More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation

[Anaconda_Dinar_Sheik]

WASHINGTON, April 13 — The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, current and former generals said on Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/washington/14military.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

[SaraDinar]

Rumsfeld Rejects Criticism
Associated Press | April 15, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld rejected criticism that he had sent too few U.S. troops to Iraq.

In the interview with the pan-Arab Al-Arabiya that aired Friday, Rumsfeld denied that insufficient troop levels had led to scandals such as Abu Ghraib.

He said three generals who oversaw the campaign's planning - Tom Franks, John Abizaid and George Casey - had determined the overall number of troops, and that he and President Bush agreed with them.

"There is a balance that is needed in this. You can have not enough troops, in which case things can be disorderly, or you can have too many troops and be too intrusive, too much of an occupying force," Rumsfeld said.

Asked about the retired generals calling for him to lose his job, Rumsfeld said there were between 3,000 and 6,000 generals on duty and retired.

"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," he said.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,94376,00.html?ESRC=iraq.RSS

[stayfrosty5]

Rumsfeld Rejects Criticism
Associated Press | April 15, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld rejected criticism that he had sent too few U.S. troops to Iraq.

In the interview with the pan-Arab Al-Arabiya that aired Friday, Rumsfeld denied that insufficient troop levels had led to scandals such as Abu Ghraib.

He said three generals who oversaw the campaign's planning - Tom Franks, John Abizaid and George Casey - had determined the overall number of troops, and that he and President Bush agreed with them.

"There is a balance that is needed in this. You can have not enough troops, in which case things can be disorderly, or you can have too many troops and be too intrusive, too much of an occupying force," Rumsfeld said.

Asked about the retired generals calling for him to lose his job, Rumsfeld said there were between 3,000 and 6,000 generals on duty and retired.

"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," he said.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,94376,00.html?ESRC=iraq.RSS

Yea... but we aren't talking about General Mills and the Surgeon General... we are talking about Gen. Richard B. Myers, ex- chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who headed the central command at the time of the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. I think we all can agree that the opinions of these guys shouldn't be passed off as everyday war critics, and they were in close contact with Rummy.

If Don would stop being an arrogant punk and admit to some mistakes, then maybe this wouldn't be such as issue. Disbanding the Army... big mistake. Not being ready for insurgency.... HUGE MISTAKE!!!! It makes me absolutely SICK TO MY STOMACH for them to claim that they could not predict that the Iraqis would not fight straight up and instead, use guerrilla tactics.

frosty

[Lonestar]

Rumsfeld has gone on record in the past and said the troop levels were not sufficient. I feel for the guy.

[peakoil]

Those guys are p'd off because they were asked to do a very difficult job.
Can not blame Rummy for their weaknesses.
Look this is and will always will be a good cause as far as making mistakes. Sure make them, but NEVER second guess ANY decisions as a LEADER.
NEVER. That is the strength of George and Rummy. That is why they are in their positions. Otherwise we could have put (Kerry)the others in charge.
I know lets fight a war in Vietnam then come home and bad mouth it.
This is a great nation that lives and thrives off diversity and the democratic process. Mistakes will and do happen. Admitting to them is a leadership 1o1 NO NO.
Go Rummy and George,
God bless the liberation of IRAQ.......:happy64:
Karl

[stayfrosty5]

Rumsfeld has gone on record in the past and said the troop levels were not sufficient. I feel for the guy.

The person with a job that important, surrounded by generals with dozens of years of military experience, fully funded with 40% of our taxes, using the best intelligence and technology in the world... shouldn't be able to make mistakes like this without any consequences.

In the real world, people get fired for much less. I don't "feel for this guy" one bit.

frosty

[F355]

The person with a job that important, surrounded by generals with dozens of years of military experience, fully funded with 40% of our taxes, using the best intelligence and technology in the world... shouldn't be able to make mistakes like this without any consequences.

In the real world, people get fired for much less. I don't "feel for this guy" one bit.

frosty

you're sounding like a Democrat on this issue...go listen to O'Reilly on FOX...to make a change now signals defeat...there is absolutely no advantage gained by Rummy stepping down now...all this move would accomplish is to act as a catalyst for more complaining by left wing looneys.

