Quote:

---

House Majority Leader John Boehner's call for critics to lay off Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld because the generals are responsible for the conduct of the war in Iraq has sparked outrage among Democrats.

In an interview Wednesday on CNN, Boehner said, "Let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld."

CNN's Wolf Blitzer replied, "But he's in charge of the military."

"The fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge, and he works closely with them and the president," Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:


I'm just glad that Lincoln didn't run the war by poles of public opinion, and that neither is Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
The "buck" moves around this administration faster than a hot potato. It doesn't seem to get passed through Dubya's office too often, though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:



Well, mate, it's your fucking job to know, it's your job, by virtue at being at the top, to make sure everything below you runs smooth and that you get accurate data. Then it's YOUR job to act appropriatly on that data.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Absolutly Citizen, and any who disagree with ya here must be arsewipe supervisors or CEO's themselves, covering their butts, as usual.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

I like to call those people children.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
What about this war is going right? Did you use Lincoln because both Presidents presided over a Civil War?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:
What's going right? Well, you might not know it from the news, which is so one-sided, it's pathetic. I've talked with and heard soliders who have served/are serving there -- and the vast majority of them wonder what planet the bulk of the news organizations are reporting about over here -- because it's certainly isn't the Iraq they're seeing over there, firsthand.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TPage:


My question is: did any Generals speak out against the invasion of Iraq (it was called an invasion before it became the rebuilding; did the rebuilding become necessary because of the invasion?)?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TPage:


My question is: did any Generals speak out against the invasion of Iraq (it was called an invasion before it became the rebuilding; did the rebuilding become necessary because of the invasion?)?

---

It is frequently reported that General Shinseki ( think I spelled that right, and I forget his first name.) told Rumsfeld he would need 450,000 troops to pacify Iraq and Rumsfeld said he could only have 150,000. Shinseki was quickly retired. The rest of the Generals got the message: agree with the boss or your career is over.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yer mellowing, dude. I like to call them sociopaths.
...or Sociopathic Biped Scum.....yeah, that one I like better.

Cool biped Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
If Rumsfeld runs everything from D.C., he's too disconnected, and out of touch. If he relies on what his generals are saying, those who are in country, he's passing the buck.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by marina:
somewhere around 70% of the US population shows marked signs of sociopathy.

I suppose at that rate it's no wonder that the people in charge (at all levels) have no social conscience...

---

Quote:

---

If Rumsfeld runs everything from D.C., he's too disconnected, and out of touch. If he relies on what his generals are saying, those who are in country, he's passing the buck.

---

Quote:

---

In an article for Military Review, Lt. Col. Carl D. Grunow wrote that "without steadfast American support, these officers and soldiers will likely give up and consider the entire effort a lost cause."

Grunow recounted his experience of 12 months as the senior adviser to an Iraqi army

---

Quote:

---

armored brigade in Taji, north of Baghdad. His stint ended in June. The article in the July-August issue of Military Review is titled "Advising Iraqis: Building the Iraqi Army."

Grunow found and grappled with several problems during his experience.

... Grunow also found that Iraqi soldiers were using techniques and tactics from the Iran-Iraq war, when there were "clear battle lines fought with mass military formations, and one in which civilians on the battlefield were a nuisance, not the center of gravity."

He contrasted the new Iraqi army with the one under ousted ruler Saddam Hussein.

"Iron discipline was the norm under Saddam. The lowliest lieutenant could expect instant obedience and extreme deference from his soldiers," Grunow wrote. "Today's army is very different. Unlike Saddam's, the new army serves the cause of freedom, and officers and soldiers alike are a bit confused about what this means."

Iraqis, he said, are "horrendous at keeping track of their soldiers. There are no routine accountability formations, and units typically have to wait until payday to get a semi-accurate picture of who is assigned to the unit. Because Iraqi status reports are almost always wrong, American advisers have taken to counting soldiers at checkpoints to get a sense of where combat power is distributed."

Grunow praised the Iraqi skill in dealing with a tough environment. He said that "economic sanctions and austerity have made the Iraqis outstanding improvisers" and they "display great ingenuity with maintenance operations."

