At least since (arguably) the most significant battle in Western Civilization, the Battle of Salamis, nearly 2,500 years ago, military commanders have disagreed as to tactics. While historians herald Themistocles’ success in defeating the Persian armada, we all too often forget that before leading the Greeks to victory, that great leader had to first overcome the opposition of the Spartan commander Eurybiades. As anybody who has watched the movie Patton knows, two of the greatest (and most successful) generals of the Second World War, the American George S. Patton, Jr. and the British Bernard Law Montgomery frequently disagreed on how to prosecute the war.
Perhaps the The New York Times should have borne this in mind before choosing to place its article on retired generals calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation in a multi-column above-the-fold headline last week. To be sure, this is news, but not Page One news. It is important to know that not all military leaders support the Defense Secretary — and to understand their reasons for opposition. But, when its reporters suggest that this poses “a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld’s leadership,” the New York Times attempts to make an everyday occurrence into and earth-shattering event.
Just as well-intentioned military commanders have disagreed throughout history, so have otherwise successful generals failed to meet the expectations of their nations and made significant mistakes on the road to victory. Although Churchill was initially disappointed by Montgomery’s “lack of success” in North Africa, that British General later succeeded in driving the Nazis off the continent. Before capturing Atlanta in the Civil War, General William Tecumseh Sherman ordered the tragic assault on Kennesaw Mountain. Similarly, we should not judge Rumsfeld’s entire record by his failure to meet each and every expectation and by blunders he and his subordinates have made in Iraq (and elsewhere).
Instead of understanding the reality of military history, the New York Times spins military commanders’ routine disagreement to fit its own view of the War in Iraq, that it is another Vietnam, a quagmire where the U.S. is doomed to defeat. While the Times and other critics of the Administration jump on this handful of critical commanders, others, retired generals and other senior officers as well as military scholars and pundits have risen to defend the Defense Secretary. Thus, it appears that their criticism, while representing (in most cases) a legitimate evaluation of our strategy in Iraq is not the consensus view of military leaders (current and retired) and other martial experts.
By the same logic that assumes those Rumsfeld critics to speak for the whole military, we (Bruce and myself) speak for the entire gay community. Like those generals, we have good intentions in criticizing the current leadership (in our case, of national gay organizations). In putting forward our point of view, we have made solid arguments based on the facts. And while we believe that our ideas are the best ones for the betterment of the community, our critics will remind us that most gay people, particularly gay activists, disagree with us. They are probably right.
But, if a handful of thoughtful, but disgruntled, generals can speak for the entire military, then a couple of thoughtful, but iconoclastic, gay conservatives can speak for the entire gay community. Joe Solmonese, you’re fired!
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Your title was very funny and so “right on.” You certainly don’t represent the Gay Community, nor do you have to. I have a question for you one that I’m sure you have been asked many times before but I have never heard your reply. Could you explain to me how you can support a president and party that want to pass a Constitutional amendment to limit your rights as an American citizen? Honestly I am not being facetious, I just want to know.
Thanks
Joseph: I surely don’t speak for Bruce & Dan, but my personal wild guess would be that they DON’T support the President or Party in question, insofar as it wants to “pass a Constitutional amendment to limit their rights as American citizens”.
It’s quite possible to support the President on some issues – say, fighting terrorism – and not on others.
A little introspection on your part will prove that true. For example: if I may take a wild guess that you probably supportDemocrats – then you, Joseph, support a President and Party who want to pass State Constitutional Amendments and Congressional Acts to limit your right as an American citizen. (Think the DADT law, the DOMA law, and Kerry’s support of the State-level anti-gay amendments.) How can you do that?
Honestly I am not being facetious; I just want you to introspect on the obvious answer. The same principle would probably apply for Bruce & Dan.
As for the 7 retired generals – what I really came here to say 🙂
I read today that there are 6000-7000 retired generals and admirals out there. So 1/1000 have publicly criticized Rumsfeld.
Their orchestrated attack on Rumsfeld raises the question of civilian control over the military.
As a support of civilian control over the military, I reject the notion that any generals, active or retired, have any right to criticize the person/office (as distinct from the policies, mind you) of either the President or, for that matter, the Secretary of Defense.
P.S. And calling for the removal of a particular policy-maker constitutes, of course, an attack on the person/office (as distinct from specific wise or unwise policies).
Good post and analogy, Dan.
I’ve enjoyed listening to Gen Tommy Franks and Gen Pete Pace take these guys to task and argue their complaints are facile and unethical. I can understand someone like Wes Clark –who has crossed over into the political realm– being allowed to offer criticism. But for retired generals, who apparently sat on their hands and mouth and feet when they could have resigned while active to truly demostrate their opposition to Rumsfeld’s alleged autocratic managerial style, to do it now is unethical… as retired General Tommy Franks has argued.
But I guess honor amongst the dissenters in our country is in short supply.
# 2 Calarato — April 20, 2006 @ 8:36 am – April 20, 2006
Perhaps you need a reminder that there are other political parties than the Republicrats and the Demoblicans, and there is the option not to vote. Or–usually–to write in someone’s name if you don’t like any of the candidates listed on the ballot.
On the other hand, if a person’s be-all and end-all is “I want my tax cuts,” then obviously the way to go is to vote Republicrat. That’s my philosophy. The Republicrats, of course, are borrow and spend liberals, and the bill won’t come due until long after I’m dead and gone, so why should I care? I’m a perfect conservative.
raj, you’re neither a perfect conservative (ugh) nor someone likely to “write in” a candidate on any ballot because that would be a task which extends well beyond your skills set.