[stayfrosty5]

you're sounding like a Democrat on this issue...go listen to O'Reilly on FOX...to make a change now signals defeat...there is absolutely no advantage gained by Rummy stepping down now...all this move would accomplish is to act as a catalyst for more ing by left wing looneys.

I understand and totally agree with your post, but there is honor in admitting that he made huge mistakes. I understand that not all of these mistakes were his, but being that he is in charge... he should take some responsibility. I believe that if he were told hold a press conference and admit to his mistakes and then repeat exactly what you said... the issue would get buried a lot quicker.

frosty

[peakoil]

Frosty,
C'mon, you cannot second guess in leadership.
Mistakes can and will happen.. We are all human, as far as experience
Rummy has them ALL beat there guy.
He has had to see the US through many wars on many fronts.
His Generals, yes very experienced too, just could'nt handle the heat so they got out of the kitchen.
IRAQ is in an awsome position considering everything they have been through. It was the Bush campaign/Rumsfeld who are the hero's here.
You will see, when it is all said and done.
The transformation is about to happen and HISTORY is in the making
here.
We will be winners not winers.
I will buy the first drink in Maui.
:happy64: Karl

[stayfrosty5]

Frosty,
C'mon, you cannot second guess in leadership.

Actually, you can and should. You cannot hand people the kind of power he has and then sit around while they make mistakes that cost lives and money.


Mistakes can and will happen.. We are all human,

Then he should stand up like a man and admit to it instead of avoiding the questions and getting GW to say "he's doing a fine job." (Which he has said on at least 5 different occasions... a real intelligent description) :lmao:

frosty

[F355]

I understand and totally agree with your post, but there is honor in admitting that he made huge mistakes. I understand that not all of these mistakes were his, but being that he is in charge... he should take some responsibility. I believe that if he were told hold a press conference and admit to his mistakes and then repeat exactly what you said... the issue would get buried a lot quicker.

frosty

that's what history books are for...you know the spin the Dems would put on this...now's just not the right time.

[stayfrosty5]

that's what history books are for...you know the spin the Dems would put on this...now's just not the right time.

That's a good point F355. The integrity of our administration is very important to the fragile stage we are in with the Middle East. We need to remain firm, confident and deliberate. I appreciate your post and now see things from a slightly different angle.

:wave:
frosty

[Lux]

The person with a job that important, surrounded by generals with dozens of years of military experience, fully funded with 40% of our taxes, using the best intelligence and technology in the world... shouldn't be able to make mistakes like this without any consequences.

In the real world, people get fired for much less. I don't "feel for this guy" one bit.

frosty

Could we go back and fire Bill Clinton then?

:lmao:

[Lux]

I understand and totally agree with your post, but there is honor in admitting that he made huge mistakes. I understand that not all of these mistakes were his, but being that he is in charge... he should take some responsibility. I believe that if he were told hold a press conference and admit to his mistakes and then repeat exactly what you said... the issue would get buried a lot quicker.

frosty
I believe there is only honor in admitting to mistakes you've made when you purposed something wrong. Like flat out lying and disgracing the Office of the President of the United States.

If there were miscalculations, then there is no need for anyone to admit to anything. Quite frankly, the only real mistake was allowing the army to disband and the loss of Iraq authority in the process.

Rumsfeld's tactical war plan was perfect. He took out Afghanistan in the same time it take for me to eat a value meal at McDonalds and then routed out the 5th largest army in a matter of a few weeks. The total loss of US soldiers at the time was astronomically LOW.

More soldiers have died because of the prolonged effort to re-establish IRAQI control. This was not an easy mission by any stretch of the imagination. Everyone in the world knew it and no one wanted ANY part of it.

Watching all the Monday Morning Quarterbacks just makes me laugh. They probably couldn't coordinate a family picnic without forgetting the pickles, much less invade TWO countries and overthrow their evil governments in a matter a weeks.

Rummy has served his country HONORABLY for decades! He deserves alot more respect than he gets from the Lazy Boy Rockers of this world.

