April 16, 2006
In the Shadow of MacArthur
General Douglas MacArthur, a man used to winning wars, was deeply dissatisfied with the limited Allied goals in Korea. He bitterly resented sending men to die for such goals, and, while still Supreme Allied Commander, spoke out publicly about his frustration with the way Harry Truman was conducting the war.
Truman's response:
With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the United States Government and of the United Nations in matters pertaining to his official duties.The President's hand was forced. Regardless of the relative merits of Truman's strategy versus what MacArthur believed was right, the American military must submit to civilian authority. We are not, after all, the Soviet Union. General MacArthur knew this, and spoke out anyway, knowing that it would lead to his relief from command, and the end of his long and distinguished service. Perhaps he considered the lives of the men he led more important than his career.
What then, to make of the six American generals who have publicly demanded the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? Their statements about the conduct of the Iraqi theater of the War on Terror would suggest that things are quite dire indeed. Men are dying needlessly, they say.
Why then, did not one of these generals feel that these men were more important than his own career?
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Posted by: Bluto at
10:25 PM
| Comments (41)
| Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.
1
>>>Why then, did not one of these generals feel that these men were more important than his own career?
I don't know what you mean by that. Presumably you mean that they should have spoken up while still in active service? Well, we don't know that they didn't do that. And had you heard they spoke up during their active service, would you now be calling for their firing due to insubordination?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 16, 2006 10:57 PM (8e/V4)
2
I am kicking this very topic around right now at Blogger Beer. I found an article from the Naval War College Review written in 2002.
The author comes down clearly against the six generals speaking out. In fact, he talks about how Generals used to not vote in order to not become embroiled in politics and perhaps having to execute orders that offended their political sensibilities.
This all changed throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s when the Democratic Party became overtly hostile to the military. The Republican party filled the vacuum and the Military realized the political situation and as we see the military generally votes for Republicans.
Rumsfeld is referred to as being secretive. At first the secretness is taken as a bad thing but later the author goes onto explain he must be secret so the Pentagon Generals don't get wind of Rummy's ideas and then work to defeat them. It is also noted that Colin Powell is extremely effective at getting what he wants and managed to get quite a few of his policy preferences into official govt. policy during his tenure as the head of the JCS, this is one reason the current administration needed Rumsfeld in office to be able to counter Powell.
One Pentagon general was quoted as referring to the civilians in charge of the Military as the enemy. Not a good thing.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 16, 2006 11:08 PM (43BLH)
3
JC,
Military officers are supposed to advise and counsel their superiors. However, in the end their superiors give the orders and the subordinate officer's job is to execute those orders.
The idea of those generals speaking up and criticizing their superior is bad. It is bad now, it was bad when they were calling their Commander in Chief a philandering, draft-dodging, dope-smoker.
In fact, what does much of the criticism center on? The fact we did not invade with 300,000; 400,000; or 500,000+ troops. Something popularly known as the Powell Doctrine a policy Colin Powell finagled into national policy when he was a general.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 16, 2006 11:16 PM (43BLH)
4
DPB; This is an odd argument...MacArthur was fired because of a unilateral challenge to civilian rule, i.e. he wanted to begin the invasion of China immediately after their entry into the Korean war. No more, no less.
Far from a hero who did what he felt he needed to do despite the consequences, MacArthur was a military man who forgot the role of the military in the US; he challenged not Truman, but the office of President, in direct contradiction of his duty to uphold civilian government.
I myself have seen nothing to support the thesis he took these steps and sacrificed his career for his men.
On the other hand, the current six recalled their place in civilian government, and supported its leadership until they could not and retired or resigned. These fellows did the right thing at the right time, at least by the measure of the Constitution.
Again, speculation they sat in silence to further their careers is just that. What's to say those who have not retired or resigned are more deserving of that speculation?
Posted by: Glenn at April 16, 2006 11:21 PM (oxMjD)
5
JC, if these former generals felt that their complaints were so urgent that they needed to publicly attack the secretary of defense (and undermine civilian control of the military), then they SHOULD have done so while still serving and taken the consequences, as MacArthur did.