No, you’re perfect liar, raj. You gain access to the polling booth via a lie and that’s the truth –from your own lips, raj baby.
Spin all you want.
#7 Michigan-Matt — April 20, 2006 @ 9:45 am – April 20, 2006
No, you’re perfect liar, raj. You gain access to the polling booth via a lie and that’s the truth –from your own lips, raj baby.
Oh, riddle me this: how do I gain access to the polling booth via a lie?
The town in which I live, which controls access to the polling booth, knows full well that I conform to all state requirements to have “access to the polling booth.” Who do you believe you are to say otherwise?
Matty, you’re going off the deep end.
You had that coming, Matt…
That’s what you get for engaging the village idiot.
Eric in Hollywood
I’d agree. Of all the leftist trolls here, raj has the least between the ears.
#10 rightwingprof — April 20, 2006 @ 10:31 am – April 20, 2006
Of all the leftist trolls here, raj has the least between the ears
I ask again, what do you purport to profess?
On the subject matter of the post
But, if a handful of thoughtful, but disgruntled, generals can speak for the entire military…
What gives you the idea that the “thoughtful, but disgruntled, generals” purport to speak for the entire military?
As far as I could discern, they purport to speak for themselves.
raj said…
“What gives you the idea that the “thoughtful, but disgruntled, generals” purport to speak for the entire military?”
Yet again, raj, who is obviously soooo much smarter than the rest of us, deludes himself into believing he is perfectly capable of commenting on a post he has yet to read.
Someone might want to remind him that reading comprehension is an essential life skill.
Eric in Hollywood
As I have said on more than one occasion, in our country, the military answers to a civilian authority, not the other way around. And that means that if Kerry had been elected President, the military still would have had to answer to him. Its one of the reasons his “swift-boating” by the Rove campaign machine using political partisans who were also veterans, was so unethical and bad for our democracy.
It is for the most part inappropriate for Generals and other high-ranking members of the military to involve themselves in political activism. It is against the Code of Conduct, whether they are retired or not.
So it is in many ways wrong for these Generals to be criticizing Rumsfield. At the same time, it is also incredibly wrong for General Tommy Franks to be defending him, or endorsing a political candidate for President, as he did with Bush.
An opinion written by Max Boot in the LA Times points out rightly that the responsibility for the mess in Iraq falls not just on Rumsfield’s shoulders, but on those of the Generals in charge at the time. Franks among them.
Rumsfield is an incompetent DOD secretary. Many of the things that are held up as the examples of good things that he has done, such as the reorganization and “transformation” of the military services, were not his programs, they were conceived and instigated by General Shinseki, that same General and former Army Chief of Staff that was treated so poorly and shabbily by Rumsfied and Wolfowitz during the final months of his service when he said some politically inconvenient truths before Congress, namely about the size of the occupation force that would be needed in post-war Iraq.
I will also point out, that General Shinseki has done the correct thing in his retirement, in spite of having every opportunity to wag his finger at the DOD and say “I told you so” to the Pentagon and the leadership that treated him so poorly. He has remained silent on the matter.
If a General or other high-ranking member of the military feels that they do truly need to come forward and point out some grievous error that the present Administration is committing, then they should do so in the traditional, honorable way, by coming forward, making the criticism and then resigning on the spot.
Instead all these Generals, both against and for Rumsfield, are only coming out after their book deals have been signed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot19apr19,0,6685016.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375422625/sr=8-1/qid=1145545592/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1925376-1532631?%5Fencoding=UTF8
#13 HollywoodNeoCon — April 20, 2006 @ 11:00 am – April 20, 2006
Poor, oblivious, Eric in Hollywood. Some of us have actually read the entire post. And some of us still wonder
What gives you (the poster) the idea that the “thoughtful, but disgruntled, generals” purport to speak for the entire military?
The post was a mess, bringing in bits and pieces from selective commentaries from history. Whatever. The poster relied on an assertion (noted above) for which there was no evidence, to go off into a tirade–on another subject, I might add. So, again, where is the evidence for the poster’s assertion?
Patrick said…
“It is for the most part inappropriate for Generals and other high-ranking members of the military to involve themselves in political activism. It is against the Code of Conduct, whether they are retired or not.”
Very well put, Patrick, as is the next paragraph you wrote, wherein you assert that senior military officers have no business inserting themselves into any political debate.
However…
” Rumsfield is an incompetent DOD secretary.”
This observation is, pardon my bluntness, pure horseshit. As a former Army officer, I’m really disgusted by the aspersions being cast upon Rumsfeld by those with absolutely zero military experience. While I absolutely believe in every American’s right to criticize members of the government, to use the term “incompetent” in describing the SecDef implies that the commenter has some degree of expertise or knowledge in military affairs. Call him an asshole, call him arrogant, but kindly refrain from assuming that somehow, you’re in a position to evaluate his ability to lead the armed forces.
Eric in Hollywood
And of course, raj just can’t bring himself to admit to his learning disability.
Tragic, indeed.
Eric in Hollywood
wondering if Dan is aware that raj thinks he can’t write coherently
The idea that there is something wrong with RETIRED military brass criticizing civilian leadership at the Pentagon or even involving themselves in partisan politics is preposterous. Does the name Eisenhower ring a bell with anyone here? It is significant that these generals have come out with public criticism. I wish they had done so before now. I suspect they see the impending trainwreck that is sure to result from the Rummy-bumblers “staying the course.” As for those retired brass supporting Rummy and company, it strikes me that many if not most appear to have lucrative “military analyst” consulting positions with the media. So they have a financial interest in maintaining close ties and contacts with the Pentagon – ties that would be jeopardized were they to be critical of the Administration.