:mad:

[ksdunlap]

well stated its not an easy job. would hate for them Lazy Boy Rockers to run anything

[stayfrosty5]

I believe there is only honor in admitting to mistakes you've made when you purposed something wrong. Like flat out lying and disgracing the Office of the President of the United States.

If there were miscalculations, then there is no need for anyone to admit to anything. Quite frankly, the only real mistake was allowing the army to disband and the loss of Iraq authority in the process.

Rumsfeld's tactical war plan was perfect. He took out Afghanistan in the same time it take for me to eat a value meal at McDonalds and then routed out the 5th largest army in a matter of a few weeks. The total loss of US soldiers at the time was astronomically LOW.

More soldiers have died because of the prolonged effort to re-establish IRAQI control. This was not an easy mission by any stretch of the imagination. Everyone in the world knew it and no one wanted ANY part of it.

Watching all the Monday Morning Quarterbacks just makes me laugh. They probably couldn't coordinate a family picnic without forgetting the pickles, much less invade TWO countries and overthrow their evil governments in a matter a weeks.

Rummy has served his country HONORABLY for decades! He deserves alot more respect than he gets from the Lazy Boy Rockers of this world.

:mad:

You don't think that it was a mistake to send our guys in with no body armor and humvees that turn to swiss cheese? Disbanding the Army was no small mistake and added months and months to the timeline.

Just because something wasn't done purposely, doesn't mean you don't have to take responsibility. One press conference is all it will take... "We should not have disbanded the Army and we should have given our soldiers more resources. Since I am the Secretary of Defense, I take full responsibility and hope the lessons we learned can serve us in the future." THAT IS ALL HE HAS TO SAY!!!! Instead, he's like every other arrogant jerkoff politician and HAS TO BE RIGHT ALL THE TIME!

frosty

[Lonestar]

I like the explanation Sports. Could not agree with you more.

[peakoil]

Frosty,
I can understand your frustration and anger about the lives lost in the war. However, I am absolutely positive that you have NOT seen every single press conference with Rummy. He has on many occations said that there was room for improvement and that "WE" are all learning at the expense of others. What you do not seem to get is that there is a large difference between the word "Learning" and the word "mistake".
Learning is what he has said many times.
There is NO honor in admiting to "MISTAKES" only the embarassment and the failure to lead. If you are leading people weaknesses such you would like to see are look down apon by those in battle who strongly value the rightousness of their leaders. NO sucessful leader can lead that way.....
Change these Democratic values over to the Right then you will be fine.
Karl.........We "ARE" WINNING the war on terror because "WE" Rummy is doing a good job.
Go IRAQ.........:happy64:

[Lux]

You don't think that it was a mistake to send our guys in with no body armor and humvees that turn to swiss cheese? Disbanding the Army was no small mistake and added months and months to the timeline.

Just because something wasn't done purposely, doesn't mean you don't have to take responsibility. One press conference is all it will take... "We should not have disbanded the Army and we should have given our soldiers more resources. Since I am the Secretary of Defense, I take full responsibility and hope the lessons we learned can serve us in the future." THAT IS ALL HE HAS TO SAY!!!! Instead, he's like every other arrogant jerkoff politician and HAS TO BE RIGHT ALL THE TIME!

frosty

I guess that's why he is the Secretary of Defense and we're not. You don't lead armies to war and then stand at a podium and admit to failures. Where does that leave the soldier who is still in theater? Questioning the reason he/she is there? Unmotivated and doubtful? This is not the way you lead your troops. You MOVE ON to the issue at hand.

It may appease the critics but it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to win this war... neither physically, psychologically not politically. In fact, it wouldn't even appease the "terrorist support machine" in our own Congress because they would simply leverage such statement and hold hearings to seek his resignation. Why? Because they would love nothing more to make the administration look bad in an election year.

Like I said, that's why he's the Secretary of Defense, and we are not. Leave the admission of mistakes to the terrorists who have had each and every plan they have implemented totally thwarted by the will our military and the will of the Iraqi people. They can't stand up and fight "mano-a-mano "so they prey on defensless people. Those are the cowards who should be admitting to mistakes because their methods of terror will only cause the people to rise up against it in due time and squash their oppressive cause.

