Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video


Posted by marie on 3/14/03 at 16:40 (112997)

Mabie some of you can enlighten me. What is the rif between Rumsfeld and our highest ranking army general?

Re: Re:Who is the General?

marie on 3/14/03 at 17:45 (113005)

In the article below it mentions the rif between Rumsfeld and a top ranking Army General,but I'd like to know more. I'm not sure but I think the general didn't feel that we had enough manpower to handle Iraq after a war. His comment I think came after the congress asked him for an opinion...Did Rumsfeld threaten to fire this military hero for doing his job?...I thought the military was suppose to report to the legistrative branch as wellas the executive branch. My understanding is that the General is a decorated Viet Nam hero who lost his leg from a wound in battle. Does anyone out there know who he is and what happened today?

Here is the article by Howard Fineman

March 12 I'm waiting for war to break out not in Iraq, but in the Bush administration. I'm wondering what's going through Colin Powell's mind. The secretary of State is looking pretty grim these days, like a man going through the motions. Might he bail out after a not-too-distant decent interval? Friends say no, he's a team player. 'But he's not a happy camper,' one admits.IN THE MEANTIME, who's going to be blamed for the Turkey screwup, or the U.N. screwups? Who's going to leak the authoritative and explosive estimates of the true cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in Iraq for the indefinite future? (One general already has been whacked for piping up, but there will be others.) Who's going to take the fall for the fact that we've lost the international moral high ground? The world is blaming the president, of course, but that's not the way things work here. Someone else goes down. Who? The 'neocons'? Donald Rumsfeld? The State Department? Dick Cheney? Condi Rice? Maybe everything will go so swimmingly in Iraq that it'll be one big happy family here at home. Maybe the war will last only a few days and Iraqis will be in the streets, joyfully greeting GIs as liberators. Maybe a world that now sees us as an imperial pariah will suddenly acknowledge the wisdom of our ways. But never has so much blood, treasure and destiny been gambled on the hope that folks will smile at us. It's the War of the Happy Iraqis. But few think it's going to be that easy. And my guess is that team discipline inside the Bush administration is about to be fractured by the collateral damage that already is being caused by a war we have yet to fight. We are embarrassingly alone diplomatically, and State Department underlings (privately) blame Rumsfeld & Co. Inside the Pentagon but outside of Rumsfeld's offfice I'm told that E-Ring brass have adopted what one source calls a 'Vietnam mentality,' a sense of resignation about a policy (military occupation of Iraq) they seriously doubt will work. For their part, the neocons view Pentagon and State as hives of careerists wimps. No one dares take on Cheney; no one is sure Rice has the clout to keep it all together. Blame games aren't supposed to happen in and around George W. Bush. I've covered him since his days as a gubernatorial candidate in Texas a decade ago. I know that he and his team are extraordinarily focused, disciplined and tight-lipped. I know that he is stubborn and that once he decides on a course he generally sticks to it. I know that when John McCain clobbered him in New Hampshire in 2000 the kind of blow that can cause panic and recrimination inside any campaign Bush and his lieutenants stayed calmly united. The last round of open warfare within the Bush administration, last summer, was largely a stage-managed confrontation. The president at that time basically decided to put a war with Iraq's Saddam Hussein at the top of his antiterrorism 'to do' list. At the same time, he let the leading figures in his administration (and their various allies) tussle publicly about the wisdom of such a course, and about whether the United Nations should have a role. It was the Powellites versus the Rumsfeldians, but the decision had already been made. This served everyone's purposes. The president could look judicious and open-minded. Rumsfeld and Cheney could talk tough. And Powell could be suitably conflicted. He could play the good soldier, while still making it clear (primarily though Bob Woodward) that he had deep reservations about war. This time around is a different story. The closer we get to the event, the less Bush is in control of events and the greater the risk of a vicious blame game breaking out inside his own administration. Hardliners, never enamored of going the U.N. route, are saying 'I told you so' in private, and soon will do it publicly. From the Powellites' point of view, the bad guys are going out of their way to make things difficult. The latest example: Rumsfeld's curt statement (later recanted) that the U.S. was prepared to go it alone without the British.

Re: Re:Who is the General?

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/14/03 at 18:38 (113014)


Where was this article published?

Re: Re:Who is the General?

marie on 3/14/03 at 20:47 (113028)


I think I know which General it was but haven't found the news on it.

Re: Re:Who is the General?

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/14/03 at 21:53 (113036)

The writer uses the term 'neocon' several times. It is a term used to describe a segment of conservatives primarily used by the paleocons. The paleoconservatives are the portion of conservatives who have views consistent with that of Pat Buchanan. Paleocons tend to be isolationist on foreign policy so they are against a war with Iraq and also tend to take an anti-immigration stance. Paleocons often use George Washington's Farewell Address in which Washington warns against becoming involved in the affairs of Europe, as the basis for those beliefs. They are what was once termed the 'America First' crowd. Reagan and Bush Jr. are neoconservatives -- views consistant with paleocons but are pro-immigration and believe in US involvement in world affairs. Each group does not label itself with those terms but labels the other segment as such.

Re: Re:Who is the General?

marie on 3/14/03 at 22:33 (113046)

I am still looking for info on the tif between the Genral and Rumsfeld. Just would like to get the story.