#18 Ian — April 20, 2006 @ 11:50 am – April 20, 2006
Does the name Eisenhower ring a bell with anyone here?
You can go back even further. Recall U. S. Grant?
BTW, it’s interesting that Eric from Hollywood #17 doesn’t have any substantive response. I suspect that that’s typical of Hollywoodians.
Now this is interesting…
raj believes his little snipes carry any weight, especially since most around here don’t really have any interest in arguing with high schoolers.
Hmmm…let’s all sit back and bask in the superior intellect.
Be sure to bring your notebooks!
Eric in Hollywood
Another SAT freebie for everyone….
raj : substance, as Ferrari : go-kart
E in H
Gramps writes “If a General or other high-ranking member of the military feels that they do truly need to come forward and point out some grievous error that the present Administration is committing, then they should do so in the traditional, honorable way, by coming forward, making the criticism and then resigning on the spot. Instead all these Generals, both against and for Rumsfield, are only coming out after their book deals have been signed.”
You’re 100% correct, I agree and you nailed it on the head; good for you, Gryph.
#17 HollywoodNeoCon — April 20, 2006 @ 12:07 pm – April 20, 2006
And of course, raj just can’t bring himself to admit to his learning disability.
And, of course, Eric from Hollywood (das Land des HappyEnds) is unable to detail the ground(s) upon which he claims that I have a learning disability.
No surprise, given the FantasyLand in which Eric from das Land des HappyEnds has chosen to reside.
raj baby, I’m going to go slow for you about me calling you out as a liar on the voting issue. Before you take the least important point and turn it into your main defense, read and think a bit, ok?
In America, primary electoral events are designed for each party –each political party– to select those candidates they think will best represent the party’s interest as a nominee for office. The candidate runs as a party’s choice in the general. In some cases, the primaries are closed, some are caucused events, and some are even open –as in Massachusetts in Michigan. But open primaries are “open” to afford unaligned voters the opportunity to participate in a party’s selection process for candidates to represent the party in the general election. In Michigan, we don’t have to declare our party preference; in some states voters do. You do by your own admission.
Now, you seem to think that declaring yourself a Democrat one election, a Greenie the next election, a GOPer the next is just fine. Right. You’re lying –affirming that you are A, B, or C– in order to influence the party’s selection process of candidates. There in lies the lie, liar. Is it an important lie that demeans the civic structure of our political culture? No. Is it a lie? Yep.
People who vote in primaries –like you– who switch party designations effectively LIE (raj, that means not to tell the truth) about their party preference in order to effect or influence the outcome of the primary –whether that’s a primary which is closed, caucused, or open.
I’ll grant you, some political animals are crafty enough to switch party preferences in order to foist an untoward candidate on a party they might otherwise like to see hamstrung in the general… and I’ll grant you that some people may want to vote for a candidate who may not make it out of the primary without a strong non-party voting base, but don’t those two examples underscore the nature of the deception (which is yet another word for lie, raj baby).
We have party designations in some states to insure the party regulars determine who will be the candidate. Some parties run primaries in open fashion to gauge popular support for a likely nominee… but the operative principle is that people should vote in the party primaries they espouse as their party. And that’s how we get to raj as a liar. SImple enough.
Thanks Eric, RWP for the advice… but sometimes it takes a village to instruct an idiot.
#24 Michigan-Matt — April 20, 2006 @ 12:56 pm – April 20, 2006
So, according to you, conforming to the electoral rules, in a public election, run by the state and paid for by the taxpayers, can make one a liar.
Interesting.
Apparently, you do not understand
But open primaries are “open” to afford unaligned voters the opportunity to participate in a party’s selection process for candidates to represent the party in the general election.
That’s nice. But, anyone can in Massachusetts, after registering to vote in a party’s primary–paid for by the state, of course–immediately re-register as an unenrolled (independent, unaligned, or whatever) voter. So what is the issue?
In Michigan, we don’t have to declare our party preference; in some states voters do. You do by your own admission.
Sorry, I don’t live in Michigan (as you should know from your clap-trap over at IndeGayForum a few weeks ago), and I don’t particularly care what Michigan practices are. Andere Laender, andere Sitten. Other states (or countries), other practices.
Ian, I think there’s a big difference from the military man turned politician (like Eisenhower, Grant, McClellan, et al) and retired military leaders bringing public dissent about SecyDef Rumsfeld.
Tommy Franks has it right: these guys should have resigned when they were outraged about SecyDef Rumsfeld’s actions or decisions… not waited until the comfort of retirement padding hit their asses.
raj, nice try at spinning again; but it still don’t rotate.
btw, raj baby, I didn’t say you lived in Michigan… your unabashed residency in the state of sheer lunacy is well known… Massachusetts, that is.
Nice try to obfuscate; it didn’t work either.
#2. You make it seem, for example, that Bill Clinton was personally for DADT and DOMA. Can I ask who authored, sponsored, and co-sponsored those pieces of legislation? Then tell me why Democrats had to give in to ‘compromise’ legislation pushed by Republicans. Anyone can see where the Republican Party is on these issues. Even Rudy is now swinging right. And he’s held up by gay conservatives and gay Republicans all the time as some kind of gay conservative saint. So, please, stop comparing legislation passed under certain administrations and start looking at who authors, sponsors, co-sponsors and really pushes for these pieces. From the Advocate:
Rudy Giuliani appears to be distancing himself from pro-gay past
There are signs that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani may be trying to distance himself from his reputation for supporting abortion rights and gay equality as he eyes a possible run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. In a 1999 Interview with CNN’s Inside Politics, then-mayor Giuliani said, “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro–gay rights”
But as the midterm election draws near and Giuliani gets closer to what many believe will be a shot at the presidency, the former mayor is campaigning for some very antichoice, anti–gay rights GOP candidates. Some political experts say he’s “mending fences.”