:wave:

[Gluphus]

Someone said in a recent post that he (Rummy) served honorable for many years. While I can see both (all*) sides of this discuss have merit and are worthly of open and free discussion, I must take exception to the entire thesis that serving many years in a high level cabinet position is some kind of sacrifice worthly of admiration. To say living off the fruits of others, having a budget in the trillions, power the likes of King Herod would envy, while not putting yourself or your family in direct mortal danger or suffering any monetary/business loss is akin to feeling sympathy for Barry Bonds pulling a hamstring while carting away his millions...

This is not to say that many people are needed for 20+ years in government: researchers, military, even good administrative people within the bureaucracy perform a worthy and admirable service...

The facts are this: The founding fathers viewed high level public service as a sacrifice or a burden to be borne as an honorable obligation, not a career. While some would argue that it takes years to learn the subtle ways of the state operations, the facts do not support this. If such a thesis were applied to measure results (what matters in the end), you would have to dismiss most of the true quality of life items made by "amateurs", for example: Hewlett Packard, microsoft software, Charles Goodyear, ..., Jesus (he was not a "Priest"), etc.... If you disagree, one only has to look at our NY Fed open market and Treasury debt to see that our current model is not exactly producing the results that these great stewards promise. In essence, this model of ever growing government does not lend itself to producing results.

In conclusion, this man has obligated himself to produce results. Period. no excuses. Any failure on his part should be fully paid by him and not, as most government cabinet members prefer, be passed on to others. With much power, much is expected. Of course, that will not be the case. Instead, such issues will continue to drain the system of its fruit, as has happened in countless other democracies before us.

Agree or disagree, I just call it as I see it. If I had made such a mistake at work, I would be on monster.com, instead, he gets another $175Bn added to his departments budget.

[peakoil]

Very well said Sportlux.
I hope Rummy is carting away with millions, because he deserves it.
At least more than these sports guys.
Look, all in fun. I hope no one takes anything personal because I am buying the first drink when reval happens this year......
I am holding out for $2. Might have to wait till next year for that number.
am willing.
take care......karl

[Lux]

The bottom line is that Rumsfeld WON BOTH wars. His battle plan did not fail. The insurgents ability to gain support from neighboring countries and extremists from within has stretched our involvement beyond the war itself. Winning the peace requires the involvement of many aspects of politics and is not a "military exercise" though our soldiers have ADMIRABLY served as AMBASSADORS OF DEMOCRACY. They cannot do this alone.

Look at POST WAR Germany and the years it took to quell the resistances and rebuild their economy. I think it would be quite foolish for anyone to believe that Iraq would flip into a westernized democracy within a matter of months after the removal of a brutal dictator. Yes, it was the best case scenario we ALL hoped for, but NOTHING is ever guaranteed in war. Like Patton said "WAR IS HELL".

The bottom line: Nothing good ever comes easy and the cheap shots taken at Rusmfeld reek of politics and personal gain. I simply dismiss it as the continuation of the politicization of the War In Iraq and the efforts to undermine our fight against global terror and the countries that sponsor it. It grants comfort to the enemy and serves to undermine the spirit of our VALIENT troops.

I do agree about our forefathers vision of our public servants - they should not be lifelong politicians. When I look at those who primarily oppose this adminstration's actions at every turn (those who seek to twist and distort the truth through "drive-by press conferences" and irresponsible sound bytes), all I see are CAREER POLITICIANS seeking to be heard and seen for political gain - JUST ABOUT EVERY ONE OF THEM COULD BE QUOTED AS SAYING SOMETHING CONTRARY TO WHAT THEY SAID JUST A FEW YEARS AGO - IF NOT A FEW MONTHS AGO.

Case in point: Hillary was on the record as being strongly opposed to illegal immigration (heard the sound byte myself in a John Grambiling interview in WABC in New York City when she was running for Senator). Then she recently gave he "wannabe MLK" speech about the illegal immigrants as the "backbone" of our nation. Tell me if THAT isn't a POLITICIAN!

And though these generals have served honorably for our country as well, I did not see them stand up and be counted when the Clinton administration stripped down our Armed Forces and intelligence gathering capabilities over the course of 8 long and painful years. The catastrophic results were a series of deadly attacks on our military, our embassies, and the World Trade Center culiminating with the attacks on 9/11.

