President Bush, on Donald Rumsfeld

on Apr 19, 2006

drmiler;
That Petition does not changed ANY of the FACTS pointed out by these Generals. Rumsfeld is the one that refused to use the military plan to attack Iraq and the result is that we DID NOT have the force levels to prevent the violence we see today. Almost ALL the senior Generals including Powell have admitted WE DID NOT send the troop levels needed to establish and maintain security. That failure is responsible for MOST of the dead and injured and it was Rumsfeld that is responsible for not following the plans developed by the military that HAVE THE knowledge and experience to KNOW what is required to conduct a military operation.

Your mouth is a festering sore of ignorance and misinformation.

17

Bahu Virupaksha

on Apr 19, 2006

Napoleon famously observed that War is too important to be left to Generals. What he meant by that is simple:Soldiers fight and die on the battlefield nd the civil political leadership makes all the strategic decisions. Secretary of State Condi Rice seems to have forgotten this piece of Napoleonic wisdom when she observed in London that a thousand tactical blunders were made, thereby blaming the military for the failure to produce results. The US leadership set an impossible mission : War against Islam and what is called Islamic Terorrism. Such a war requires both human intelligence and hard military tactics. Unfortunately there was all round failure on the humit front. Even in Iraq the Generals asked for nearly 3 times the number that was finally granted in order to perform the job. In this context a former general of the US Marine Corp has demanded the resignation of the Secretary of Defence. It is ofcours now abundantly clear that the leadership of the Iraq War has been poor right from the start and that there were monumental blunders all along: Paul Bremmer's decision to disband the Iraqi Army must rank the foremost of such blunders and the decision to encourage Shiaa against the Sunni is perhaps the second. Yet for a former military commander to publically call for the resignation of Secreatary of Defence undermines the concept of civilian control of the military, the bedrock of democratic regimes. Even if the present Secretary is removed, it will not make any difference as far as Iraq is concerned because the civil war in Iraq will carry on with a momentum of its own.

It is just too cute on the part of retired generals to cry foul when in fact there is now little chance of the USA emerging from Iraq with its prestige intact. The US soldier can do without former generals snapping at his feet. I feel that it is for the civilian leadership both at the Congress and the White House to decide the strategic objectives of the War and decide on the right exit option. Let former soldiers just fade away.

18

Moderateman

on Apr 19, 2006

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006drmiler;That Petition does not changed ANY of the FACTS pointed out by these Generals. Rumsfeld is the one that refused to use the military plan to attack Iraq and the result is that we DID NOT have the force levels to prevent the violence we see today. Almost ALL the senior Generals including Powell have admitted WE DID NOT send the troop levels needed to establish and maintain security. That failure is responsible for MOST of the dead and injured and it was Rumsfeld that is responsible for not following the plans developed by the military that HAVE THE knowledge and experience to KNOW what is required to conduct a military operation.

how about what tommy franks said? and then the retired chairman of the JC? hmmmmmmm you go with what bashes bush and totally ignore what supports him, that is why I trash you gene again I say "a one armed man beating a one note gong"

19

Moderateman

on Apr 19, 2006

Reply By: Bahu VirupakshaPosted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006

holy baananas! we are in agreement on a subject, bless you!

20

drmiler

on Apr 19, 2006

drmiler;
That Petition does not changed ANY of the FACTS pointed out by these Generals. Rumsfeld is the one that refused to use the military plan to attack Iraq and the result is that we DID NOT have the force levels to prevent the violence we see today. Almost ALL the senior Generals including Powell have admitted WE DID NOT send the troop levels needed to establish and maintain security. That failure is responsible for MOST of the dead and injured and it was Rumsfeld that is responsible for not following the plans developed by the military that HAVE THE knowledge and experience to KNOW what is required to conduct a military operation.

It changes at least ONE FACT fool! The fact that you say nobody likes, respects or backs Bush or any of his administration. Over 140,000 people said different. Now go sit in the corner and "play with yourself", clown!

You've had your 3 troll cookies for the day, I can't give you any more.

21

spindoctor

on Apr 19, 2006

I see your point moderateman colgene just refuses to lokk at any facts that don't support his views.

