PhotoDude.com

The Daily Whim

The Daily Whim

All The News That Fits My Whim

Mon. May 10, 2004

A Big Mug of STFU

Over the weekend, Dick Cheney weighed in on the criticism of Donald Rumsfeld: “People ought to get off his case and let him do his job.

Read that again. The Vice President would like for you to shut up and let Rummy quietly go back to doing his job. I would suggest, as politely as I can under the circumstances, that Vice President Cheney is the one who needs to shut the f*ck up, and stop trying to chill free speech in this country on a strategically important topic. It is appallingly transparent, and the type of remark you expect in an autocracy, not a democracy. Wake Up, Mr. Vice President, you’re not in the bunker anymore. This is America.

If you think what I just said is offensive, then take it from a Republican Senator: “Dick Cheney’s efforts to silence criticism angered even some who had not been calling for Mr Rumsfeld’s head. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican member of the Senate armed services committee, said the vice-president’s comments were inappropriate. ‘Nobody is on [Mr Rumsfeld’s] back,’ he said. ‘We have an independent duty to look at this.’

If that’s not enough for you, then take it from a chorus of voices in the Pentagon: “Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him. A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States is already on the road to defeat.

Not tactical defeat. There is no doubt we can win every pitched battle in Iraq. But tactical victory does not bring you strategic victory, just as using less than 200,000 troops to topple Saddam’s regime (tactical victory) does not give you control of a stable Iraq (strategic victory). Which some people have been saying for a year now.

The article makes it clear that it’s not just a couple of random voices that Cheney would like to shut up. There’s apparently a lot of senior officers now voicing these concerns.

“Like a lot of senior Army guys, I’m quite angry” with Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration, the young general said. He listed two reasons. “One is, I think they are going to break the Army.” But what really incites him, he said, is, “I don’t think they care.”

Jeff Smith, a former general counsel of the CIA who has close ties to many senior officers, said, “Some of my friends in the military are exceedingly angry.”

Retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a frequent Pentagon consultant, said, “The people in the military are mad as hell.”

A Special Forces officer aimed higher, saying that “Rumsfeld needs to go, as does Wolfowitz.”

Asked about such antagonism, Wolfowitz said, “I wish they’d have the – whatever it takes – to come tell me to my face.”

Washington Post: “Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks On War Strategy”

Yes, as former Gen. Shinseki and former Secretary of the Army Thomas White can tell you, the civilian command of the Defense Department welcomes dissent. Because it makes it easier to target the disloyal and get them out of the way.

They’ve created an environment of “speak up, and be gone.” Cheney’s comment exemplifies that. But I don’t think anybody’s going to be shutting up this time, guys.

Maybe this time, you should try it on for size.


Peanut Gallery

1  Mary wrote:

sigh And Bush just gave a tv speech in which he defended Rumsfeld yet again. I don’t expect any offers of his resignation to be tendered or accepted any time soon. Screw the country, screw the foot soldiers, screw the Pentagon—Bush and Rumsfeld are all about being decisive, y’know.

Is there any way to get through to Bush and his cabinet that it’s not just the shame of Abu Ghraib, but that they have been utterly arrogant and incompetent in planning and executing the Iraq occupation? Those students yelling at the hearings on Friday were preaching to the choir (and as much as I agreed with them, I just wanted them to STFU—way to make Rumsfeld a beleagured hero, kids!), but is there any constructive method of dissent that can make a difference?

Comment by Mary · 05/10/04 05:29 AM
2  megapotamus wrote:

“is there any constructive method of dissent that can make a difference?”
Voting. Of course that remedy is some months off. Personally I don’t think it was Cheney’s place to make such a statement towards the legislature but much of the anti-Rumsfeld fervor is exactly that, fervor. I would, as a private citizen, invite my representative shut his pie-hole. As far as the over all arrogance and incompetence so called, let’s not forget what the predictions from the anti-war folks were, and how far from reality they have proven. I don’t expect any changed minds here but for myself I am still quite optimistic about the ultimate outcome in Iraq and even if it does become some sort of satrapy to the US it is free of that Stalinist state of recent vintage. Come Jan or so, all this carping will have been forgotten because Iraq will be free and prosperous, at least by regional standards.

3  Reid wrote:

I certainly hope that you’re right, and by January Iraq will have some peace.

However, I remember almost exactly a year ago, the Pentagon was claiming they’d have drawn down troop strength in Iraq to about 30,000 … by the end of 2003. So, pro-war or anti-war, there are very few people whose predictions have come close to our current reality.

Therefore, please excuse me if I’m a bit skeptical, even cynical, about optimitic predictions of Iraq’s near future.

Comment by Reid · 05/10/04 05:57 AM
4  jimbo wrote:

I like rumsfield, he appeals to me’s caveman sensabilities. He tells people when they are dumb and ask dumb questions. But just like Kerry its pretty easy to say oh yeah I would have done things differently in the occupation. Hindsight is 20-20 though, as they say.

Comment by jimbo · 05/10/04 05:51 PM
Comments are closed for this article
Contact me to find out more