Since we are on the topic of lifelong politics:

George Bush isn't a lifelong politician - served as a govenor for 6 years
Dick Cheney isn't a lifelong politician - diverse public and private sector career
And Donald Rumsfeld isn't a lifelong politician.Rusmfeld's resume:
Attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954)
Served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor
1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975.
Transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.Public Sector 1962-1977 (15 Years)
Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.
In 1969 he joined the President's Cabinet. From 1969 to 1970, he served as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the President. From 1971 to 1972, he was Counsellor to the President and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program.
In 1973, he left Washington, DC, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium (1973-1974).
In August 1974, he was called back to Washington, DC, to serve as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford.
Became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975).
Served as the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense, the youngest in the country's history (1975-1977)Private Sector from 1977 through 2001 (14 years)
From 1977 to 1985 he served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company. The successful turnaround there earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). From 1985 to 1990 he was in private business.
Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation from 1990 to 1993. General Instrument Corporation was a leader in broadband transmission, distribution, and access control technologies. Until being sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical company.During his business career, Rumsfeld continued his public service in a variety of Federal posts, including:
Member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control (1982 - 1986);
Special Presidential Envoy on the Law of the Sea Treaty (1982 - 1983);
Senior Advisor to the President's Panel on Strategic Systems (1983 - 1984);
Member of the U.S. Joint Advisory Commission on U.S./Japan Relations (1983 - 1984);
Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East (1983 - 1984);
Member of the National Commission on Public Service (1987 - 1990);
Member of the National Economic Commission (1988 - 1989);
Member of the Board of Visitors of the National Defense University (1988 - 1992);
Member of the Commission on U.S./Japan Relations (1989 - 1991);
Member of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission (1999 - 2000)
Chaired the bipartisan U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, in 1998, and the U.S. Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization, in 2000.Note that each of these positions are appointed and required both public and private sector experience. A far cry from spending 30-40 years as a congressman with little to show except broken campaign promises and pork belly spending.

If anyone thinks Rummy needs to go to Monster.com, they had better make sure there's PLENTY of "server space". His distinguished career in both the public and private sector are admirable and if I could do my whole life all over again, I would sign up for his in a minute.

:wave:

Oh sorry... just realized it's an election year.

Now I'm not so surprised that we're even having this discussion.

;)

[Fireman-Hott]

Well here is my question...

If Rummy was doing such a horrible job why did these generals wait until they retired to bring it up. Why not bring it up when their troops are fighting and in harms way. If he was getting our men killed wouldn't you think it'd be wise to bring it up and stop it instead of sitting back and letting it happen than complain about it later.

[Lux]

Well here is my question...

If Rummy was doing such a horrible job why did these generals wait until they retired to bring it up. Why not bring it up when their troops are fighting and in harms way. If he was getting our men killed wouldn't you think it'd be wise to bring it up and stop it instead of sitting back and letting it happen than complain about it later.

Good question Fireman!

Maybe it's an election year and there's something to be gained?

naaaaahhhhhhh!!!!
;)

[Lux]

Ford defends Rumsfeld's control of war
April 23, 2006

The former US president, Gerald Ford, yesterday defended Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who is under fire from six retired generals who claim he has bungled the war in Iraq and should resign. "I have been extremely troubled by the efforts of a group of retired generals to force the resignation of our Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld," Mr Ford said in a rare statement.

"President [George] Bush is right to keep him in his post. It is the President's decision, and his alone. "Allowing retired generals to dictate our country's policies and its leadership would be a dangerous precedent that would severely undermine our country's long tradition of civilian control of the military.

"Today, in a time of war, such an effort sends exactly the wrong message, both to our troops deployed abroad and to our enemies who are watching for any signs of weakness or self-doubt."

http://smh.com.au/news/world/ford-defends-rumsfelds-control-of-war/2006/04/22/1145344319550.html



I couldn't have said this better myself...


oops, I already did!
:drunk:

[bagzz]

Editing post due to cut and pasting wrong reference, but the attached New York Times chart shows that spending is only 19%, not 40%.

