posted on April 14, 2006 02:19:03 PM new
WASHINGTON (AP) - Pulling rank, President Bush on Friday rebuffed recommendations from a growing number of retired generals that he replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "He has my full support," said the commander in chief.
Bush said Rumsfeld's stewardship at the Pentagon was crucial for the United States.
"Earlier today, I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the global war on terror," the president said. "I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation."
Bush's strong endorsement, conveyed in a statement released by the White House while Bush was at Camp David, Md., for the weekend, appeared designed to blunt a rising clamor from within the ranks of retired commanders for Rumsfeld's ouster.
Six retired generals have called for Rumsfeld to resign, accusing him of mishandling the Iraq war, ignoring advice of field commanders and having an arrogant management style.
Rumsfeld has rejected all such calls, while noting that Bush had twice turned down his offers to resign.
Meanwhile, in an interview aired Friday on Al-Arabiya television, Rumsfeld said he intended to continue serving.
"The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views," Rumsfeld said. "But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round."
A senior administration official said Bush considered a formal statement was warranted given the "type of voices" engaged in the most recent criticism of Rumsfeld. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to more freely elaborate on White House thinking.
Similar statements were not likely to be forthcoming for other officials whose jobs are viewed to be in potential trouble, such as Treasury Secretary John Snow, the official said.
Joshua Bolten took over from retiring Andy Card on Friday as White House chief of staff, and several administration personnel changes were widely anticipated, perhaps as early as next week.
The timing of Bush's statement on Rumsfeld seemed designed to tamp down speculation, particularly in Sunday newspapers and on weekend television news shows, that Rumsfeld might be on his way out.
Bush's statement also appeared directed at criticism from some of the retired generals that Rumsfeld ignored military recommendations from his commanders on missions in Iraq and in the broader war on terrorism.
"I have seen firsthand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how to best complete these missions," Bush said. "Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this period.
"He has my full support and deepest appreciation."
One of those calling for Rumsfeld's replacement, retired Gen. John Batiste, earlier Friday called the recent series of critical statements "absolutely coincidental" and said he did not know of any coordinated effort to discredit the defense secretary.
"I have not talked to the other generals," Batiste, interviewed from Rochester, N.Y., said on NBC's "Today" show.
Nevertheless, he said he thinks the clamor for Rumsfeld to step down is "happening for a reason."
Batiste said he retired rather than accept a promotion to lieutenant general because he could not accept Rumsfeld's management style.
Separately, Batiste told interviewers on CBS's "The Early Show," that he had served under a defense Secretary "who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, and who didn't build a strong team."
Also calling for Rumsfeld to resign were retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, and retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold.
posted on April 14, 2006 02:40:52 PM new
Bear - I realize that you probably bolded "retired" every time time appeared n the article to point out that these are guys not in action but isn't the advantage of being retired that you can freely express your views without fear of professional repurcussions? If an active general said that, how much farther so you think they would advance in the ranks?
At this point in time, don't you think that some new blood, new eyes, new ideas, might be a good thing? I'm not even saying that it should be someone that will pull out, just someone that may have a different or at least fresh view.
There is a reason that high level cabinet jobs traditionally have high turn over rates. They are high stress even at the best of times, much less in war times.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on April 14, 2006 02:57:38 PM new
Fenix, I Bolded the retired in the article to visualize a point.
The retired generals at this point are armchair quarterbacking the war effort. They are not privy to all the inside info at this point and are second guessing Rumsfield.
Just like all the retired officers that became talking heads for the letter networks when the war started.
"More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they dont get the New York Times over there.Jay Leno".
posted on April 14, 2006 03:07:05 PM new
Bear - you are aware that there are retired generals working for Fox too right?
But seriously, some of those retired generals are just recently retired. They were in the game and privy to a much better view of things than we are. Do you honestly feel that their insight is not valid?
If they all agreed with Rumsfeld, would you be so quick to dismiss their opinion?
Do you honestly expect an active generals to suggest that Rumsfeld retire?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on April 14, 2006 03:35:53 PM new
"You're doin' a heck of a job, Rummy", sounds familiar somehow.....let's see, how many hours, or was it days, did Brownie last after those famous kudos?
____________________________________________
posted on April 15, 2006 02:16:29 AM new
What bothers the liberals the MOST is they have NO control over this or any other decision this President makes.