On Tuesday, Giuliani appeared at a rally for U.S. senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a vocal opponent of gay rights, who has said that states should regulate homosexuality “the same as they regulate human sexual contact with animals.” Giuliani said of Santorum, “In any age you don’t have many leaders. Senator Santorum is one of them.”
The New York Times reports that Giuliani will head to Iowa later this month to campaign for U.S. representative and gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle. Nussle is also an opponent of gay rights, having voted for the federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2004 and a ban on adoptions by gays in Washington, D.C., in 1999. Iowa is also home of the first national presidential caucus—and one of the first stops for most presidential candidates.
And earlier this week former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed announced that Giuliani would headline a fund-raiser in May for Reed’s campaign for lieutenant governor of Georgia. (Sirius OutQ News)
#14 – “[Kerry’s] “swift-boating” by the Rove campaign machine using political partisans who were also veterans, was so unethical and bad for our democracy.”
I can’t let that pass. Gryph, as usual, you haven’t a clue about the topics you presume to bloviate on pompously.
The 200+ Swift Boat veterans and POWs were Democrats and even a few Greens, as well as some Republicans and Independents. They came forward of their own volition, because they knew Kerry “from when” – some of them having been TORTURED (for real – not your standard of fake Guantanamo torture Gryph, but the actual thing) while tapes of Kerry’s 1971 denunciations of the United States were played back to their screams.
They simply could not believe the Democrats had selected such a personally corrupt, untrustworthy man for their nominee. They came forward late and because they felt they had to, entirely on their own money (or later, online Internet donors). The Bush campaign had nothing to do with it and indeed, was upset at first by their “rocking the boat” so to speak.
The Swift Vets’ leader, John O’Neill, comes from a Democrat military family. He pointedly told that to Nixon, when Nixon asked to meet him once in 1971 – it’s captured on a Nixon White House tape, which I’ve heard.
O’Neill says he voted Perot in 1992 and 1996, and Gore in 2000. He publicly put down Bush in 2004 as an “empty suit”. He stayed out of national politics for 30+ years before the 2004 election, while giving money on a local level to both Democrats and Republicans, depending on what he thought of the person (candidate).
O’Neill stepped into the 2004 campaign at a time when he had just donated a kidney to his ailing wife – yes, you read that right. Both he and his wife were going through all the extreme medical problems around that. In case you’re curious: His wife has since died.
I say the above, not to get O’Neill sympathy, but to show the extent of his HONEST, PERSONAL convictions against Kerry (just that man) ever becoming President.
ONE Republican figure in Texas, who happened to have met Rove before, at one point gave the Swift Vets a tip on a political advertising firm might be willing and able to take their business. As soon as that came out, the fellow resigned whatever Republican position he was.
THAT was the extent of Rove’s involvement – in other words: none. But Democrats in the 2004 campaign showed far less honor: it is well known that the campaign staffs between the DNC, the Kerry campaign, and their slimy 527s such as MoveOn.org were a revolving door.
I notice, Gryph, that in #14, you don’t care in the least about Kerry’s use of Swift Boat vets – a tiny handful of 8-10, who by the way were bought and paid for – in his own favor. That shows your usual double standards and dishonesty in pretending to be a neutral or non-partisan observer of “what’s best for our democracy”.
Gryph, at least read and absorb this book about the real Kerry before you presume to bloviate on these matters. O’Neill has taken no profits from that book: he donated 100% of his profits to a military charity for wounded veterans and their families.
For those interested: Here you can see the actual Swift Vets and POWs and their first-hand testimony against Kerry that is essentially irrefutable.
I am grateful they stepped forward in the 2004 campaign to let us know the truth about Kerry. For the record: I myself am a former longtime Democrat and currently an Independent. I supported Lieberman in the 2004 primaries (not that it did any good).
Final P.S. – And how would the Swift Vets be different from the 7 retired generals attacking Rumsfeld?
Well, first and far the most important, they weren’t a case of the military attacking their civilian chain of command: Kerry wasn’t Commander-in-Chief yet (and the point of their campaign was, God forbid that he should be).
Secondarily, we could go into other details, such as the fact that none were Washington players or hoping to get anything from any campaign; the only one of them who had a book deal was never going to profit from that deal; etc.
Actually since I’m a civilian, I am in exactly the correct “position” to evaluate the SecDef – another civilain. And l was under the impression that the President is the leader of the armed forces, not the SecDef. I believe he leads the DOD.
If I had been Bush, picking out possible leaders of the DOD, I would have chosen Rumsfield. He had the qualifications for the job. Outstanding qualifications.
But in the end, its the results that matter, and there he has failed. He has failed to grasp the nature of the conflict before him, and he has failed to take appropriate actions to correct his error. He won the battle of Baghdad, but he failed to address the aftermath in any meaningful way. Forget providing enough troops to secure Iraq, he didn’t even provide enough troops to secure Saddam’s ammo dumps. Not to mention the known nuclear facilities. So now whether or not there were WMD’s, and where they have gone to, is still a question mark. Barrels of radioactive waste were looted, emptied, and were being used as laundry buckets in neighboring villages when American forces finally arrived on the scene. And the ammunition and weapons in the Armories have been distributed far and wide, and are being used to kill our troops, Iraqi civilians, and probably aiding terrorists in other countries. Iraq has also become a new terrorist training ground, with its methods and terrorists being exported around the globe. Iran, another enemy, has been embolded by our blunders, and has gathered more strength and power, primarily by controlling the Shiite Parties in Iraq.