[Wildbill]

These 7 generals out of 7000 are morons.
Probably getting appearance $ from the Cindy Sheehan Lunatic Foundation.

[panhead]

Restarting post due to cut and pasting wrong reference

Good post Bagzz!....everybody wants to bash the Bush administration without giving a second thought as to what would have happend if Kerry
got elected.(just the thought of that scares me)
I wouldn't mind it a bit if they cut a lot of "social" programs and put the money in the military, we can't do enough for those that serve.

[Lux]

Editing post due to cut and pasting wrong reference, but the attached New York Times chart shows that spending is only 19%, not 40%.
But Bagzz

Why let the facts get in the way of a good smear job?

;)

[stayfrosty5]

Editing post due to cut and pasting wrong reference, but the attached New York Times chart shows that spending is only 19%, not 40%.

Typical bagzz.... you rip on the NYT and then use them as a source when it fits YOUR agenda.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
We were both wrong.

frosty

P.S.- The generals didn't come forward earlier because the effects of the mistakes could not be immediately seen, and they did not want to put their jobs in danger.

[Lux]

they did not want to put their jobs in danger.
Sorry frosty but this is weak at best.

Is that what we expect from generals who send soldiers into battle and put their LIVES in danger.

They were afraid to lose their jobs?

You should be more angered at these generals for their "alleged" cowardice, if you are so distraught about the loss of our soldier's lives in Iraq.

You can't have it both ways.

:confused::confused::confused::confused:

[bagzz]

Typical bagzz.... you rip on the NYT and then use them as a source when it fits YOUR agenda.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
We were both wrong.

frosty

P.S.- The generals didn't come forward earlier because the effects of the mistakes could not be immediately seen, and they did not want to put their jobs in danger.
I used the NYT because I figured you respcted THEM enough to not throw their pie chart out the window..... Guess I was giving you too much credit. And don't address why what I posted was wrong, just say it is, end of story in your opinion.

As for your "link", yaeh, I've seen that before. Not only do they need to throw out payroll taxes (as if everybody had a choice in paying them or not) and make some huge assumptions........ How they came to the conclusions is right on the page, including this caveat:

*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.

Now THAT'S true scientific analysis there...... Throw out whatever data hurts the pre-determined conclusions you're shooting for (i.e. payroll taxes don't count as taxes) and then if that's not enough, just base further conclusions on how you "feel" !

But hey, Frosty says that I was wrong as if it were a fact and then backs-up the assertion with a biased fringe site. For crying out loud, the website is called "War Resisters League". No doubt they're entirely objective. (That was sarcasm). Go to the "About Warresisters.org" page here:
http://www.warresisters.org/about_wrl.htm
And read about how the true way to peace boils down to really, really, really wanting peace. I guess Neville Chamberlin musta been right all along, and his "peace in our time" statement after meeting with Hitler was NOT naive wishful thinking and it was everybody else's fault in the world, not Hitlers that WWII occured. WOW. Deep thinkers over there.

And Frosty uses their self-admittedly estimated percentages based on omissions (payroll taxes) and "feelings" (their estimates) as a means of showing how my facts are wrong. The numbers I posted anybody can find not only in the New York times, but at IRS http://www.irs.gov/, the Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov/, White House Budget Office http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/, Washington Post, Heritage foundation, New York Times, LA Times, etc. etc. etc. But Frosty finds one self-admittedly biased website that makes their conclusions on self-admitted huge leaps of faith and self-admitted ideologial assertions, and that's the end of the argument in his opinion. sorry mate, gonna have to do better than that.

[panhead]

I used the NYT because I figured you respcted THEM enough to not throw their pie chart out the window..... Guess I was giving you too much credit. And don't address why what I posted was wrong, just say it is, end of story in your opinion.

As for your "link", yaeh, I've seen that before. Not only do they need to throw out payroll taxes (as if everybody had a choice in paying them or not) and make some huge assumptions........ How they came to the conclusions is right on the page, including this caveat:

*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.

Now THAT'S true scientific analysis there...... Throw out whatever data hurts the pre-determined conclusions you're shooting for (i.e. payroll taxes don't count as taxes) and then if that's not enough, just base further conclusions on how you "feel" !