One trait of Iraqis is that they are "fatalistic, surrendering their future to the will of Allah. This explains how they can continue to function despite daily car bombings, atrocities and murders that have touched nearly every family."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
This really tells the story of how things are going in Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:
Lincoln's army lost a whole lot more men, too (more in an hour than we've lost in 3 years in Iraq) -- for a war a lot of people in the North would just have well given up on.

And Lincoln was hated in the south for nearly a century afterwards.

I'm just glad that Lincoln didn't run the war by poles of public opinion, and that neither is Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
CARTOON: OF course Maliki is going to say everything is going great. So did Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Curchill. So does Bush. Do ya think a leader is going to say "We're doomed"? You show a fearsome lack of imagination.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TPage:
My only question about this comparison is: wasn't the American CIVIL war a "house divided." Namely, one nation at war with itself (though granted half of the nation was attempting to become its own). Whereas the war in Iraq is, whether you like it or not, a war of invasion. Direct US interests (such as citizens) were involved in Iraq before the military went in. Even now, how many American citizens are inside of Iraq and not there as part of the military, the press, or other such organisation due to the war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:
That was found to be unacceptable by the overall wisdom of the persons in this thread -- even though those people about whom I'd been refering, were actually there -- unlike any of us. But, of course, they're "idiots" (thanks, Sen. Kerry), so we cannot consider their views on the subject.

---

Quote:

---

The terrorists mustn't be too bright, though. Otherwise, they wouldn't be wasting their time, when the job is being done for them -- right over here (in the U.S. congress and major media outlets) -- where they (the terrorists) have several allies who are willing to secure the U.S.'s failure in Iraq -- and without bloodshed and violence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Marina- Could you provide more info on your study?

---

Quote:

---

Yes, there are great differences between the U.S. Civil War and what's going on now in Iraq. My analogy wasn't about the type of war, or the conduct of the war, but specifically about how (in both cases) the President did what they felt to be right, in spite of the unpopularity of their decision, and the bitter opposition they faced as a result of it. The analogy was not intended to be taken beyond that.

(snip)



That being said, however, once the job is started, it must be properly concluded, or everything done thus far would have been for nothing.

( snip more)

The terrorists mustn't be too bright, though. Otherwise, they wouldn't be wasting their time, when the job is being done for them -- right over here (in the U.S. congress and major media outlets) -- where they (the terrorists) have several allies who are willing to secure the U.S.'s failure in Iraq -- and without bloodshed and violence.

---

Quote:

---

Sure - I mean, I didn't conduct the research study, I'm just studying the study for my own research. I see my professor this afternoon though, I'll get the info on the authors for you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
YA don't haveta go back to the Civil War to find good parallels. Seems like Presidents Kennedy, JOHNSON and NIXON did their best about a place called VietNam. and folks supporting that war made the same arguments.

---

Quote:

---

I initially stated that (without exception) every U.S. soldier with whom I'd spoken (and/or heard speaking publically), entirely contradicts the majority of the news which the media is reporting on Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

That was found to be unacceptable by the overall wisdom of the persons in this thread -- even though those people about whom I'd been refering, were actually there -- unlike any of us.

---

Quote:

---

I then produced a statement by the President of Iraq, likewise contradicting the major media. That also was deemed unacceptable -- even though the President of Iraq is actually there -- again, unlike any of us -- and has been there, both before and after the U.S. involvement. But, of course, he's "biased", so we cannot consider his view on the subject, either.

---

Quote:

---

(CNN) -- An editorial to be published Monday in independent publications that serve the four main branches of the U.S. military will call for President Bush to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

"Basically, the editorial says, it's clear now, from some of the public statements that military leaders are making, that he's lost the support and respect of the military leadership," said Robert Hodierne, senior managing editor for the publications' parent company Army Times Publications. "That they're starting to go public with that now, with their disagreements, added up with all of the other missteps we believe he's made, that it's time for him to be replaced," Hodierne.

Army Times Publications publishes the Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and the Marine Corps Times.

It is the second time the publications have called for Rumsfeld to resign. In May 2004, when the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal broke, an Army Times editorial said, "This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential, even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
What I've heard (and read) is about 50/50.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
OF course he's biased. It would be completely impossible for him to say anything other than what he said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
But let me also paraphrase Maliki: I'm not your man in Iraq Why would he say that?? It's because he CAN'T be seen by his people as being tied to the USA. And why would THAT be? Because MOST of his supporters are... er... anti-American.

---