And on his quickly stated support for Rumsfeld. I think anyone who knows anything about the military KNOWS there will always be some who get their little feelings hurt and want to get revenge when they retire. LOL
But for some reason we should IGNORE all the thousands and thousands of other currently active military commanders and listen to a handfull of retired ones. Especially because they're saying somethings the LEFT/liberals REALLY want to hear. lol
So glad he's our Commander In Chief.
edited to add:
PLUS I've read that two of those six were AGAINST going to war in Iraq to begin with. lol
So it's certainly NO surprise they'd still be 'complaining' along those same lines.
posted on April 15, 2006 07:37:13 AM new
Linda - get off the "liberals" thing already. You sound like a broken record, especially when you consider that the only two people that had weighed in on this issue when you posted are moderates.
I tried to ask a reasonable question. I didn't bash anybody. Didn't say anything negative.
I asked Bear if he thought that it was reasonable to expect active generals to publicly question the abilities of their leader. NOtice that I have sasked it twice and that he has pointedly avoided answeriong that one.
What do you think Linda? Do you think that there are active generals out there that would come forward and say that they think Rumsfeld isn't on his game and that maybe it's time for him to step aside and let some fresh blood in?
We've been there for three years. Can you honestly say that you think that everything is going so well that there is no need for change?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on April 15, 2006 08:59:03 AM new
fenix - What I think is that you're just too sensitive and YOU'RE going to have to get over it or ignore my posts.
This is nothing more than the liberals 'bashing' this President's choice again.
Two of the commanders didn't EVER agree to go to war.
And today...there are many speaking out FOR, in favor OF Rumsfeld. Yeah.
The decision to either keep Rumsfeld or ask him to step down ONLY rests with the CIC...THIS President.
And I'm SURE you've heard on your Fox News this morning that HE wants HIM to stay right where he is. HE thinks HE'S doing a GREAT job.
And that's ALL that matters.
Got anything else you want to #*!@ about this morning.....I'm in a good mood and am NOT going to let you start with me now.
posted on April 15, 2006 09:16:21 AM new
These are respected retired generals.
If Bush had any smarts he would be listening to what they have to say and perhaps use some of their knowledge about the war to try to gain a better understanding of things instead of immediately rushing to defend his buddy, Rumsfeld.
posted on April 15, 2006 09:25:41 AM new
maybe you should know what you're talking about before you start FLAPPING your jaws.
Rumsfeld is civilian....as our constitution set it up to be. The military ONLY follows ORDERS after they have given their input. They don't have a 'vote'.
There are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of retired and active commanders...who DO support and appreciate the job he's done.
He not only has had two wars to deal with...he's been reorganizing the military.
It's NOT your decision kiara...take care of your rusting ships..own military problems.
posted on April 15, 2006 09:33:49 AM new
lindak, where did I say it was my decision? Nowhere. I simply voiced my opinion.
Perhaps your angst over the fact that your guy is a complete failure and your futile attempts to constantly defend him is making you read much more into what others post here.
posted on April 15, 2006 09:37:14 AM newhis is nothing more than the liberals 'bashing' this President's choice again.
Two of the commanders didn't EVER agree to go to war.
Generals aren't required to "agree" to go to war, Linda. You seem to be leaving out the fact that Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack led the Army's 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq, general Paul Eaton was in charge of training Iraqi security forces, and John Batiste, is the former infantry commander in Iraq. This is just a bit more serious than your stereotypical "liberals bashing the President's choice...."
____________________________________________
[ edited by profe51 on Apr 15, 2006 09:45 AM ]
posted on April 15, 2006 09:45:52 AM new
profe, I don't care WHO they are....a general was interviewed on Fox News last night who spoke about each of those commanders.....he told us WHY they're speaking out against him now. Each have their own personal reasons....
They're retired...they don't have a 'voice'.
So you liberals complain away...that's all you can do...and all you usually have done....no solutions...no suggestions...nothing...just complaints...while this President, Rumsfeld and our troops are doing the best they can.
Just like liberals to pull this garbage while we're at war.
posted on April 15, 2006 10:11:38 AM newa general was interviewed on Fox News last night who spoke about each of those commanders.....he told us WHY they're speaking out against him now.
If you're talking about the interview last night on Fox with ret. General Richard Myers, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he specifically did not speculate about any of those who are speaking out. In fact, the only one of them he specifically mentioned was Gen. Batiste, and he repeatedly said things like "I don't know, I just don't know where he's coming from.." When asked about the others who have spoken out, he also denied knowing why they would speak out. "I have not talked to these individuals". "I don't know". Over and over again.
Maybe you were listening to a different General being interviewed. If you were, who was it? Myers' full interview is available on video and transcript at Fox.
They're retired...they don't have a 'voice'.
Or maybe they're retired and now have the same voice we all have, and aren't required to tow the administration's line.
posted on April 15, 2006 10:31:14 AM new
Linda - I'm sorry but the only person here looking for a fight is you. You came in here attcking "liberals" when the only thing going on was a civil and on topic conversation. I'm not Peepa Linda - I'm not big on the retoric.