If you thought people were dying needlessly and you might be able to address the situation by taking an action that would likely get you fired, wouldn't you do it anyway?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 12:17 AM (RHG+K)
6
By misusing the American military to steal Iraqi oil you have placed us on the bad side of our LORD and Savior, Jesus Christ.
http://www.deanberryministries.org/index3.html
Posted by: DEAN BERRY -- REAL AMERICAN at April 17, 2006 05:15 AM (h/YSB)
7
Don't you love how people who can't be bothered to make a legitimate argument think it's funny to create a script to post ignorant garbage for them?
Ooooh, so clever. They must have picked up a Basic book and think they're awesome because they read the first 2 chapters.
Posted by: RanbaRal at April 17, 2006 07:44 AM (GyNTD)
8
Bluto,
maybe those generals did speak up during their active service, but in a way that wasn't public and political. I'm willing to bet they did. And I don't see a problem with that.
Now, because they're retired and because the lives of their men are that important, they're willing to make it political. I don't see the problem.
The issue is whether what they're saying makes any sense. Will changing Rumsfeld make any difference now? I've heard that it won't.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 08:28 AM (8e/V4)
9
>>>By misusing the American military to steal Iraqi oil
When do we finally get to see some of that oil?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 08:52 AM (8e/V4)
10
Glen,
I don't agree with you. As former military commanders their voices still counts quite a bit as military commanders. After all McArthur did say something about old generals.
These six are still out of line even though they are retired.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 17, 2006 08:59 AM (43BLH)
11
No, JC, they're claiming they knew from the start that there would be problems. If so, and they feel this strongly about it, they should have risked their precious careers to speak out. Otherwise, they're not generals anymore, they're just politicians.
I'm willing to bet that Rumsfeld is one of those my-way-or-the-highway types; a managment style that I personally find needlessly abrasive, but common nonetheless. And even more common among high-ranking military officers, who have the full weight of the UMJC behind them.
Therefore, the reason they didn't speak out is that this is more about bruised egos than anything else.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 09:02 AM (RHG+K)
12
Bluto those generals swore an oath to defend the constitution which places our military UNDER the control of our elected leaders. They resigned and gave up their promising careers with multiple stars so that they could speak freely. This was something that General MacArthur chose not to do. In this country our military should not publicly criticize their superiors neither civillian nor uniformed. It is part of the tradition called "chain of command" deemed esential to morale and discipline. I think that it was for their troops that they did resign and then go public.
Posted by: john Ryan at April 17, 2006 09:20 AM (TcoRJ)
13
John--yes, it is possible they out of line with their comments; perhaps they should remain silent in retirement rather than armchair quarterbacking after the fact. My response was more to Bluto's posit that MacArthur's anti-democratic insubordination was somehow noble and selfless in comparison to those recently speaking out against Rumsfeld -- an argument many if not most would find a bit of a stretch.
Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 09:33 AM (UHKaK)
14
Oops--comment above directed to Marcus...hello Monday.
Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 09:35 AM (UHKaK)
15
"No, JC, they're claiming they knew from the start that there would be problems. If so, and they feel this strongly about it, they should have risked their precious careers to speak out."
Yes, they are and yes, they did, especially Shinseki.
Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 09:38 AM (UHKaK)
16
The reason we have not seen any oil yet is because of the bigger picture. The big business plan is to remain there as long as possible. That is good for business. In the meantime the oil sits, no one gets it. Not China nor India. We win!
That's why Rummy remains even though he states that he doesn't know if there are 3, 4, 5, or 6000 generals. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the fat cats keep getting fatter!
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 09:53 AM (FCC6c)
17
Iraq at 75 % production at double the price is hardly sitting.
Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 10:13 AM (D3+20)
18
>>>In the meantime the oil sits, no one gets it. Not China nor India. We win!
Larry,
advanced dementia is a symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Seek therapy.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 10:24 AM (8e/V4)
19
I stand corrected on the oil. Happy day Exxon!