He also failed to learn the lessons of past wars. The breakdown of social order in Iraq was easy to foresee. And it was. It’s just that he deliberatly ignored it. America has had a long history of dealing with occupations, and insurgencies. He failed to learn a single lesson from any of those instances, instead choosing not to consider the insurgency anything other than just a few dead-enders. He did not make any useful plans for the occupation, as even the Army War College has admitted, in its after-action lessons-learned, post combat evaluations.
On a more political level, he has also continuously engaged in office politic turf wars with the State Department and Congress. At a time when unity was needed, he chose arrogance and blind presumption rather than rationality and teamwork. The final fault with this of course, lies with Bush, who permitted the rivalries to continue instead of knocking some heads together and putting a stop to it.
Rumsfield, in the final analysis, is going to be judged on results, not good intentions. So far his results are piss-poor. The successes we have had are much more in spite of Rumsfield than because of him. They are due more to NCO’s than anyone else. On the other hand, the mistakes Rumsfield has made are so great, we will be dealing with them for a long time, long after he is gone from office.
Honestly I am not being facetious, I just want to know.
Hmmmmm. On numerous occasions on this site, in response to seemingly sincere requests for an explanation of the gay conservative position, I have gone to considerable pains to explain why I support the war in Iraq, why I vote Republican, why I’m a conservative, and more. Other GP’ers have done so as well, writing eloquently and from the heart. The response from the requestors: None. Nada. Zip.
I’ve come to believe that the many of the lefties who post here (and I don’t necessarily mean Joseph May in particular) are utterly insincere in asking such questions. Do they really have a sincere desire to know the conservative position, or do they simply recognize an opportunity to deliver a sly rebuke disguised as an honest request for another person’s beliefs?
#26: Actually I was using Eisenhower as an example to refute the statement in #14 that it is inappropriate for retired generals to be involved in political activism. I would agree that these generals should have resigned and come forward when they first felt this way. That could still happen especially if Bush decides to pre-emptively bomb Iran. However, if one believes that ex-generals must never speak out then that would also preclude those who resign in protest from saying why they quit.
I would also say that I take the opinions of the “military analysts” throughout the media with a grain of salt. You can’t expect serious criticism from them when their livelihood depends on not rocking the boat.
Every year about this time, you hear someone wanting Rumsfield out, it’s not going to happen. I personally think the guy is a jackass. No one speaks for everyone, they only speak for like minded people, just like this blog does.
I’m quite amused that no one has yet quarreled with Dan’s call for Joe Solomonese to leave!
LOL.
#37. Whore? Slut? Democrat? Sorry, but when one uses the * when typing profanities, it demonstrates more clarity of thinking than you profess to not have had when writing your very angry comment. Please, leave it up. Be honest for once in your life.
After peeling through your profanity and insults, I detect your argument: laws are only made by signing them. You envision the making of law as a discrete event, discernable when the executive touches his pen to paper. But what is on that paper has appeared out of thin air??? The bill that reaches the executive doesn’t have the grimy fingerprints of anyone else??? There was no conference between chambers to finalize the bill??? The Congress’s leadership doesn’t matter whatsoever in the crafting of the bill??? How silly to claim that!
Let’s use DADT as an example. William Jefferson Clinton declares his intention to allow gays to serve openly in the military. Now who was it at that point that balked? And members of which party balked in louder voices and greater numbers? Did Clinton’s intention from the time of his announcement magically transform itself into a piece of legislation and wind up on his desk months later? No. He did what he could given the outcry of conservative and Republican citizens and members of Congress. Certainly, it isn’t the best bill. Certainly, some Democrats were opposed to his intentions. But, relatively, Republicans outdid the Democrats and themselves to stop Clinton from pursuing what he originally intended. To recap: Clinton intends to let gay members of the military to serve openly and, after resistance on the part of Republicans, winds up signing a compromise shitty piece of legislation that they sent to him. “DADT” was not a phrase uttered by Clinton until after it was penned by members of Congress.
Legislation does not occur in a vacuum. Sorry.
And I just typed all those lines–not angry with you, but pitying you–without the use of any expletives.
My last question to you, on another topic: when are you going to get credit on this blog for being the comments cop? Bet you if you go back and read Dan’s post about being civil, take it to heart, get some new lines, and ask nicely…they just might put your name up.
#37. I’m sorry, I forgot to address your charge of “Democrat”!! How could I forget to do that?
I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican. In fact, I hate both parties. Precisely because they give birth to partisan caricatures like yourself. Precisely because they take honest men like Giuliani and make him say that Santorum is a great leader. Precisely because they make people assume all sorts of things about those who refuse to reinforce and validate their very simplistic, black and white worldviews. Precisely because the airwaves are filled with the anger and hate expressed in your post. There is no search for truth, or what works best as policy, etc. There is only naked ideology with the strict adherents of both parties. And THAT is what is pathetic.
You assume I am a Democrat and direct your anger at me. Where’s the anger from….the fact that this Administration has botched all sorts of issues and problems and has failed in so many ways to live up to conservative ideals and has lost its support in most sectors of America? So have the Democrats. Both parties…pathetic.