I was looking for an actual logical reasonable conversation. You used to be capable of those but you may be right, maybe you should just be ignored now. The only thing you seem the be interested in these days is retoric and when you are faced with reasonable questions or factual information that goes against what you think you jump into attack mode.
I guess thats a good counter when you absolutely have be heard yet can't bring yourself to acctually address the questions be asked.
Have a nice day.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on April 15, 2006 11:41:30 AM new
No fenix, you are WRONG again.
YOU started it by again telling me what I should or shouldn't say/do.
It's not your place to tell me what to say. And I'm tired of you doing so and WILL address you accordingly.
"Linda - get off the "liberals" thing already. You sound like a broken record, especially when you consider that the only two people that had weighed in on this issue when you posted are moderates."
I NEVER thought YOU and the profe were the ones that started this nonsense the generals/commanders did. YOU took it personally.
And that's what you got back.
I'll use the term liberal anytime I wish to. Bossy liberal women...and you're one of them, imo. Always telling others what to do. You're NOT my mommy.
And if YOU claim it...take it personally that's YOUR problem...not mine.
You're so darn defensive all the time. I wasn't even directing it at you or the profe. I was making a GENERAL statement about liberals and their current actions.
YOU claimed the word and tried to tell me to stop.
NOT your place.
You do what fenix wants to do and I'll do what I want to do.
posted on April 15, 2006 11:49:09 AM new
Well, OK... just never really thought that you would be one that would opt for cop out inflamatory statements rather than actually addressing the topics at hand.
But by all means... you should stand up for that decision. I'd say stand proud but I find it hard to believe that anyone could actually be proud of that kind of tact, but if you are... you own it girl!! Run with it!!
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on April 15, 2006 11:49:47 AM new
Yes, profe that's the same show. Post the link and I'll highlight his words.
I do agree that on: Gen. Batiste, and he repeatedly said things like "I don't know, I just don't know where he's coming from.." because he said he hadn't had a chance to speak with him about it. He restated THAT one only many times.
But he did speak to the issue of how some didn't like Rumsfelds...manner. The way he came across to those who are complaining now. AND he said he didn't see him in that same fashion.
Guess it's just the difference between how a bush-hater takes what is said vs a Bush supporter.
No surprise to me that we'd take it totally different.
posted on April 15, 2006 02:02:10 PM new
It's on the Fox News page Linda. Your claim is that he spoke about "each of those commanders", and "he told us WHY they're speaking out against him now".
He just didn't do that. He only mentioned one, not "each of them", and the only one he mentioned, he said he didn't know. He also said he didn't know why the others would be speaking out now. It doesn't have anything to do with whether I like or hate the President. I heard what he said, and he said nothing of the sort. He did allow as how a few of the generals were opposed to going to Iraq in the first place, but he carefully avoided using this as a reason for why they're speaking out now.
____________________________________________
posted on April 15, 2006 02:35:50 PM new
profe.....can't put the link up? lol
I know what he said about the 'group' and why they didn't like Rumsfeld.
Get as technical as you wish...that was the 'gest' of what he said about them....except the one he didn't talk to.
Meaning....he let us know they had their own 'personal' issues with Rumsfeld.
And used the example that it was like in all of life...SOME don't like their bosses.
Their problem.
posted on April 15, 2006 03:59:34 PM new
Linda - are you sure you watched the actual interview? I can't find a transcript however it is the featured video on FoxNews.com and what he says is that he has the utmost respect for the intellect and accument but does not know why they said what they said. He says nothing about not liking former bosses and makes no implications as to what type of motives they might have.
He simply says that he thinks it inappropriate for the military to question civilian leaders.
Of course that is exactly why I have asked three times now if anyone actually expects active military leaders to come out and speak their mind but I notice that question has been specifically avoided by both you and Bear.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on April 15, 2006 04:22:44 PM new
It appears HELEN doesn't know the difference between a TRANSCRIPT....which would have EVERY WORD SPOKEN...and a video clip.
Of course a video is not a transcript, Linda. But we can all watch the video and see that you seriously misrepresented what transpired in that interview.
posted on April 15, 2006 04:46:34 PM new
Linda - are you trying to say that Fox edited the interview program so that only the comments that you related were deleted and all the ones that some some blatant liberl like Prof would remember were kept?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on April 15, 2006 04:48:07 PM new
As I said, pit bull helen, UNLESS that video has the FULL 1/2 hour interview....then there's NO proof ....just more of the liberal bias here.
Each of you have never liked Rumsfeld. So your motive is clear to all.
