FURTHER UPDATE: a4g seems to be right. Dymphna was on the phone at 1:40PM EST, but I’m listening to today’s programme right now, so there must have been an hour delay.
Go to the World: Have Your Say site and click the “Listen to the programme” link; that’s what I did.
Dymphna reports:
My brief appearance on the Beeb was in a kind of round-robin format. From what I could tell, I was the only one not demanding Rumsfeld’s head, though there was one fellow who claimed that the situation was so bad it didn’t matter if Rumsfeld stayed in place or not.
When I noted that these safely-retired flag-rank officers were undercutting the civilian commander (under the President) of the armed forces, I also noted that these men were largely Clinton appointments. In other words, they are remnants from a different era and are even more marginal than the man they criticize.
Rather than respond to my observation, one of the other participants could only offer ridicule, saying something to the effect that he had heard many things blamed on Clinton, but “this was a new one.” I wonder if he will have the intellectual integrity to investigate the background and the agenda(s) of these supposedly “closed-mouthed” armchair generals.
As an Army Major put it — so much more succinctly than ever I could have:
Everyone in this great, free country of ours is entitled to their own opinion, and the aforementioned generals have a worldview as senior officers that is of no doubt interesting to the public at large. Wilsonizer certainly pays attention when a flag officer takes time to write a piece for the Times.
But deep in the bottom of the cold Army heart of mine that pumps the green Army blood throughout my body, I cannot help but wonder if there is a ring of hell reserved for comfortably retired generals, who utter opinions maligning the efforts of soldiers and commanders in the midst of carrying out wartime missions.
If you haven’t already, check out:
- Wretchard’s “Troubles of Donald Rumsfeld”
- Big Lizards’ “Grumbles From the Griped”
- VD Hanson’s “Dead End Debates”
- Riehl World View’s “Night of the Generals”
- Gateway Pundit’s “Donald Rumsfeld and the Media, A Bitter Love”
They pretty well cover the situation.
Meanwhile, don’t hold your breath waiting for the Brainstem Media to unearth any flag-rank contrarians. That’s why blogging evovled: because the BSM won’t tell both sides. They are constitutionally incapabable of it and their delusions continue on toward a critical mass.
Dymphna will appear shortly on the World Service of the BBC on a programme (well, I have to spell it that way, because it’s British) called
World Have Your Say, discussing Should Rumsfeld Resign?
I’m not sure how you get the audio for it, but if you click one of the links above you’ll probably find a way to get to it.
From the BBC site, here is the info:
Listen live on the BBC World Service and online at 1800 GMT Monday to Friday
Call: +44 20 70 83 72 72
SMS: +44 77 86 20 60 80
worldhaveyoursay@bbc.co.uk
Dymphna’s segment is scheduled to begin at 1840 GMT, which is (I think) 1:40 PM EDT.
The moderator, Kevin Anderson-Washington, plans to have a wide range of blogger opinion. Dymphna says, “I don’t know whether the format will be roundtable or free-for-all. Spittle-on-the-chin is still drooly, even over the airwaves. Engaging in a rant with someone who is hell-bent on bringing Bush down isn’t interesting or intellectually challenging.”
Stay tuned.
I think it’s on at 2:40 EST, Baron.
Spook 86 has an excellent review of ulterior motivations all of the generals who have spoken out may have for wanting to see Rummy take a fall. Fortunately, Bush will not abandon Rummy.
Generals Washington, Lee, Grant and
Eisenhower could rise from their
graves and call Rumsfeld a military
genius without parallel in human
history and the BBC, and our media
would, say “yes, but moving on to
those with a more contemporary take
on events, let’s go to a former
Major General who was passed over
for promotion and has an entirely
different opinion of Don Rumsfeld”
The interview would go something
like this with the relevant parts
in parenthesis left out. “General
( as one of approximately 12,000)
former flag officers of the US why
do you consider Rumsfeld unfit to
be Secretary of Defense? ( Why did
you only come to this conclusion
now after you have retired and are
receiving a lavish pension?) You
are obviously a patriotic soldier
who served your country honorably
so your opinion carries a lot of
weight. ( Why didn’t you speak out
when you were a Captain when Don
Rumsfeld first became Secretary of
Defense. I see you are now working
as a policy analyst at the, pick
one, Center for Defense Information,Brooking Institute, IPS
Kennedy School of Government) If
you were asked what would you tell
President Bush? ( Please give me a
command, I’ll do anything. Life is
so boring now. I used to matter now
I’m just sitting around and nobody
but the liberal media pays any
attention to me and then only if I
trash men whose careers were more
successful than my own)
Dymphna
You spoke well.
No one seriously addressed your comments or for that matter made a good case for criticizing Rumsfeld.
Your were right the issue is not Iraq.
General Zinni retired pre 2000 and and has consistently criticized Rumsfeld thou usually avoiding political comment. Usually he has fairest of the criticism.
Some one else said Rumsfeld had no military experience. For what it is worth he is a retired Navy Reserve LCDR of CDR anti-submarine pilot (P-3’s or what came before them.)
Promotion of General officers it through MG is by promotion boards who pretty much select for ability, before it is published the list is vetted around the DOD and Senate o be sure there is no adverse PR hanging around and the Senate will confirm. The political selection removes names not selects them But I do not have a lot of confidence in Rumsfeld’s vetting process either.
UMT is 5 hours ahead of Eastern standard time and 4 hours ahead Eastern daylight savings.