Rummie Said, "The military has no say in the war in Iraq" It's a political problem! So what does that mean?
406297
It means that since Vietnam congress has played politics with the lives of our soldiers.Instead of winning a war they try to play the public opinion game to win a vote.\nA war should be run from the field not from congress,their butts aren't being shot at.\nWe still have troops in Germany.How long did it take to establish a government in Japan? \nThis is not a McDonald's thing,there is no drive through window.
696898
what does this have to do with politics?
1016824
I believe Lola means that we are killing many innocent people in Iraq and before we went in there there was no Inurgents. So our war created a place for them to rise, just as they did against Russia in Afganistan. Of course, we backed them then because it was in our interest too. But what are we doing in Iraq? Our boys are dying for what? Oil? It sure isn't for WMD and I can't believe that the people in Washington didn't know that. Repulicans and Democrats alike. But the spin machine told us citizens that it was ABSOLUTELY necessary, and we bought it hook line and sinker!! Now, do we admit we were duped into this or do we keep waving the flag in ignorance?
856741
I think that when the Reps say "winning," they mean having the insurgency (the people who took up arms to get the invaders, I'm sorry, I mean American troops out of their country) to realize that they will never be able to win and will surrender, giving way towards a peaceful (i.e. not violent) condition in Iraq where the Military can train the new military, rebuild the cities, and let the new prime minister enact his new laws, constitution, etc.\n\nThey are at a stalemate right now as the insurgents are also waiting for the US military to realize that they will never be able to win and will surrender, giving way for said insurgency to try to take over the prime minister and put one of their guys in power.\n\nThis stalemate could be forever (literally: have you heard of the 100-year war?); however, it could end tomorrow if the insurgency can give up.  (Which is what the Reps keep hoping for.)\n\nNow that the Reps are no longer controlling, they probably think of their election "losses" as a win.  Going to war was a mistake.  Now if we "pull out," we admit defeat and leave Iraq to the mercy of the insurgency.  But if we stay there, we could be hit with losses and make our sons and brothers kill innocents for years.  We never should have gone.\n\nBut now that the Reps are out, the ultimate blame for "losing" or staying and dying will fall on the Dems.
742194
yea, your assumption is the problem with the statement.  People want our people to come home.  there is no doubt about it.  Not one person would say they would RATHER have military fighting war than not.  But some people understand the necessities of it.  The Dems (like most every other agenda they try to push) keep saying they "have a plan" the uneducated masses believe this garbage and say "well if they have a plan lets let them inact it."  Dems are praying on hope and ignorance of the american people and it is what is going to lose the war and leave us in a worse place then we are now.
695755
Well, if you're asking what it means it just means that it leans to the agenda of a certain political party. It is frowned upon mostly though because things usually work out better if single-party agendas are put aside and a Bi-Partisan or cooperative agreement can be reached that are better for the country all around.
1009308
Better yet, what is the new word for Republican party ? Haliburton. G.W. Bush ? The "W" stands for war monger.~Randy
983700
Good point. Are we supposed to read between the lines with a politician of one party but not the other? Let's see...Kerry's statement could have been misconstrued as an arrogant belief about the intellect of soldiers, if you are looking for it. And the president's statement could be taken to mean that the masses need to be controlled by the government. Hmm. I'd say look at the big picture.
934649
Thats quite an interesting article, thank you for putting it up, and i agree with ecerything the generals say, but do you not think there is larger issues here? The ineffectiveness of the iraqi govt, caused by the clash of ethnic groups but also by the duality of relying on US troops while also trying to distance themselves from US policies, and other issues like this? I respect what the generals say but are they not purely looking at this from a military and practical perspective? Killing every terrorist and insurgent will not finish this war, because its impossible...hmm i cant see an alternative way of getting out of this situation but i also refuse to believe that its as simple a solution as issuing killing orders...tho that would be a step forward i admit
1129582
You are not going to get an answer out of the people who say that.  They can't explain the things they say, they just know how to say it.\n\nOn the flip side, one can make the argument that the reason some countries in the U.N. did not vote to invade Iraq was due to oil.  Places like France and Russia have/had oil contracts with Iraq, and if they sanctioned an invasion, it would cost them their contracts.\n\nThe simple fact is, the simple minded liberals who make the war for oil claims can't see past the slogans their hero leaders like michael moore spew out of their mouths.\n\n-----\n\nmelvin, that is not a documentary.  That title was removed because it was proven to be full of half truths, and things taken out of context to reach a particular point.  Don't be so naive.\n\n----\n\nberen, I suggest you look at this question, and see if the timeline of statements adds up.\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhuC2gSDmgjaTBRASaVYtdXsy6IX?qid=20060626222808AAHcTMM
781154
It depends on how you view a civil war.  Websters dictionary defines civil war as followed; " a war between factions or regions of a country".\n\nSo with that said, I think it is unreasonable to say anything other than what the clear and easy to see reality in that country is; it's in a civil war.  Sadly and tragically.  Bush and Rumsfeld screwed up something that was near and dear to my heart, and that was the liberation of the Iraqi people from the hands of a brutal dictator, and I could tell you things about that screw up that would make your hair curl.