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 10:26 AM (FCC6c)
20
Glenn: I'm not arguing that MacArthur was correct, only that he had the balls to speak out despite the consequences. These generals didn't.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 10:31 AM (RHG+K)
21
Bluto
JC was right coming out the gate - you can't have it both ways.
There is "disagreement" throughout the ranks - including myself. Hell, its natural! There is also plenty who don't - or have yet to make their opinion clear.
I would love a discussion on the points involved - but not here on Jawa - it would only attract the anti-admin, anti-war rabble.
There are three words to remember - MISSION, CONCEPT, EXECUTION.
What you are hearing today is complaints about CONCEPT AND EXECUTION ..... NOT MISSION!!!!
There is no discension on MISSION - they all believe in the purpose, original goal, victory etc. Because of this, the lib/left Dems CAN NOT really embrace them .... nor will they rally to a Dem ... a gung ho victory in Iraq Dem?????? Ain't no such animal.
Bitchin' is a right within the military - accept it and respect it.
Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 10:37 AM (4mgfY)
22
Bluto, I see where you're coming from. But as for the current crop o' generals, how can you be certain they didn't speak up, though admittedly not with the drama (or insubordination) of MacArthur?
Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 10:57 AM (UHKaK)
23
Troll wrote - as he girlishly giggled and masturbated.
Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 11:10 AM (4mgfY)
24
Administrator: The skull-fucker is back! Zap 'em!
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 11:10 AM (FCC6c)
25
Glenn,
Okay, I do agree with your point about McArthur. Mc was out of line and likewise so are the current crop of six generals.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 17, 2006 11:27 AM (43BLH)
26
Glenn (and hondo and JC): I'm not addressing the merit of their complaints here. What I'm saying is that, if the situation is SO dire that they feel the need to attack the secretary of defense, then why wait? Whatever you think of MacArthur's position (and there's little doubt, that, like many generals, Mac was an egotistical prima donna) he felt that the situation was so dire that it was worth risking his career. These generals didn't.
Therefore, either the situation is not as dire as they portray, or they felt their careers were more important than addressing it, while still serving.
And to JC or hondo, or whoever mentioned the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, the meaning of that oath is that protecting the Constitution takes precedence over protecting one's own life. Are you arguing that it doesn't take precedence over one's career?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 11:49 AM (RHG+K)
27
Bluto, evidently they DID confront Rumsfeld; they merely chose to voice their disagreements in a way more fitting with our form of civilian-lead government by retiring rather than going on Fox News, CNN, etc. I feel that is eminently less self-serving than MacArthur's ploy.
Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 12:00 PM (UHKaK)
28
>>>then why wait?
I don't see how they "waited" at all. I'm assuming they appealed to the chain of command while they were in active service, then they went outside the chain of command when they retired. It seems to me they acted in the finest traditions of the military.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 12:07 PM (8e/V4)
29
JC,
Quite a few of the old school generals refused to even vote, lest it colored their actions against their civilian leadership. Now, we have generals actively working against the civilian leadership and even when they retire their voices carry much weight with their active duty colleagues.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 17, 2006 12:44 PM (43BLH)
30
Bluto
Mac went public because he was an egomanic who felt he was above the rules. he wasn't nicknamed Lil' Ceasar for nothing (great book BTW - and a great general). Its not a good comparison.
The retired generals complaints are varied, and in my opinion mostly valid - they are just being vocal about it now because they can - I accept public bitchin' under these circumstances.
You and many others are making the mistake and seeing this as a partisan political thing - it is not!
Attempting to make it partisan is the MSM, Libs/left and Dems. To them, attacking Rumsfeld = attacking Bush as part of pure partisan politics. This is what your being goaded into responding to.
As prove I offer the following .... their complaints are very specific (I know what they are) - but the MSM and opposition ARE AVOIDING THE SPECIFICS! Instead they offer up generalities and the fact that there is disagreement in the first place (as if that alone is damning).
I know these generals - their sole goal is victory for America - for the opposition it is defeat for Bush (and America if necessary)!
Don't let yourself be conned into thinking its anything else but another attempt by the opposition to play whatever is available.
These are good men Bluto - I'm just sorry an issue like this is being played out like this.
Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 02:12 PM (4mgfY)
31
Marcus,
I don't mind generals voicing their opinions when it comes to how a war should be waged.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 02:44 PM (8e/V4)
32
>>>Mc was out of line and likewise so are the current crop of six generals.
No, because McArthur did not respect the chain of command and politicized it while still serving in the military. He was therefore insubordinate.
These generals, on the other hand, respected the chain of command, and waited until they were retired before they went public about it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 02:54 PM (8e/V4)
33
hondo, if their goal really is "victory for America" then they are idiots.
JC- if MacArthur spoke up because he was a prima donna, then he was wrong. But if he spoke up because men under his command were dying needlessly, then he was morally right. Certainly, MacArthur knew there could be only one outcome for his career.
I don't know which it was, but I do know that he was correct strategically, just as Patton was when he wanted to march on to Moscow after Berlin.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 09:14 PM (RHG+K)
34
Bluto
Obviously we disagree - but we are both still marching to the same song. I'm just asking you to extend the same recognition to these generals (they may be idiots - including myself - who knows - I've been wrong - that's life).
The opposition looking on sees this as an opportunity for them - they stupidly think that if we disagree - then one of us must agree with them. That is clearly far from the truth - let them dream on.
You, I, JC and the others, the general etc. may disagree, but collectively we all can agree on telling the lib/left to go fuck itself.
Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 09:55 PM (4mgfY)
35
hondo, what I mean is: how could they have expected the press to play this any differently? They were generals for God's sake, they should know how this works by now.
They come out demanding that Rumsfeld resign and they don't think it's going to be bad for the war effort? C'mon.
And the MSM doesn't care what the generals really want; they got their dump Rumsfeld quote and that's all that matters to them.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 10:08 PM (RHG+K)
36
Bluto
Ref Mac - I'm an old CAV hand - Scout RECON no less. for several generations we have harbored an anger and hatred for Mac over the horse incident of '35. History buffs will know what I'm talking about.
Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 10:13 PM (4mgfY)
37
HOndo--at least one of the generals was publicly opposed to the war in Iraq before it started (zinni) and another (newcomb) says he opposed it in the internal debate before it started. I agree the others were/are supporters of it. Also, there are "victory in Iraq" dems--Joe Lieberman is one. Bush loves him for a reason.
Bluto--MacArthur was strategically correct? IE, we should have nuked bases in China? Did we have the manpower to defeat Red CHina in 52? 53? "Unleash Chiang Ka Shek" is a heck of a slogan, but it wasn't much of a reality.
Before that, MacArthur assured centcom that China would not intervene to save NK as he approached the China border. I think the Chinese response shows that Mac was wrong.
I also question whether America in 45 would have supported an invasion of Russia. Nor am I certain that we would have won where Hitler failed, without using nukes against the Russians (and remember, we didn't have any more for a several months after Aug 9, 1945). Our infantry and air force were quite good in 45, and our navy was far superior to the Soviet's. But I haven't seen a convincing war game that says we beat the Ruskies in 45, even assuming a unified alliance behind us. And, to put it mildly, if you are not in Moscow by November, you are fucked. Ask Rundstedt. Ask Napoleon. Patton was brilliant tactically, but I'm very thankful he was never involved in strategic planning. Ike was right about that.
Posted by: jd at April 18, 2006 11:19 AM (uT71O)
38
jd, I said strategically, not tactically, specifically because of the nukes. Nukes were better as a threat, Mac wanted to use them as a first option. And Moscow wasn't the key, the Ukraine was.
Militarily we would have run over the Russians; the last four years of their war effort against the Nazis were almost totally supplied by the Allies. The problem was political, as is the problem today with the Iraqi theater of the War on Terror. You can excuse people in forty-five, they had just been through a desparate struggle and convincing them that our erstwhile "valiant ally" Stalin was a monster would have been quite a stretch.