By waiting to speak out until after they retired, those couple of these generals who served in Iraq have utterly betrayed… not *Rummy* but the troops that served under them.
Enlisted people putting their lives on the line expect self-sacrifice from their Generals. No one has the expectation of *fairness* they have the expectation that their General will take the unfairness like a man and a leader. To protect your career and retirement above your troops is reprehensible.
Plus, most people understand that there will be as many ideas about the *best* thing to do as there are officers in the room and that in the end only one idea is followed and that IT WON’T BE THE BEST ONE, but that’s not as important as everyone pulling in the same direction.
This is breaking faith with the troops and those men should be ashamed.
Off Topic – but I thought this would be interesting for people: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006801.php
Basically, LA Times columnist and blogger Michael Hitzlik was suspended from his blogging role because it turns out he was playing the “sock puppet” game. That’s when you create imaginary friends under multiple anonymous monikers to give an appearance of widespread support for your views.
Nothing is wrong with posting under one anonymous moniker. But sock puppets – multiple monikers that you use to actively mislead people into believing a crowd supports you – is a dishonest / unethical.
Even though the above is Off Topic, I’m gonna sort-of-justify posting it here.
It relates to this blog in a general way because we’ve seen people get caught playing sock puppets, like Reader/QP/PP, Stephen/DSH/who knows else, Ridor, etc.
Also Dan, the author of #0, in general has a soft spot for the LA Times 😉
Finally, in a way, this whole thing with the 7 generals may be a game of sock-puppets-once-removed. The 7 generals are real individuals expressing their own views, so of course it’s not exactly sock puppets. BUT – their unprecedented attack on a sitting civilian commander (Rumsfeld) has very obviously been synchronized or co-ordinated… by someone.
Damn, I’ve been found out. Yes, its true, I am both Caralato and Michigan-Matt.
“Interesting joke” as the Freudians might say… since it never crossed my mind to connect you with anything like this.
Sock puppets, huh. The only place I wish I could get some conversation is on my own blog but somehow creating a persona to have a discussion with myself about how my last post was full of sh*t just doesn’t seem like it’s going to help. 😉
Nor does having a discussion with yourself about how GREAT your last post was.
I’m checking out Patterico’s original expose now – my jaw is on the floor – check out http://patterico.com/2006/04/20/4467/three-in-one-michael-hiltzik-mikekoshi-and-nofanofcablecos/
Disagreeing with myself would be *much* easier. I mean, I wrote a post about sex in Kung Fu movies (or the lack of) having recently gone on a major Jackie Chan binge. If I were to manufacture a conversation it would work so much better to have a back and forth, “is not, is too, you’re full of it, why do you think so?, this is stupid, no it’s not,” etc., than “Oh, how insightful I’ve never noticed that about Kung Fu movies, you are so brilliant,” because where do you go from there?
I suppose I could try to be ruder in my original postings, more controversial, only I don’t really want to. But if I was most interested in getting more traffic that’s what would work the best. Being *nicer* wouldn’t do me any good. Nor would posting agreeing comments get me any more traffic.
Was this guy trying to impress his *employers*?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html
You know, the Republicans are in some deep, deep shit. Hurricane season is usually winding down by November, but it looks like this year’s biggest storm may hit Tuesday, November 7th.
I had to post those poll results because it comes from your friends at Fox News. It must be depressing when even your allies are clear in their assesment – the ship is taking on a serious amount of water. QUICK, EVERYONE TO THE LIFEBOATS!
Perhaps we can get Bill Frist to take to the Senate floor an announce, in his own profssional medical opinon, that the Republican Party is NOT in a persistive vegatative state. =)
You know what, that’s really when it all began to go down hill for the GOP. Ever since the Teri Schiavo affair, the Republicans can’t catch a break at all. It’s been an entire year of nothing but bad news.
What’s that saying? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned…
3: And how many retired generals work for companies that are part of the military industrial complex in this nation? It’s become not a matter of what we need to provide for our national defense – it’s more about people in this country who have a vested financial interest in keeping us on military high alert so they can line their pockets.
I think ti’s pretty funny that as time goes on, more conservaives are turning against the conservative leadership and policies, the writers of this website work very hard to circle their wagons to continue defending these mis-steps. Interesting that someone here mentioned Terry Schiavo; that really was the jumping the shark moment for the republicans.
Don’t go all Hillary on us (he said, ducking)
#46 – Synova, I suspect the guy was just needing a small hit of emotional “revenge”, or superiority, or of feeling more in control of the discussion – whatever would give him that little hit of serotonin or endorphins so he feels like his life is better. And yeah, maybe he thought he was building up his effectiveness and/or “rightness” in his employer’s eyes??
And now for a small confession. I say the above, from having experienced the temptation. In fact, I am ashamed to say, I once briefly tried a puppet. I did NOT cast insults with it (I only insult people in my own name!!). I stopped it “quickly and forever”, after no more than 3-4 lines. Because, let’s face it – It is lame. Even though I was quite benign, compared to some others, the “benign” use of something illegitimate is the first step to the Dark Side. I instantly wished I hadn’t done it. And that’s the lesson, or my advice: Don’t even go there once. If you have any kind of self-honesty (and I like to believe I do), the loss of self-respect will kick in within seconds. Not worth it. When I see the chronic / long-term sock puppets of this place, well, I don’t know how they can do it (though again, I can slightly relate to the temptation they must undergo).
#47 – Now THE WEATHER is Republicans’ fault, Erik? ROTFLMAO 🙂
Erik, Kevin –it’s kind of interesting in this respect the rants you raise –aside from the fact that your rants fit the MSM spin.