But hey, Frosty says that I was wrong as if it were a fact and then backs-up the assertion with a biased fringe site. For crying out loud, the website is called "War Resisters League". No doubt they're entirely objective. (That was sarcasm). Go to the "About Warresisters.org" page here:
http://www.warresisters.org/about_wrl.htm
And read about how the true way to peace boils down to really, really, really wanting peace. I guess Neville Chamberlin musta been right all along, and his "peace in our time" statement after meeting with Hitler was NOT naive wishful thinking and it was everybody else's fault in the world, not Hitlers that WWII occured. WOW. Deep thinkers over there.

And Frosty uses their self-admittedly estimated percentages based on omissions (payroll taxes) and "feelings" (their estimates) as a means of showing how my facts are wrong. The numbers I posted anybody can find not only in the New York times, but at IRS http://www.irs.gov/, the Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov/, White House Budget Office http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/, Washington Post, Heritage foundation, New York Times, LA Times, etc. etc. etc. But Frosty finds one self-admittedly biased website that makes their conclusions on self-admitted huge leaps of faith and self-admitted ideologial assertions, and that's the end of the argument in his opinion. sorry mate, gonna have to do better than that.

Don't sweat it Bagzz.......cant change his mind,he just wants to bash this administration irreguardless of the facts.
Kinda makes ya wonder why he ivested in dinar?

[stayfrosty5]

I used the NYT because I figured you respcted THEM enough to not throw their pie chart out the window..... Guess I was giving you too much credit. And don't address why what I posted was wrong, just say it is, end of story in your opinion.

As for your "link", yaeh, I've seen that before. Not only do they need to throw out payroll taxes (as if everybody had a choice in paying them or not) and make some huge assumptions........ How they came to the conclusions is right on the page, including this caveat:

*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.

Now THAT'S true scientific analysis there...... Throw out whatever data hurts the pre-determined conclusions you're shooting for (i.e. payroll taxes don't count as taxes) and then if that's not enough, just base further conclusions on how you "feel" !

But hey, Frosty says that I was wrong as if it were a fact and then backs-up the assertion with a biased fringe site. For crying out loud, the website is called "War Resisters League". No doubt they're entirely objective. (That was sarcasm). Go to the "About Warresisters.org" page here:
http://www.warresisters.org/about_wrl.htm
And read about how the true way to peace boils down to really, really, really wanting peace. I guess Neville Chamberlin musta been right all along, and his "peace in our time" statement after meeting with Hitler was NOT naive wishful thinking and it was everybody else's fault in the world, not Hitlers that WWII occured. WOW. Deep thinkers over there.

And Frosty uses their self-admittedly estimated percentages based on omissions (payroll taxes) and "feelings" (their estimates) as a means of showing how my facts are wrong. The numbers I posted anybody can find not only in the New York times, but at IRS http://www.irs.gov/, the Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov/, White House Budget Office http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/, Washington Post, Heritage foundation, New York Times, LA Times, etc. etc. etc. But Frosty finds one self-admittedly biased website that makes their conclusions on self-admitted huge leaps of faith and self-admitted ideologial assertions, and that's the end of the argument in his opinion. sorry mate, gonna have to do better than that.

The 80% estimate they use is only to find the "Past Military" percentage, which is 19%.... NOT the 30% of the "Current Military." The only thing that is estimated in the "Current Military" part is the "unbudgeted", which you will probably agree is lower than it will end up being. So 30 is still greater than 19 last time I checked regardless of who made the site. If you look at the left hand side, you can see that there are figures for each category and I highly doubt they were made up. It is easy for the government to throw out a pie chart to the sheep and expect everyone to believe it, but this group took it to the next level. Just because the information is from a bias source, doesn't mean it's not correct.

Panhead: I joined this investment because if you can't beat em, join em.

frosty

[panhead]

Strange how you use the term sheeple, not many people do....but I've always heard it used in reffernce to the gulliable general population that
believes anything the mass media jams down thier throat.
As far as your can't beat em join em mindset....guess your not really
a man of your convictions then.
Although the Bush administration is far from perfect it still beats the alternative that was offerd last election.