Just because something isn't possible politically doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 18, 2006 11:41 AM (RHG+K)
39
Well, at least we agree that the right thing to do is often not politically possible! I just don't know if the Soviets would have collapsed like a cheap suit. There have been some interesting analyses about the worth of one soldier in WWII, as a fighting unit. The Germans were the best, in terms of professional killing prowess. Our economic dominance was impressive, and perhaps it would have carried us to victory, as it did not the Germans.
Interesting discussion, surely.
Posted by: jd at April 18, 2006 12:08 PM (uT71O)
40
My grandfather served under him twice. He disliked a couple things he did. One was about being left to the Japs when he went to Europe. Before Germany fell he says a lot of soldiers in the Pacific felt a bit under supported. He says he wanted/thought he should be President.
Posted by: Howie at April 18, 2006 04:12 PM (D3+20)
41
MacArthur went to Europe?
My grandfather served with him too--twice. Once in WWII, and again in Korea. As an old China hand, my grandfather was less than thrilled with Mac. I never heard him say much about Mac, though, as he died when I was eight.
Posted by: jd at April 18, 2006 10:00 PM (uT71O)
April 13, 2006
You're Out of Order, Sergeant
It's not often that I find anything to praise in the Washington Post, but today I give them kudos for running this piece by the executive director of Vets for Freedom.
Democratic representatives Jim Moran of Virginia and John Murtha from Pennsylvania organized a purported "townhall meeting", which was in reality a cheerleading session for anti-war activists, including Code Pink and MoveOn.org, who helped organize the event.
During the question and answer session a wounded veteran got up and violated the agenda: more...
Posted by: Bluto at
08:41 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.
1
This was a good piece. Also today, CNN did a BRUTAL attack on Conyers for having his staff babysit and illegally work on campaigns. Seems like the liberal media is getting off message. Someone call the leaders of the conspiracy in LA and New York...
Posted by: jd at April 13, 2006 10:18 AM (uT71O)
2
>>>It was indeed a statement; a statement from both a constituent and a veteran that should have elicited something more than silence or a dismissive comment highlighting a supposed breach of protocol.
Hey Liberals, if you really "support the troops", then why don't you give a flying frak what THEY think? Because you DON'T support the troops you frakking liars.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 13, 2006 10:20 AM (8e/V4)
3
Yeah, and I love all the discussion on conservative websites of all the generals now calling for Rummy's head because he's an incompetent and the war in Iraq has been a disaster. Lots of military opinions aren't listened to, by those on the right and the left.
Posted by: jd at April 13, 2006 01:29 PM (aqTJB)
4
And I love how liberals like jd show their respect for the troops by throwing out as many of their absentee ballots as they can.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 13, 2006 01:41 PM (RHG+K)
5
jd,
you Libs find about 3 retired generals who are against the war-- out of THOUSANDS who are for it-- and that's supposed to be news? It isn't.
Yet the Left will ignore the vast MAJORITY of troops and highlight a few malcontents because that's what furthers their anti-American agenda.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 13, 2006 01:46 PM (8e/V4)
6
Actually, I know some people in the Pentagon who know batiste. They are divided on how representative his opinion is of people at the top level. There is strong evidence that it is a minority view--ie, many of the commanding officers in Iraq are in their third or second rotations. They had the choices he had, and they chose to go. However,others I've talked to point out how unusual it is for ANY retired generals to criticize the Sec of Def, let alone ones as distinguished as these guys, and all together in timing. As for troop opinion, that's mostly anecdotal. I think it is a mixed bag, but that's an opinion based on little more than the MSM, so your mileage may vary. I know many people who have been to Iraq, some service, some not, and they say different things about troop morale (and surely that is a moving target, as well. It has to be trending down, though).
My point was, if we are to express SHOCK that the WPost prints this, why is that the conservative blogs like this one are ignoring the drumbeat for Rummy's removal? These are not liberal wackos. These are career officers of great stature and direct knowledge of his competence. Did you hear calls like that from ANY generals during the tenure of ANY of Clinton's Sec of Defs? A little rumbling for Aspin, but nothing like this. This is new. This is different. It took a long time for generals, ANY generals, to criticize McNamara. We've got six and counting calling for Rummy to be fired for incompetence. This is news, unless you are a conservative blogger, burying his head in the sand like the idiots on South Park.