While the Fox News polling you cite indicates a general dislike and disapproval of Congress and Bush, when polling is predicated on individual Congressional or state races and a voter’s own Congressional rep –be it GOP or Dem– those numbers go north… way north with a few notable exceptions. It’s an old agade: “I dont like Congress but I like my own representative.”
The polling usually done now includes all Americans –or at least the ones with conventional phone numbers at home. The real polls target proven and likely voters within a Congressional district and those numbers indicate little or no change (+/- 3 seats in the House and +/- 1 seat in the Senate… and only a handful of gubernatorial seats changing.
For instance, here in Michigan which is a blue state having gone Kerry and Gore in the last 2 Prez elections, the House delegation majority of GOPers is not in question; there is likely to be -0- change on either side of the aisle.
In the lone US Senate seat race, the incumbent Debbie Stabenow (remember her Senate prop placard saying “Dangerously Incompetent” a few short weeks ago?) is in serious political trouble even with a contested GOP primary and no front runner to date.
The Democrat Governor –we call her Governor Good Smile– is dead even with a cookie cutter candidate who’s only done image building ads, no negative ads yet. Yikes, that’s real bad.
Tough news for the folks who want to claim “Death to the GOP” already.
Let’s remember, the polling done now is immaterial. It could mean average (likely non-voting) citizens hate gas prices, hate seeing soldiers killed in Iraq and are blaming Bush and the Congress for everything, including the weather.
It doesn’t sell newspapers or provide a platform for the political pundits to gaggle on, but it’s the right focus for these polls and their applicability.
Synova said…
“But if I was most interested in getting more traffic…”
Syn honey…
I just spent thirty minutes trying to comment on your blog, only to be completely vexed by the fakakta registration process I was told I had to endure. FEH!
Well, I tried, right?
Still love ya, baby!
Eric in Hollywood
Be honest for once in your life.
Actually, if I wanted to be DIShonest, I would have denied that I wrote it. What I did was hit “Say it” by accident.
He did what he could given the outcry of conservative and Republican citizens and members of Congress.
Really? Since when does that strip the President of the power of the veto?
The dishonesty here, Jimmy, comes when people like yourself cannot admit that Clinton a) lied to you and b) stripped you of rights for political gain and out of sheer hateful homophobia.
The reason you cannot, though, is simple; it would mean admitting that you were conned.
Matt nails it exactly. Erik can wave poll remarks all he wants, but it’s the elections that count.
Also, Fox brings up the main issue:
By three-to-one the public says the recent news reports they have been hearing have been more bad news stories (54 percent) than good news on the economy (17 percent).
In short, what’s keeping the economy down is the media’s reporting on it — a media that’s already shown they will fake, forge, and lie about anything as long as it smears the Bush administration.
Wrong North Dallas Thirty.
What’s keeping people down on the economy has nothing to do with the media. It does however have to do with the fact that for the past month, every freakin’ time I drive by the gas station, the price is anywhere from 2 to 5 cents HIGHER than it was the day before, to the point now that it is 3 dollars for a damn gallon of gas!
They used to say cottom was king. Today, oil is king. And if gas prices are over $3 a gallon on election day in most parts of the country, the GOP can forget about winning.
IT WILL BE A BLOODBATH.
And Michigan-Matt, since you are a non-believer, you might want to read this:
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/20/225238.shtml
And this:
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/21/133042.shtml?s=ic
Though NY has been turning blue for about a decade now. 9/11 prolonged Govenor Pataki’s political life, but even he couldn’t win statewide office in NY anymore. The once vaunted Republican machine on Long Island has not only broken down, it’s been completely dismantled. Where as the GOP once held all but 1 of the 15 state legislature seats on Long Island, they today hold just one and even that seat they may lose this year. So, New York has been turning solidly blue for over a decade, but this election cycle may complete the transformation.
Which is good because if Elliot Spitzer can get a favorable majority in the state legislature, he can legalize gay marriage and I can move back to New York.
Erik-
I see you must be one of those people who on Election Day believes more in the exit polls results, than of the actual votes cast.
(See: Democrats’ screeching that the exit polls had Kerry winning Ohio)
I’ll take my chances with the American people on Election Day. I have great confidence they do not want Congress run by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the other members of the al Qaeda sympathizing-party of the Left.
It does however have to do with the fact that for the past month, every freakin’ time I drive by the gas station, the price is anywhere from 2 to 5 cents HIGHER than it was the day before, to the point now that it is 3 dollars for a damn gallon of gas!
And how will you feel when you find out that, when you elect Democrats, they will impose additional surcharges and taxes on gasoline so that it becomes $3.50 a gallon, as they have wanted to do for years?
Those sort of things will be coming out shortly. That’s the problem with Dems; they never realize that their socialist logic doesn’t fly with working and money-earning Americans.
#54 It’s blogspot. What did it do?
I hate having to register, but I guess I registered for blogspot and typepad a long time ago and that covers most so I didn’t think about it.
And I really want to hear whatever it is you had to say. 🙁
North Dallas Thirty:
Well, the IMF did recently say the US government should add a gas tax to curb consumption. But still, that’s not going to be the issue this time around. The issue is going to be price fixing and gouging. Even Bill O’Reilly believes the oil companies are price gouging. And you see, when Americans want the Congress to go after big business, in this instance, big oil, they don’t elect Republicans to do it. So, if that’s the mood of the country, the Democrats will win.
But still, that’s not going to be the issue this time around. The issue is going to be price fixing and gouging.