[bagzz]

The 80% estimate they use is only to find the "Past Military" percentage, which is 19%.... NOT the 30% of the "Current Military." The only thing that is estimated in the "Current Military" part is the "unbudgeted", which you will probably agree is lower than it will end up being. So 30 is still greater than 19 last time I checked regardless of who made the site. If you look at the left hand side, you can see that there are figures for each category and I highly doubt they were made up. It is easy for the government to throw out a pie chart to the sheep and expect everyone to believe it, but this group took it to the next level. Just because the information is from a bias source, doesn't mean it's not correct.

Panhead: I joined this investment because if you can't beat em, join em.

frosty

"Just because the information is from a bias source, doesn't mean it's not correct."

That's the foundation of your argument. On the site you referenced, they chronicled what assumptions, leaps of faith and outright wild a** guesses they had to make to come up with their percentages, and you still have no problem with their conclusions. How wonderful that you are teaching so many young minds. The 19% is THE right percentage, that's not just what the government tells us, it's in every federal budget summary, used by both right and left, it's what every media organization, left right and center uses and it's easily verifyable. That you state that it's anything other than that with no other support for your argument than a self-admittedly biased website you are being dishonest with yourself. And furthermore, as I stated earlier, I wouldn't mind seeing the DoD percentage at 80% of total taxes and giving the average person their freedom back by cutting all of the other governmental programs that consume most of the money Americans pay in taxes.

The foundation of the argument that "Warresistors.org" uses to make their argument is that social security and medicare payroll taxes are kept in trust funds and are only spent on social security and medicare. Even if you don't want to count payroll TAXES as TAXES, do you honestly beleive that there is a trust fund or "lockbox" for each program or that those dollars are limited to being spent on those programs?

Facts is facts, A is A, 1 + 1 = 2, I've proven my case by providing verifyable links and data. You persist in believing what you want to believe, and won't address the context of my posts although I respond to yours in great detail. As anybody can clearly see, I don't like the way our tax dollars are spent at all, but I feel obligated to remain grounded in reality if I ever want to accomplish anything. How I envy you for not having that limitation.

[bagzz]

....you can't even interpret your own source

The 80% estimate they use is only to find the "Past Military" percentage, which is 19%.... NOT the 30% of the "Current Military."
Based on the assumption that there would be little or no national debt if it weren't for the military. Even if YOU believe this, if it weren't for the military, we would be talking about Duetch Marks instead of dollars right now anyways no? But if everybody would just get along.........

Let me ask you this Frosty, what would be YOUR alternative to funding a military?

The only thing that is estimated in the "Current Military" part is the "unbudgeted", which you will probably agree is lower than it will end up being.
Irrelevant, because to get to the point where this is in the discussion you have to assume that a military is not needed and that payroll taxes are not taxes.

So 30 is still greater than 19 last time I checked regardless of who made the site.
This is where you got it wrong big time in your analysis. The 19% discussed here is based on numbers that the website created by ignoring payroll taxes and making assumptions. The 19% I discussed is calculted completely differently. But knowing you can perform basic math (30 > 19) could be something you can build upon.

If you look at the left hand side, you can see that there are figures for each category and I highly doubt they were made up. It is easy for the government to throw out a pie chart to the sheep and expect everyone to believe it, but this group took it to the next level.
No they didn't just make it up, the referenced a study by a biased Columbia professor that admitted they made assumptions. Read your won sources, quit making me do your homework.

Just because the information is from a bias source, doesn't mean it's not correct.

Panhead: I joined this investment because if you can't beat em, join em.

frosty If it's from a biased source I'd hope you'd at least look into it, not state it's conclusions as a point of fact and not tell somebody else they are wrong.

[bagzz]

...... running away from the conversation when the going gets tough or he/she/it has to back-up assertions or actually respond to a challenge. What courage.

[panhead]

Possibly looking for more credible sources than he was previously useing?

[Lonestar]

I guess the question I have to ask is were any of these generals active from the time of planning and actual invasion on? If so did they speak up during it. I think they are full of crap and if I was one of their prior troops would be mad if my physical leader was so weak they did not speak up on behalf of their troops. This is all a bunch of bull.