876374
Kerry stated that students my get "stuck in Iraq" if they don't study hard and do their homework. People took this as an insult to our troops, and called him on it. He came out with an apology saying that he had no intention of offending those in uniform. He mis read the telepromter (or something to that affect) and botched up a joke directed at Bush and his hadling with the war in Iraq.
916573
Bob Ney resigned because he is going to jail in a bribery scandal. Did the liberals bribe him? I think not! The military has not liked Rumsfeld's leadership, decisions or general attitude for years
902553
That this statement probably has something to do with the Iraq war.  If you don't hate it your'e probably not listening to all the news stories and don't have the facts.  Cause seriouly, how could someone support it at this point?  It's just not working.  I pray for the lives of the  troops and the people of Iraq...well not the crazy one's who kidnap.
1077806
It refers to a "power vacuum" as in a lack of goverment. The insurgents want to break down civil order so that they can come in and impose their kind of power.
742339
"There are known knowns, things we know we know.  There are also known unknowns, we know some things we don't know.  There are unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."--Donald Henry Rumsfeld\n\nMaybe he will be portrayed as a deadender or as a genius; it will all DEPEND on the FUTURE.  \n\nHowever, here is what I know.  I know that he pissed off a lot of military leaders trying to make the military lighter and nibbler.  That is what we need on the war on terror.  You see what we need is BALANCE.  We need to have "enough" troops to catch the terrorists while SPEEDing up the communication with FEWER CASUALTIES so we can catch them quicker.  \n\n"You go to war with the Army you have.  They're not the Army you might want or wish to have," said Rumsfeld on December 8, 2004.  This is why I decided to put "enough" in parenthesis.  There is NO such thing as enough because that perception chages constantly.  In fact that advantages of "not enough" is LESS abuse of resources and being CREATIVE, CREATIVE.  This adage has certainly improved my life, being in my twenties, since I DON'T PANIC as much as I used to.\n\nOf course, some of us think that 2800 U.S. troops killed in Iraq is such a "big" number.  Maybe.  Look at the number of dead in other wars and calculate them per year.  Vietnam has 5 K per year MORE than this war so you could credit Rumsfled with this.   He put a democratic/parlimentary government in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I believe those government can flourish in the LONG-TERM because the idea is to put AS MANY PEOPLE IN TYRANNY AS POSSIBLE.  I believe we put TOO MUCH blame on Rumsfeld because as he has been saying all along this will take time.  This is why we should be putting the more blame on the ARAB CULTURE since somehow they are causing the killings BUT I could be WRONG.\n\nHowever, I will admit there were some things he SHOULD have done that could have put the country in better shape currently and made him the only TWO-TERM Secretary of Defense, probably.\n1. Kept Saddam's military that should have been used right away to keep order.  These men only worked for him just to make MONEY.\n2.  Kept the LOWER ranks of the Baathist Party (not in the top 55 most wanted).  They worked for him like the soldiers and know more about this country than the exiles.  They would have been the interim government.\n3. Authorization for U.S. troops to shoot a few looters just to keep order.\n4. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on Iraqis possessing weapons so there would have been fewer insurgent attacks.\n5. Not putting "enough" troops.  This just a MAYBE.\n\nBy the way if anyone is going to be in this position assert your CIVILIAN control, like Rumsfeld, but still listen to the uniform.  The 1947 law that combined the Depts. of Navy and War into Defense says that the Secretary of Defense must have a MAXIMUM OF TEN YEARS OF ACTIVE MILITARY EXPERIENCE.  I understand that the longer one is in the military, the more hostile he or she would be.  I think he is the most active/exciting (because of his "excessive" press conferences) Secretary.\n\nNow going back to the question, I do not know if he will be praised or hated but I gave you what I know.\n\nI am SORRY to say all this.
763531
You make an excellent point. Unfortunately, I know that my answer will be followed by several others justifying their issues with Kerry because they have a problem with something he did while in the service.\nSad really. The reality is, you are right. Support your troops, means just that, support them. If you don't agree with their politics, than don't agree, but to bash someone that went to a very ugly war, and proudly represented this country is just wrong. I am sure that there are a number of current service members that have a different political view than I do, but that doesn't mean that I am going to do anything other than support them.\nI find it continually ridiculous that if Kerry "misspeaks" it is a national tragedy, but when Bush "misspeaks" on a daily basis, it is the "liberal media's" fault for exploiting his words. whatever.