Sorry for being so quick to condemn you.

22

spindoctor

on Apr 19, 2006

I see your point moderateman colgene just refuses to look at any facts that don't support his views.

Sorry for being so quick to condemn you.

23

COL Gene

on Apr 19, 2006

Tommy Franks and Gen Myers caved into Rummy to reduce the troop levels in Op Plan 1003. Rummy sent Franks back three or four times to lower the troop levels and in the FINAL revision Franks prepared it called for 275,000 troops when Saddam Fell. Bush sent 150,000.

The proof is in the eating. Look at the mess we have in Iraq. Just about every senior general has said that we did not have enough troops to secure Iraq, even those that have NOT called for Rummy to resign. Gen Myers was an Air Force General and had no working knowledge of troop levels needed for an occupation.

Lets make it clear, the results of not providing the troop levels need to prevent the sectarian violence has resulted in about 2,000 dead and 15,000 combat injuries. If we had followed the plans that required 500,000 troops the insurrection would not have gotten started. We could have denied the access to the over 200 Ammo dumps that our enemies used to kill and injure our troops. We could have sealed the borders and kept out the terrorists that are now operating in Iraq and we could have protected the oil, water and electrical infrastructure. There is a very good chance that had the plans been followed, we would not have had most of the deaths and injuries we sustained during the OCCUPATION Phase. I think when our officials like Bush and Rumsfeld make choices that resulted in the death and injury to our military that they should be held accountable. The entire group- Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be OUT!

24

Moderateman

on Apr 19, 2006

#23 by COL Gene
Wednesday, April 19, 2006

all I hear is a one armed man, beating a one note gong, gene save your breath.

25

COL Gene

on Apr 19, 2006

Moderateman

That note is Bush and Rummy are responsible for the death of 2370 Americans and 17,500 combat injuries. That sounds like a VERY sour note to me!

26

Moderateman

on Apr 19, 2006

#25 by COL Gene
Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Moderateman

That note is Bush and Rummy are responsible for the death of 2370 Americans and 17,500 combat injuries. That sounds like a VERY sour note to me!

I agree with you on this point, as every President since we have been a republic that has sent troops off to war is responsible for the deaths of our fighting men and women.

Ultimately the buck stops at the oval office, always.

27

DJBandit

on Apr 19, 2006

#17 by Bahu Virupaksha
Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Wow, I am impressed. Nicely well said.

That note is Bush and Rummy are responsible for the death of 2370 Americans and 17,500 combat injuries. That sounds like a VERY sour note to me!

Col, your a waste of internet space. Even the most ignorant of people know this is true. But neither you nor anyone on this planet could say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that with more troops in Iraq that this many or more soldiers would not have died. When fighting a war against an enemy that does not play by the rules death will always occur on the side of those who play by the rules. Take that Colonel, this coming from someone who has no military experience.

For a guy who claims to speak for "The Vast Majority Of American" I have yet to see a report that says that everyone or almost everyone thinks this way.

Gong, gong, gong, gong, gong.

28

Moderateman

on Apr 19, 2006

27 by Charles.C
Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Gong, gong, gong, gong, gong.

I see you too hear the same sour one note from gene . heh

but it's more like a ding, ding, ding. heh heh heh

29

COL Gene

on Apr 19, 2006

CharlesC.

We did not lose the vast majority in the battle to depose Saddam. We lost the majority because we did not establish and maintain control over the factions in Iraq after the Government fell. That is because we did not have a 1/3 of the troops that the military believed essential to establish and maintain security. That is the fault of Bush and Rumsfeld who have NO experience or basis for setting the troop levels needed to control that country.

In addition, we attacked a country that presented NO danger to the United States and therefore had we not invaded in the first place we would have ZERO deaths and injuries in Iraq! That is because of Bush!

30

Moderateman

on Apr 19, 2006

29 by COL Gene
Wednesday, April 19, 2006

not establish and maintain control over the factions in Iraq after the Government fell. That is because we did not have a 1/3 of the troops that the military believed essential to establish and maintain security.

tommy franks said he had enough, or do you just read and listen to generals that trash Bush? silly question. Of course you pay no attention to anything said that might support Bush, what color is the sky in your bizzaro world?