Posted by: jd at April 14, 2006 09:19 AM (aqTJB)
7
>>>My point was, if we are to express SHOCK that the WPost prints this, why is that the conservative blogs like this one are ignoring the drumbeat for Rummy's removal?
I'll admit you do have a point there. Rummy is to this war what McNamara was to Viet Nam. I don't care what you Libs say about him, but when most generals hate him there's a real problem.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 14, 2006 12:44 PM (8e/V4)
8
I think Rusty called for Rummy to go several weeks ago. So we've not been ignoring it we were just too far ahead. I have not posted on that true so OK that's true. Bush is stubborn, probably the more times you say it the less likely he is to do it.
I did have one idea I may use. Rather than say resign how about retire. I doubt he will things may turn around here PDQ I get that feeling.
Posted by: Howie at April 14, 2006 12:59 PM (D3+20)
9
what does it say about a leader who, the more someone is criticized for incompetence, the less likely he is to remove him?
"Doing a heckuva job, Rummy"
I guess it will take a crisp, clear, specific fiasco like Katrina to get Rummy out of there.
Actually, I think Rummy should be out in two months. No way will the Repubs want to go into the midterms with this albatross. They have to show some change on Iraq or they'll lose the Senate and the House. Easiest way to do that is to boot Rummy.
Posted by: jd at April 14, 2006 01:33 PM (aqTJB)
10
but jd, you're against the Iraq war, period. So HOW we go about fighting it shouldn't really be your concern, now should it? This is just gotcha politics to you.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 14, 2006 03:49 PM (8e/V4)
11
True, Carolos, there is an element of "I saw this coming" in my attitude towards this. But regardless of how one feels about the Iraq war, any patriotic American would want it to be run competently. It's like people who oppose welfare on principle. I think most of them would still say--if we are going to have it, let's at least have a well-run program I disagree with. If the guy running it is incompetent, and top people in his org are starting to say fire the bastard, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, would be their attitude, I think.
Incidentally, unlike a lot of generals and pentagon folk, I was on Rummy's side on the military modernization. Rumsfeld was right to cancel or seek to cancel several weapons programs that were outdated and coldwar relics, and right to put money into new technologies. He was right, and many generals wrong, about the lean fighting force capabilities in taking afghanistan and iraq. He was wrong, and Shinseki right, about the force necessary to win the occupation, however. And it is his MANY failures as a leader in Iraq which demand his removal.
Posted by: jd at April 14, 2006 03:56 PM (aqTJB)
12
Man" is Keeping Rusty Down »
April 14, 2006
Fearsome Mujahadeen
Vonski has obtained and published a new Jihadi Video. LMAO- A must see!.
Posted by Howie at April 14, 2006 03:23 PM | TrackBack
Comments
I wonder if his rifle sounds like pocketa pocketa pocketa when he fires?
Wa-hoo! I'm back on! Thanks to the powers that be! And a little prodding and begging! I know it couldn't be for my keen insight! Ya'll have a Happy Easter! And corncider this:
Rumsfeld: " There are I don't know 3, 4, 5, 6,000 generals .... "
Shouldn't the Secretary of Defense have a better idea how many generals there are? Let's see, he's been on the job now what 2, 3, 4, 5 years? That's cause enough to step down! But then again he has the backing of President Bush ... however much that is worth!?
Posted by: Hailus at April 14, 2006 08:35 PM (FCC6c)
13
Whoops! Sorry I copied and pasted and thought I had eliminated all comments but my own! My apologies!
Posted by: Hailus at April 14, 2006 08:37 PM (FCC6c)
14
Yeah, that's kind of a big howler. Remember when people jumped on Dean during his campaign for not knowing how many troops we had in our military? This is a much bigger mistake.
He'll be fired soon. Sorry, he'll resign, and get a presidential medal of freedom, which is the sure sign of incompetence these days. Tenant gets one, Bremer gets one, how bad do you gotta screw up before you aren't eligible for that one?
