Rumsfeld Rejects Calls to Quit.

charlie - Perhaps retired generals should remember that, having supped on the public teat for meany years, and still doing so, public attacks on the government is not considered in good taste by many of their peers.

Perhaps retired generals should remember that ... public attacks on the government is (sic) not considered in good taste by many of their peers.

And yes, ex-Generals should be seen and not heard.

Either way, most of these Generals are Clinton's boys, and have a vested interest in attacking Rumsfeld.

Cymro - And how much experience do you bring to the table? My guess is it is less than mine, perhaps not. I confess though that I am basing this on the Left's well known dislike for actually serving in the military.

In response, Bush followers have publicly speculated about every defamatory motive which could be fueling these Generals -- they have embraced every possible explanation except for the possibility that these Generals might actually hold these views sincerely. This behavior really illustrates, more than anything else, exactly how we were led into a war that has been a disaster on every front, and how we have stubbornly remained on the same course well past the time it became objectively apparent that this course was leading to nothing but abject failure. The first objective -- which worked very well for a good couple of years -- was to prevent all dissenting views by labeling those who questioned the war or who opposed it as subversives, traitors, Friends of the Terrorists, America-haters, and crazed radicals. That took care of dissenting views for awhile, ensuring an echo chamber where the President's views on the war were basically unchallenged. But the profound error of their judgments and the rank falseness of their claims could not be obscured forever, because the reality of the war slowly exposed the truth. But amazingly, facts do not deter them either. Every fact that contradicts their initial premises is discarded as fiction or the by-product of malice. Every opinion that undermines their position can be explained only by venal and corrupt motives. Every event that transpires which deviates from what they predicted ends up being the fault of others. And any individual who questions their grand plan for epic and glorious triumph in a never-ending, all-consuming War of Civilizations is someone who is either weak-willed, weak-minded, or just plain subversive -- whether that be life-long public servants like Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson (both of whom were smeared by Powerline in a separate post yesterday, which quoted RealClearPolitics calling them "Political hacks" and "fools" who "espouse positions publicly that they know to be untrue"); life-long conservatives like William Buckley or George Will, and even American military generals, including those who actually led ground troops in Iraq as recently as 2004.

Perhaps you can understand, therefore, just how much more significant are the opinions being expressed by these generals -- compared (for example) to yours.

What does your comment have to do with this subject?

And I don't need to be in the military to know that.

Actually, I was comparing my experience level to charlie's, but evidently my comment was too nuanced for you. Please reread my 6:37PM for better understanding.

Jim, how long were you in military intelligence? Just being in the military..................does not make you a military expert................

Actually, I was comparing my experience level to charlie's, but evidently my comment was too nuanced for you.

And how much experience do you bring to the table? My guess is it is less than mine, perhaps not. I confess though that I am basing this on the Left's well known dislike for actually serving in the military.

charlie - Perhaps retired generals should remember that, having supped on the public teat for meany years, and still doing so, public attacks on the government is not considered in good taste by many of their peers. charlie, as a man who has had vast experience in sitting in the cockpit of a jet fighter (once), what do you think? Don't be shy, tell us what starring at all those insturments taught you.

You know that the only thing that matters in this discussion is the weight to be attached to the opinions of retired generals

Jim, how long were you in military intelligence?

Military people, especially high ranking officers, are not allowed to comment for several reasons.

they've done so, not because they seek publicity, but because of their deep concern about what's being done to the institutions that are a core part of their lives, and the men and women currently on the line.

Actually, even active duty military officers may say what they want

UCMJ - ART. 88 - CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.