelled them cowards then anyway for not wanting to stand up to Hussein and al Qaida.
who cares what someone would have labeled them? If they really believed this was a wrong move, then they should have stood up and said so…and if they were so incensed by it, resigned and bitched about it. For every conservative who called them names there would be 10 lefties down on their knees “tending” to their every need and begging them to run for office as a democrat….
& and if they were so incensed by it, resigned and bitched about it.
But that is what they have done, by and large. One guy turned down a 3rd star and resigned.
And yet you still call them cowardly. I don’t get it.
Resigned and then started complaining three years later?
Color me…..skeptical…..