Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

MARY LYON FROM THE LEFT: They're Missing the Point -- AGAIN

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Tace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 08:26 AM
Original message
MARY LYON FROM THE LEFT: They're Missing the Point -- AGAIN
By Mary Lyon -- World News Trust

Well, well, well, how many Johnny-come-latelies do we have now? Six retired generals -- RETIRED -- no longer a factor, no longer holding sway or influence, no longer in any position to effect positive change, and thus-endowed, NOW they come forward. Gee, I'm impressed... NOT.

My feelings are seriously divided. Nice of 'em, finally, to get up the cojones to speak out. What took 'em so long? Did they have abused-wife syndrome (or is that Demoralized Democrat syndrome?) for this long, just hoping and praying it might get better if they just tried to be good? That maybe the batterer would stop battering them or forcing them to do hideous things (like sending more than 2,300 of our beloved to their needless, senseless deaths, and many more home to spend the rest of their lives coping with lost limbs, lost vision, lost hearing, and worse)? What were they waiting for -- a medal? And did they know, instinctively, that they'd have to be miserable failures like George Tenet, Tommy Franks, and Paul Bremmer, to earn one?

I guess I'm glad they're speaking out.

But they're a little too late, if you ask me. Or if you ask any of the grieving moms and dads, widows, kids, and friends.

And again, they're failing to recognize the real target.

Donald Rumsfeld is not the problem.

He's a symptom of the problem.

He's just another schlub carrying out the dictates of the problem.

He was put into position BY the problem.

The problem doesn't lie with the Secretary of Defense, walking, talking, swaggering, blathering botch-job that he is.

The problem lies with the guy who wanted him, picked him, hired him, and put him in place to start committing these atrocities to begin with.

Just as all roads lead to Rome, all blame and responsibility and guilt leads to George W. Bush.

more

http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=3158
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. I disagree with Mary Lyons

Better late than never. The "left" has got to realize that you don't beat up people just because they started agreeing with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Seems to me she's mostly saying they're going after the wrong
target(s).

Hard to disagree with that....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hadrons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. that true, these guys just will NOT blame Dumbya ....
one of the generals even admitted to stupidity voting for the clown twice ... blaming just Dumsfeld and not Dumbya is like blaming Himmler and saying nothing about Hitler
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Exactly. It doesn't stop with rummy. Not at all.
It's like amputating the wrong leg. The same mentality that brought rumsfeld to this height of power and authority is still there, unchallenged and unchecked, to appoint ANOTHER rummy, or some other felon of like mind, maybe somebody farther down the PNAC signatories list. It'll be simply another version of rummy, but maybe sneakier and more devious. The added problem here is that, even if rummy does go (or the highly unlikely prospect that bush would actually fire him - yeah, SURE), that very event would lull most of the public back to sleep. The conclusion would be "oh, well, THAT'S taken care of now, thank God! Problem solved!" And then it'd be "let's go find some dry drunk to go have a beer with."

Frankly, it might be a really devious way to shake off the circling sharks by throwing rummy overboard. There'd be a feeding frenzy, all traces vanished, tummies full, then the sharks would swim away, VOILA! it's over! Problem solved. Easy, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Well , you reach bush* via. Rummy...so their doing good.
They're waking up the sheeple and making it legitimate to criticize this administration in a "time of war". THAT'S GOOD! They deserve credit...not criticism. We don't have a perfect world! The administration has to commit their crimes and blunders BEFORE you can criticize them.

Everyone seems to forget... to expect a general to criticize the administration is to fall on their own sword. Not many people are willing to destroy a successful, hard earned, respected career to criticize the white house. Thank God they are out there now. Sometimes I think Democrats seem to be awfully critical. It's about time we unite and stand as a party instead of a bunch of individual complainers gripping about everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. yes, while I agree that Bush is the problem, holding Rummy accountable
as Bush's proxy does hold Bush indirectly responsible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Sounds like a case of damned if you do and damned
if you don't. These generals speaking out has caused a furor bringing out the talking heads, the story gets out there, questions asked. How can that be bad or even hurt dems causes? Some of these generals were on the ground in Iraq. It's possible they thought that this mess would get turned around instead of getting worse. Getting out now and complaining could save some of their troops in the future. That's my take - they are heroes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Point well taken.
However, my frustration remains strong with these people, and anyone else uniquely positioned to effect positive change, and doing nothing out of fear, concern for the status quo, uncertainty (as unfathomable as that is) about the correctness of the objection and more. Further, as a mom, I cannot avoid looking at it through the filter of a mother whose kids may soon be old enough to be hungered after by army recruiters. I find myself in the camp with those who will do, and say, WHATEVER it might take to keep another mother from doubling over in tears as she sits by her baby's gravesite, after some decorated soldier in dress uniform has handed her a folded flag. I saw a news clip about that about three years ago. It's never left me. That woman doubled over in her seat, sobbing, redfaced, edemic, her nose and breathing passages so swollen and distorted from crying that she was nearly suffocating. I've NEVER forgotten that. Her kid's blood is on the souls of ANY AND ALL of these people who didn't speak up.

