Recently, six retired generals -- including former commanders of two Army divisions that saw combat in Iraq -- have called for Rumsfeld to resign.
They accuse him of ignoring advice from senior officers about how to prosecute the war and sending too few troops into Iraq to manage the occupation after the March 2003 invasion.
Those calling for Rumsfeld's resignation are retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who led the 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq; former U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Anthony Zinni; retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005; retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton; retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs; and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold.
In addition, it seems the public feels simularly. I recently participated in a poll on CNN.com asking whether or not you felt that Rumsfeld needed to resign.
| Do you think it is time for a new Defense Secretary? | |||
 |
|||
| Yes |    |
85% | 107775 votes |
 |
|||
| No |   |
15% | 18573 votes |
| Total: 126348 votes | |||
|
|||
Was the consensus when I voted. Although I must note that this is not a scientificly proven study but merely an opinion poll of those who read http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/18/rumsfeld/index.html (print in italics taken from article cited)
So what is Bush's overall response... "I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
Now I am not exactly sure what the Secretary of Defense does, but I would argue that he is behind the plan, strategies, financing, and all the other paper work associated with our military. If you ask many Americans, this war has taken a horrible turn for the worse -- real cost vs. estimated cost (not just monetary), real time and effort involved vs. estimated time and effort involved. In addition, the generals all claim that a lack of serious consideration of what they advised has directly contributed to the failed sense our nation is steadily adopting towards the war in Iraq. With all the controversy, one would think that Bush should actually consider these generals opinions -- being that not considering their has created the pickle we currently are debating. Why does Bush feel the need to be loyal to Rumsfeld? Why did Rumsfeld deny these generals' advice to begin with?
Isn't Bush supposed to represent what the people want? It doesn't matter if he's a decider; the people have spoken. So, apparently, has some of the Army (my bad; it was a freudian slip on my part to say Air Force). Something isn't right with this picture.
I'm surprised more people aren't talking about this on ProgressiveU. I've known for years now that Bush is an ignorant a**hole, so I shouldn't have been surprised by his "I am the decider" comment, but I still was. In recent months he has been softening his rhetoric and even his tone of voice, but listening to the "I am the decider" sound clip you can tell that he is back in form.
I'm proud of the generals who had the guts to speak out. Some reports I've read say that as many as 75% of the top brass in Iraq are unhappy about Rumsfeld. That doesn't filter down to the average soldier, because military people all the way up to the top are trained not speak out. This creates a real problem back here. With millions of military, ex-military, and family and friends of military members who blindly think that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, and that things are going swimmingly, we have a huge segment of our population that has been duped.
After that rant, I'd like to contribute my related humor reference for the week:
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
This is a song called "I am the Decider" parodying Bush's comments. Set to the tune of The Beatles "I am the Walrus," it starts out:
"I am me and Rummy's he, Iraq is free and we are all together
See the world run when Dick shoots his gun, see how I lie
I'm Lying..."
Beyond possibly thinking that he could one-up his father by toppling Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush's lack of forethought prior to his sending our troops to be mired in the fourth year of his military misadventure in Iraq still has him mumbling a broken-record mantra of justifications, "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein."
He sounds like the perpetual delinquent that thinks he can talk his way out of anything. If he can find a silver lining in a manmade disaster of his doing, surely he might even detect great purpose in a catastrophe of Mother Nature's making.
To wit, if a tsunami had swept up the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and had gotten Saddam Hussein, but in the bargain also took the lives of thousands of Iraqis, killed over 2,000 of our troops, permanently maimed untold more, seriously damaged our nation's hard-gained reputation, and cost our people billions upon billions of dollars, we might expect George W. Bush to place much value in the devastating wall of water and to take credit or its course.
He talks and talks and turns a deaf ear to the damning question; was war with Iraq our nation's only course? The answer is no.
When presidents of past were faced with the threatening march of Communism from a USSR bristling with real weapons of mass destruction and with agents secreted throughout the world, these leaders opted for containment of this threat until it inevitably fell of its own weight. These courageous Commanders in Chief believed in the indomitable spirit of our people and the superiority of our free way of life.