Posted by: jd at April 14, 2006 10:05 PM (uT71O)
April 04, 2006
Seattle Ballot Measure Bans Military Recruiters
(Seattle, Washington) The Garfield High School PTSA (Parent Teacher Student Association) has collected enough signatures to put an anti-war measure on the city-wide November ballot. Called the College Not Combat Initiative, I-86, the initiative will decide whether military recruiters should be allowed on Seattle city property and in schools.
In the past, the Garfield PTSA has spearheaded anti-military measures with most people believing them to be symbolic. However, supporters disagree.
From Seattle Times:
Amy Hagopian, president of Garfield's PTSA, is a lead organizer of the initiative effort. She bristles at the word "symbolic" and compares the initiative to effective historical protests such as civil-rights sit-ins.In my opinion, the comparison to civil rights protests is inappropriate. Nonetheless, although it's ostensibly symbolic, the proposal, if passed, would establish a committee to report on "whether the public schools and the city were inadvertently encouraging recruiting."
It's not clear exactly what comprises 'inadvertent encouragement.' It is clear, however, that the parent-teacher association seems to pay more attention to promoting a liberal political agenda than educating students in reading, writing, and arithmetic.
From Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
10:04 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Do some more research on this one Jawa. Amy Hagopian use to be a member of the Garfield PTSA, but was asked to step down after the PTSA tried to pass a similar measure and the Federal Government stepped in and said "Fine, but we will take all our money away from Seattle School district" Upon which caused a minor scandal in Seattle since the board ask Mrs. Hagopian to step down and pulled back from passing the measure. It has also been reported in Seattle media that she has verbally harrassed military recuriters when they have shown up to Garfield High School. Mrs. Hagopian is primarly intrested not in the student of her school nor of Seattle, but of protesting what she calls "the illegal war in Iraq and Afghanistan" and of President Bush in general. It is a shame, going to use the kids of a city as part of a power play.
Posted by: Charles at April 04, 2006 11:55 PM (s3V7c)
2
This quote is a chestnut for me:
"She bristles at the word "symbolic" and compares the initiative to effective historical protests such as civil-rights sit-ins."
It says something about this person that she resents being seen as making a symbolic statement and would rather be compared to a person who sits on the floor until she is hauled away like a stubborn child.
As to the initiative, being a Seattle citizen I would vote for it so long as they made it content-neutral and charged their committee with reporting on "whether the public schools and the city were inadvertently encouraging pacifism."
Amateurs. Don't these people know anything about building a coalition?
Posted by: ShannonKW at April 05, 2006 02:32 AM (dT1MB)
3
Gee -- didn't the Supreme Court more or less settle this issue a couple of weeks ago when it dealt with law schools refusing access to recruiters. How much more would the logic of the decision apply to public schools, which receive large amounts of government funding?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 05, 2006 04:06 AM (zrfbY)
4
Hey! No problem. We need a few military re-deployments. ... If this passes, in addition to cutting off Federal Money to Seattle schools, we can close Ft. Lewis and cancel all those nasty military contracts at Boeing and Microsoft. You know, we don't want to corrupt the children of Seattle with all this militaristic jingoism.
Posted by: Charlie at April 05, 2006 06:03 AM (DwY9A)
5
I hope they reject this stupid measure and vote to oust these PTA leftists
Posted by: sandpiper at April 05, 2006 08:36 AM (O2c+K)
6
No, no, let's all agree that it's not symbolic. It's purposefully refusing to do their share to contribute to the defense of the country.
The only real question is what is the rest of the country going to do about it?
Posted by: TM Lutas at April 05, 2006 04:23 PM (z/jms)
7
You can try to dismiss it by saying that it's just some wacky PTA leftists, but what about the 60% of San Francisco voters who voted yes on a similar initiative last year? Or the 24 out of 30 Wisconsin cities that just voted against the War in Iraq? Are all of these people just "PTA leftists"?
Posted by: Chris at April 07, 2006 04:22 PM (ZrVR1)
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
57kb generated in CPU 0.0197, elapsed 0.1318 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1027 seconds, 291 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1027 seconds, 291 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