BTW, I saw a report about that, I think it was on CNN's Headline News, incredibly, not terribly long after the war had started, and before it had become such a taboo to show soldiers' funerals on the news. There weren't many of these reports, and soon enough, every last one of them disappeared. Maybe that's another reason why this image burned into my mind. I can't get past it. That woman's agony. Sure lit a fire in my belly, though.

I'm sorry to be harsh about this. It's just how I feel, as a mom. I don't want ONE SINGLE ADDITIONAL MOTHER to go through what that woman endured, what Cindy Sheehan endured. What Pat Tillman's mom endured. What so many other mothers (and fathers) have needlessly endured.

ESPECIALLY when this shit was all known in advance.

These people KNEW. Their years and years of battle experience, war planning, strategizing, war-gaming, analyzing, their years and years of knowing IN ACTUALITY, UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL, what war is and what war does, knowing as Shinseki did, from hard personal experience, what it was REALLY gonna take to do this correctly with the American lives that have been entrusted to us to implement it. It's a slap in the face to every military family who's sacrificed a child to the war, or who is waiting nervously for that loved one to finish their tour of duty and get out of there in one piece, for these people to have known, to have been warned, to have been shown, to have experienced it first-hand, and then stand silently by and let some egotistical pansy-ass who's never seen war up close to begin with call the shots unchecked and unvetted.

It's one thing to fight a war on whose worth most of us can consistently agree and support. It's one thing to fight a war that's truly worthy, rather than a latter-day Crusade (that we've already had proven to us through centuries of history WON'T SUCCEED); or a war of aggression against an "enemy" that didn't attack us and wasn't in any shape to even try to do so anytime soon; or a war based on a waning energy resource when we should be redirecting all our attention and energy to a completely different track that takes us AWAY from dependence on the fossil fuels we're still killing for. Especially when that's where we're gonna wind up in the end, anyway, unable to depend on fossil fuels BECAUSE THEY'LL BE GONE - ALL USED UP.

It's one thing when there have been multitudes of voices from all levels of respectability, credibility, believability, relevant professions, and expertise, and ignore it all. It's one thing to repeatedly rely on a suspect source like Ahmed Chalabi who's really only in it for the money and personal power and prestige, ESPECIALLY when you've been warned that any information from him and others like him is BOGUS. It's one thing to hear warning after warning and ignore it, and stand silently by. When you're gambling with other people's lives, it's a BIG thing. HUGE thing. Those conditions demand that people of conscience speak out. And the higher-ranked and more influential and powerful they are, the greater is their obligation to speak out when there is a wrong to be rectified, especially one as serious as taking a nation to war based on lies.

Besides, how many of the stories that are now making the mainstream media - about the war AND SO MUCH ELSE that this damned bush machinery has pulled, from the libby stuff to the jamming of Democratic get-out-the-vote phone banks in New Hampshire - how many of those stories DID WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT because we cared enough to read and try to get the whole story? That information WAS out there and many of us got it back then. Sure, not many others then-enraptured by all this bushwah and the spin-cyclers and the echo-chambermaids were willing to listen. Or maybe they were afraid. AND THAT WAS THE PROBLEM. THEY WERE THE PROBLEM. They were part of the problem because they were NOT part of the solution.

THESE individuals knew the truth and they did nothing about it til now. Well, I'm glad they're speaking up now, but how many lives would not have been squandered - how many mothers would not be doubled-over, weeping over a folded flag which is all they have left of their precious sons (and daughters) if these people had spoken out earlier and stopped this madness?

That's my issue, and it's one that, as a mother myself, I cannot get around. As soldiers, these men were supposed to be the bravest. And the bravest and most valiant soldiers care the most about the safety and wellbeing of those under their command. To stand by and allow those under their command to be marched off to a meatgrinder when they KNEW it wasn't correct or smart or sensible and that they weren't going about it the way they should - to do nothing and stand by and allow that to happen, frankly I question their leadership. That's the ultimate dereliction of duty, to me.