As it always is when the moonbat Democrats want to divert attention from their plans to raise taxes on gasoline and increase the price.
But unfortunately, Erik, since you’re a leftist and Democrat, you’re not used to dealing with an intelligent audience.
If oil companies WERE price-fixing, the mere threat of an investigation would dump gas prices instantly. Indeed, they’d never come down at all, and certainly not to the levels that they fell post-Katrina and Rita.
Moreover, if matters were that simple, what would stop the oil companies from dropping prices right before the election to ensure they have a “friendly” Congress?
An intelligent person would look at this and say that the Democrats need to find a different issue. But unfortunately, raising taxes on working Americans and profitable businesses to punish them, as the Democrats want to do, is not publicly palatable. So they push these faux issues in the hope that enough of the American electorate is dumb enough to believe them.
That’s why Dems keep losing elections.
“…2 to 5 cents HIGHER than it was the day before, to the point now that it is 3 dollars for a damn gallon of gas!”
I feel your pain there. Recently we have been having gas shortages here and also prices steeply climbing through $3, but the main reason for the sudden climb is that gasoline with an ethanol additive is replacing an existing formula that is being removed. The old gas must be drained from existing storage tanks before they are filled with the new formula.
#55. Political gain with whom??? And sheer, hateful homophobia???
As I said, both parties are pathetic on gay rights. One more so than the other…
Love,
The slutty whore
#57
Americans sure seem like whiny bastards when talking about gas prices.
Gas at $1.89/gallon costs me 9.5 cents of fuel to drive a mile.
Gas at $2.89/gallon costs me 16 cents of fuel to drive a mile.
Am I willing to either not go that mile or choose to walk that mile for 6 1/2 cents. I don’t think so.
If I drive 300 miles a week, I’ll have to give up one pizza, five packs of ciggies or two twelve packs of beer to make up for it. Poor me….
SAY…I HOPE YOU GAY PATRIOTS ARE PAYING NO ATTENTION TO THE obviously anti-American, conservative-baiting whores. This is still a free country! No… thanks to them!
Shut the f*ck up you liberal whores, WE’LL PROTECT AMERICA as you read your New York Times while painting your nails.
Erik, those are some pretty darn aggressive predictions you’re making there, pal.
So what happens to you, when they don’t come true? (i.e. GOP keeps control of at least 1 house of Congress, as most observers think likely)
Do you eat crow?
Do you re-think your philosophy that puts you so foolishly out of touch with reality?
Or do you maybe go deeper into moonbat land, alleging conspiracies or at least the “stupidity” of the American electorate? – Do you move to Canada?
O’Reilly talks about price gouging because he’s economics illiterate. There is no price gouging. You want cheaper gas? Then either you increase the supply or reduce demand, and you remove regulation and disincentives to build refineries. No matter what the supply, US demand always goes up in the spring and summer.
Increase the supply. Drill offshore and in Alaska. Place the burden of producing boutique blends where it belongs, on the shoulders of the voters who demand them. Let California buy the oil from the companies and produce its own boutique blends. The price of gas in loony la-la Californistan will go through the roof, but their envirowacko blends won’t drive prices further up for the rest of the nation.
“Price gouging” is an idiot’s mantra.
I wasn’t sure where to post this, but this one seemed like the closest related topic compared to all the others (or at least the most recent). It should really have its own topic. As someone who served in the USN honorably for six years, this is really a bummer. You all should be really pissed about this. You can find out more on sldn’s website, at http://www.sldn.org (yes, most of them are liberal, but its a good organization that many, MANY active duty military people turn to when facing DADT issues).
“Washington, DC – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has granted the government’s motion to dismiss in Cook v. Rumsfeld, a constitutional challenge to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. The decision, from Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., was released on April 24.”
HollywoodNeoCon — April 20, 2006 @ 11:34 am – April 20, 2006
Call him (Rumsfeld) an asshole, call him arrogant, but kindly refrain from assuming that somehow, you’re in a position to evaluate his ability to lead the armed forces.
As you wish. I’ll call him the lead lemming. If you all want to follow him off the cliff, please feel free to do so. Just don’t do it on my nickel.
raj above writes “…As you wish. I’ll call him the lead lemming. If you all want to follow him off the cliff, please feel free to do so. Just don’t do it on my nickel.”
Curious you should offer that. I wish I had a nickel for every time the Left and MSM has labeled Rumsfeld “in trouble” or “on his way out” or “he must resign”… by my count, I’d have more money than Bruce’s entire terrific blog is worth at present.
Thank you Don Rumsfeld for continuing to serve our country, the Nation, and the free world.
FYI, Bruce’s blog appears to translate into $127,021.50 –but I think it’s priceless. As I do with Rumsfeld’s titan effort to reform the military, bring efficiencies to our combat troops, realign bases and reposition troops, and bring 21st Century change into an institution that fought even allowing a Marine –a Marine for cyin’ out loud– to be Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
You go Rummie. Keep kicking those butts for the sake of our kids’ future and the defense of American interests abroad, security at home.
#74 Michigan-Matt — April 25, 2006 @ 1:51 pm – April 25, 2006
FYI, Bruce’s blog appears to translate into $127,021.50 –but I think it’s priceless. As I do with Rumsfeld’s titan effort to reform the military…
You may be correct. On the other hand, it may be that you should have appended “ic” at the end of “titan.” As far as I can tell, those who are making out like bandits under Rummy’s tutelage are the contractors. And those who survive Rummy’s military, who go to work for the contractors, will make out like bandits, too.