They should have spoken up. They should have resigned in protest and made a stink about it in the press, which would have given them at least a few minutes on the nightly news. We might have been bringing this war to an end a year sooner. Or more. And perhaps we'd have several hundred fewer precious children who've needlessly died.

That said (or ranted or spewed!), I appreciate your opinion. I do see your point. I just have a very low tolerance for people whose wounds are self-inflicted. The military brass that is only now speaking out, when they knew the truth HOW LONG AND HOW MANY DEATHS AGO - are in a self-inflicted dilemma. There WERE things they could do. And they didn't. They chose not to. It's probably a VERY good thing that thinkers like you are there to remind us of the value of not looking a gift horse in the mouth when people like me go off like this. It is another view, another way. And it's reasoned and forgiving. I've argued those points about now-ex Republicans who finally see the light, too. I'm just not able to go there yet in THIS case.

Along the same lines, I predict here and now that once the bush nightmare is over, you'll have dozens and dozens and dozens of books coming out from people like Katie Couric and Tim Russert and Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer and Dana Milbank and more of the usual suspects, bemoaning the repression of the bush era and how they were cowed into not telling the truth to their viewers and readers because they were intimidated and afraid and worried about saving their own necks than telling the truth and blowing the whistle and holding these criminals accountable. You'll have ALL KINDS of mea culpa books and poor-me books about the McCarthy-ite era we will by then have come through. They'll all have somehow "gotten religion" once they think the coast is clear. All the apologists will sing the same song - we WANTED to say something but we dared not. Didn't want to stick our necks out. Didn't think we could/should. Boo hoo. Remember this prediction. You read it here first. And I won't be buying any of THOSE, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Whew! Good rant.
Edited on Tue Apr-18-06 05:07 PM by lyonn
But, when did these generals that are speaking out, and Zinni has been outspoken since day one, realize that this war was going in the wrong direction? It would seem that these generals had a voice but they are probably not in a position to know the depths of this admin. deceit and how they haven't bothered to study the history of this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. They had Shinseki already on record, if I'm not mistaken, during the
run-up to war. I could easily be faulty on my timeline, but Shinseki was warning, EARLY, that we'd need twice or maybe three times over - the number of "boots on the ground" in order to fully and properly subdue the target area. Shinseki wound up out of there, early in the game. I don't remember exactly when, whether the war had started already or not, but he was out of there in rawther short order.

My ire is also directed at people like colin powell - who, we now learn, knew it was bullshit going into the UN chambers to deliver that speech and show all those drawings and hold up that itty bitty glass vial. He had all the visual aids compiled for the short-attention-span listeners in his audience. And he willingly went. As did george tenet. Anyone who KNEW, and sat there silently and didn't register at least SOME public reservations, or say he was cooperating semi-willingly or with objections (so noted), is an accessory to the crime. If they truly, credibly, did NOT know, and were duped like many others, and if it took time for them to shake off the Kool-aid and see things clearly, THEN, I can understand. There was an AWFUL LOT of pressure to just go along and not question. Anybody remember, here, the posting about Fortney "Pete" Stark, the Northern California Democratic Congressman, who reported, I believe, during the run-up to the war, about a town meeting he held with his constituents to gauge public opinion. Even he, a usually reliable stalwart and credentialled good guy, was cowed. He came back, somewhat overwhelmed by the sentiments out there (fanned by hate radio and just plain ol' fear, being jolted out of our false "Fortress America" security). He was force-fed the idea that if you questioned anything at this time - with the terrors of 9/11 still fresh in the mind - you were unpatriotic, un-American, a Saddam-lover, an Osama-lover, a Neville Chamberlain, an appeaser, a coward, a traitor. That's what people like him, usually stalwart and openly acting on their principals, were confronted with. I think it's because America was in a general fit of hysterics and grand mal-type seizures from the sheer size and scope of the 9/11 trauma. It was just that. Trauma. We collectively were traumatized by this, having never experienced anything of this magnitude. Remember, Pearl Harbor happened before Hawaii officially became a state. When that happens to people, sometimes they wanna lash out. Certainly a lot of the time, they freak. Their higher, more objective, more grounded and better-reasoning selves are temporarily shoved to the back of the room and silenced. What happened in some people's minds mirrored what was happening in our society, where people from folks like us to Helen Thomas, the Dean of the White House Press Corps, being shoved to the back of the room and silenced when they dared to challenge bush and the republi-CONS. If Pete Stark was swayed by this, what could we possibly expect of such weak-kneed weasels as wolf blitzer, paula zahn, chris matthews, katie couric, matt lauer, bob woodward, even ted koppel and the rest of the palm-tree people in news these days - who bow and bend whichever way the wind is blowing? So I do cut some slack to people who tried and failed or tried and were ostracized, or became fearful and hesitant to press their case. People like Pete Stark could also probably add. As in - add up the numbers and see how much support you have realistically. If everybody's gone pod-people, you can't expect much success with any ideas you want to pursue - to hold the evil-doers accountable.

But those who knew early-on, when there might have been a chance to stop this, or stall it at least, to me, they're frickin' CRIMINALS. In collusion all the way. They certainly won't get my sympathy, for whatever that's worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
3. On her point about speaking out, I disagree
At least from what I understand and have read, "speaking out" to the public would be a violation of the UCMJ. We don't know how fervently these generals spoke out before their retirement; It may very well have been to the extent that they were able to without getting removed from command. It's a rock and a hard place for them while still in the active service, IMO.

As to her second point about Rumsfeld being a sympton...that is spot on. Until the policy changes, it's just a game of musical chairs with the same disastrous results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chef Donating Member (453 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
5. Generals
One can hope that the retired ones are merely a front for the ones still in the service who don't feel they are able to refuse to carry out the wishes of the the civilian crackheads who make up the Bush government. With these guys coming out and the Bernard Trainor book, I think in the Kabuki dance that is Washington, they are so gently sending a message to the people who have taken charge of America. Since there is no check on the fools in charge from congress and the courts, it is ironic that the limiting factor may be the military hinting that they aren't going to play with them. Kind of a "Seven Days in May" in reverse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
9. Great article. One really needs to read the whole thing.
Edited on Tue Apr-18-06 04:30 PM by Neil Lisst
The salient point, with which I agree, is that Rummy is a red herring, and that the problem is his boss, BUSH. He's the one who should be blamed, and blaming Rumsfeld really misses the mark, because Bush would only replace Rummy with another like-minded asswipe.

I understand the generals not speaking out before now, because when they're in the military, they don't have the right to speak out against their chain of command.

I don't think you get the real flavor unless you read the whole article.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Thanks!
Cheers!

I'm just so grateful I get a place to vent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. venting is good!
I say leave the OTHER guy grumbling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. She is right. I would like some journalist to ask Bush...
... Sir, are you protecting Donald Rumsfeld's job because you are afraid that firing him would admit mistakes on your part?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Exactly. I marvel at how badly they ask a question.
If you want to nail him down, give him a short question with no set up, no confusion, no multiple choices. Just BAM, the question:

MR. PRESIDENT, WHEN PEOPLE ARE CRITICIZING RUMSFELD, THEY'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT YOU AND YOUR PERFORMANCE, AREN'T THEY?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
16. Does this work better?
General Wesley Clark on Fox News

April 15, 2006


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I ran to be president of the United States because I thought the commander in chief should be replaced. Ultimately he's the person responsible. The American people didn't understand how bad the situation was in the election of 2004. Now these generals are taking it upon themselves to speak out on behalf of people who are still in the army. They're relating their experiences and they feel like they haven't…that people in uniform were not listened to. That we didn't go in with enough troops; we didn't have the right approach for the inter-agency; we don't have a policy process to reinforce the military efforts with diplomatic efforts in the regions. All of these things ultimately come back to the president but his right hand man is Don Rumsfeld...


...Jamie Colby: So point blank General, should Secretary Rumsfeld go?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes. <crosstalk>


Jamie Colby: And is this an appropriate time for that with our soldiers in combat?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that it's more than an appropriate time. This country needed a better policy from the 2001 period on. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished it. Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney wanted us to go to Iraq. It had no connection to the war on terror. They pressed for this, they pressed for open warfare before the diplomacy was finished. It was a tragic mistake. It's a strategic blunder. It was wrong and the American people just didn't understand it or they wouldn't have reelected George Bush. They did…reelect him. Now these officers are saying 'at least give us somebody in the military chain of command who will listen.' That's why Secretary Rumsfeld has lost their confidence. He's made bad policy choices. It's time for new leadership."

http://securingamerica.com/node/859


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Always liked that Wesley Clark...
He was my next favorite after Howard Dean. I still think they would have been a dream ticket. Sigh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 15th 2024, 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC