Daily Kos

2 Generals return fire at W

by mikepridmore

Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 02:53:39 PM PDT

In response to Bush calling his critics irresponsible (link), 2 Generals have returned the favor.

Link

General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, issued the following statement:

"This study is but the latest example of the Administration's appalling disregard for the welfare and safety of our troops. President Bush's rhetoric doesn't match the actions of his Administration, and unnecessary combat fatalities are the result.

"This is a clear case where Congressional investigation is warranted. When were the needs for additional protection first expressed? Who knew what and when? And, why weren't the necessary steps taken to protect our soldiers? The American people deserve no less than full accountability and assurances that going forward our troops will not face unnecessary risks or danger caused by lack of resources, oversight or commitment from Washington."

Lt. General Claudia Kennedy, the first and only woman to achieve the rank of three-star general in the United States Army, issued the following statement:

"Since the beginning of the Iraq War, the Bush Administration has failed to keep our troops safe. They have not made sure they have all the resources they need to get the job done. It is unconscionable that numerous soldiers' and Marines' lives could have been saved if the Pentagon and the President had supplied them with armor that they already had. Our troops and their families deserve better. We need to immediately equip men and women in combat with every resource available, to keep them safe and help them defeat the enemy."

This is the second time in as many months that Clark has essentially called Bush irresponsible. (see previous story here)

Tags: Wesley Clark, Claudia Kennedy, Iraq, George W. Bush, accountability, Broken Military (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 141 comments

  •  Go Wes! (4.00 / 23)

    I hope he is brushing up on his campaigning skills in his free time.  The Gooper slime machine went after him in '04 at a level disproportionate to his popularity within Democratic circles, which only means one thing:  they are scared of him.  

    Keep telling the truth, General!

    Fox News--As fair as a Florida Election, as balanced as Ann Coulter when she forgets to take her medicine.

    by Dizzy on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:02:01 PM PDT

  •  I just wish (4.00 / 18)

    The administration would listen and send the troops the proper protection.

    Al Qaeda No. 2: "We don't kill innocents." GW Bush: "We don't torture." How tragic that both statements bring the same snort of disbelief....

    by PatsBard on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:02:24 PM PDT

  •  The best protection our troops can hope for (4.00 / 11)

    is for the eventual end of this completely inept adminstration.  When will the American people wake up and realize that these fools know nothing about governance.  The campaign is over, now they need to do a little governing.  Doubt that will ever happen, however.

    by pleon1967 on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:09:16 PM PDT

  •  Just sayin' (4.00 / 17)

    I'll Beat the shit out of 'em

    The reason people don't learn from the past, is because the past was a repetitious lie to begin with. Mike Hastie U.S. Army Medic Vietnam 1970-71

    by BOHICA on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:10:24 PM PDT

  •  Bush wants "responsible debate..." (4.00 / 16)


    Great, there it is.  Now let's hold his proverbial feet to the fire and see him respond to it.  

    by G2geek on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:11:12 PM PDT

    •  He's Responsible! (4.00 / 11)

      Why do we need to debate it?

      Remember, THEY hate us for our Freedom! The freedom for the President to do as he damn well pleases.

      by Tuba Les on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:51:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bush Translator: (4.00 / 19)

      "Responsible debate" =

      Debate which first acknowledges that George Bush is a brilliant wartime leader, to be followed blindly.  Then moves on to praise him profusely for keeping everyone in this country safe from terrorists.  Then bestows love and blessings for the future of His Reign of Goodness.  (Oh, and omits the "debate" part.)

      Fair warning:  Any deviation from the above debate format will be met with a torrent of personal slander, slime and shameless lies from Bush's political machine, beginning with Cheney, Rove, and McClellan, then oozing its way stinkily through the TV, radio, and internet propaganda network of the Republican party.  

      That may sound like a harsh price to pay.  But cripes, it's your own fault if you wind up being slimed.  I mean, they're just trying to have a responsible debate.  Why would you go and mess that up by including some actual debate in that "responsible debate?"

      Hillary Clinton: champion of the downtrodden White Race!

      by chumley on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:23:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Responsible debate" in Bushspeak (4.00 / 5)

      means GOP zealots set all the frames beforehand.

      Chaos: Not just a theory, its a way of life.

      by Agent of Fortune on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:10:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Something not Bush's fault?? (4.00 / 7)

    I never thought I'd write the above sentence, but I almost half believe it because the current armor was built for a different kind of war.

    The current body armor in use were designed for head to head gunbattles. When shooting, you're aiming for max lethality by aiming at the torso, hence the ceramic plate where they are. Nobody aims for the edges of the torso because you've got a good chance of missing.

    With IED's this is irrelevent, as the shrapnel is indiscriminate. Even if you put ceramics to cover the trapezius and upper humerus(greatly adding weight and reducing flexibility)in the short term, you don't add that much protection. Any severing of the brachial or femoral arteries is likely gonna be fatal.

    Now will a total redesign of body armor necessary? Yes.

    Would additional ceramic armor helped? Marginally

    Is this fundamental dsign flaw Bush's fault? No.

    The civil war's gonna happen anyway, so it's easier and cheaper toget the hell out, then rediesign the armor.

    by BonScott on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:25:24 PM PDT

    •  And why should (4.00 / 12)

      Bush not be held to account for ignoring calls for better armor?  We didn't need a study to know that a lack of proper body armor was causing unnecessary deaths. With all these IEDs and previous discussions about body armor, it was obvious that we needed more and better armor.  This has been a war with IEDs for years now.  How long does W get a pass for ignoring conditions on the ground?

      The Bush administration runs war as a spoils system.  Political donors and cronies get contracts.  (link)  Because of an improper focus, quality equipment isn't the goal and they skimped on quality for some of the body armor.  (Scroll down here)

      The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

      by mikepridmore on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:42:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  IED's (4.00 / 7)

        I did a little research a while back and was able to find a web site that said they sold jammers to the military/government that could jam the remote detonation of IED's by things like cell phones, garage door openers and remore controls ect. If I recall correctly I think they had a ten mile range and cost about $10,000. I think the web site said they were used by the government to put them on government officials automobiles. I thought they would work just fine in Iraq for all the kids driving caravans but I don't have any technical training.

        I remember at the same time I looked up how many men from Wisconsin were killed by IED's.  I think it was 11 at the time.   I think I also read at the same time that it costs the military around $12,000 in direct initial benifits for every soldier. I thought/still think it would be well worth the money.  I know I printed it all off and I will try to find the info and give links.

        Republicans need people to be stupid

        by strengthof10kmen on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:33:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some IEDs can be jammed (none / 0)

          Others are detonated with land lines from a hidden person, or by infra-red remotes, which are not jammed. The insurgents are not techno-dummies.

          Who will stop this war of lies? Keith Olbermann May 23rd, 2007

          by Ed in Montana on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 07:46:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Alot of people.... (none / 0)

            are talking about IED's, but I believe that alot of soldiers have been killed by snipers trained in Syria.

            I read 6-months back that they (insurgents) train to shoot and hit uncovered areas. The main issue is that our guys go out and patrol and get shot at, because we are ticking off the people. If our guys stay in the bases chaos breaks out. It's a loose, loose situation.

            Honor bound to defend freedom. Freedom is long-standing army regulations.

            by RichardG on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:50:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Technically Speaking You are Right but..... (4.00 / 9)

      But, in essence it is his fault.  

      He sent soldiers into an unjust war.  

      His administration did not gather the appropriate intelligence - ie: the use of IED as weapons, or the kind of guerrilla warfare that may evolve subsequently (you would think VN could have been an excellent teaching tool).  

      Logically, if the government claims to have found hidden WMD through "secret intelligence" your military would also trust you have a handle on the smaller armaments that could be used.

      I know this sounds somewhat simplified but Bush has spent the last 5 years saying "Trust me, I am going to keep America safe".  

      IMOHO: If you demand blind, unwavering trust from your nation and its military, to the extreme that you villianize those who question - you are completely responsible and accountable when you fail them.  

      Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.

      by Sleeps in Trees on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:50:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The better armor was available (4.00 / 13)

      Bush just didn't send it. That is the problem. Today on AirAmerica, a guy who served over there told Jerry Springer that the troops didn't have the armor but all the big wigs in the Green Zone did.

      "Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this...I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over." ~ HAL

      by LuLu on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:59:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not just that (4.00 / 7)

        Not just the big wigs but the "Military Contractors" all have nice new body armor.  Why are they considered a higher priority than our troops?

        DITCH MITCH-Republican "Bush Buddy" Governor of Indiana

        by libnewsie on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:20:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly . . . (4.00 / 10)

        If Bush wasn't alerted to the armor problem from the outset then he certainly was when Rummie was justly ambushed in his Kuwait pep-rally when a soldier asked why he and his men were inadequately supplied. What was Rummie's comeback? I forget. You go to to war with the army you have, not the one you want. Some shit like that. I wrote about this the other day on my blog. The Rrummie article link is posted there as well.

        And it IS Bush's fault. End of story. Had he not rushed us into this illegal and preemptive debacle we would not be having this discussion today.

        by Idaho Progressive on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:24:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The buck stops where? (4.00 / 5)

      Remind me: who is ultimately responsible for the lives of our troops?

      Future Majority and Young Philly Politics - the Kidz are coming for ya!

      by Minister AlX on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:27:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ultimately responsible? (4.00 / 2)

        With great power comes great responsibility, usually.

        -- We are just regular people informed on issues

        by mike101 on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:28:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The buck (4.00 / 4)


        "This White House doesn't even know where the buck is." - Wes Clark

        by Donna Z on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:26:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In China... (none / 1)

        ... and to "W",

            1 Yuan = 0.124054 Buck

        ... since it's more positive to remember the increasing valuations of 1 Yuan, rather than the rapid devaluations of our own currency. ;/

        StopIranWar.com

        by Knightrider on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:05:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  since you bring up China, (none / 1)

          the yuan, and China's remarkable growth, to some extent at the expense of American workers with the help of WalMart (keep in mind that Wal Mart is politically very well connected into the Republican machine - they give money only to Republicans) it's an opportunity for me to segway into this interview with a former NSA intelligence officer and whistle blower,
           http://www.democracynow.org/...
          Russell Tice, who suggests he uncovered spying within the NSA by a Chinese double agent, Katrina Leung.

          "RUSSELL TICE: Well, basically I was given my walking papers and told I was no longer a federal employee. So --

          AMY GOODMAN: Why?

          RUSSELL TICE: Some time ago I had some concerns about a co-worker at D.I.A. who exhibited the classic signs of being involved in espionage, and I reported that and basically got blown off by the counterintelligence office at D.I.A. and kind of pushed the issue, because I continued to see a pattern of there being a problem. And once I got back to N.S.A., I pretty much dropped the issue, but there was a report that came across my desk in April of 2003 about two F.B.I. agents that were possibly passing secret counterintelligence information to a Chinese double agent, Katrina Leung, and I sent a secure message back to the D.I.A. counterintelligence officer, and I said I think the F.B.I. is incompetent, and the retaliation came down on me like a ton of bricks."

          (I did a search on her - she was a Republican fund raiser - and found this:
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/... )

          Somehow I recall that well connected and wealthy people in this country are investing heavily in China. http://www.usccc.org/...
           

          by eve on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 07:51:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Bush Sending Troops Into Combat Without (none / 1)

      the proper armor doesn't, in the historical context, amount to much.

      Certainly  doesn't amount to much when compared to Wilson in WWI sending American artillerymen into combat not only not knowing how to operate their guns but never having seen their guns. Or FDR sending American tankers into combat in WWII riding in Shermans which could neither destroy nor withstand the cannon fire from German Tigers. Or Truman sending American troops into combat in Korea armed with bazookas whose rounds bounced off the NKA T-72s. Or JFK and LBJ sending Americans into combat in Vietnam with M-16s which used the wrong powder and jammed incessently and APCs which burst into flames when hit when raked by AK-47 fire.

      Historical context always helps.

      by barrowstreetdenizen on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:33:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Iraq isn't like any of those wars. (4.00 / 2)

        We're only fighting in Iraq because the President knowingly lied to get us there.  Funny how a little historical contextualization changes things isn't it?  He is responsible whether he, or any other Republican for that matter, likes it or not.

        The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

        by mikepridmore on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:55:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Moreover . . . (4.00 / 2)

          Not a war in our history (and correct me if I am wrong) was waged preemptively based on faulty intel and/or outright lies. Preemption was the distinction President Carter made in his interview with Blitzer.

          Clinton articulated it another way: We should cooperate whenever we can, and act unilaterally only when we have to, rather than cooperating whenever we have to and acting unilaterally whenever we can.

          It is the imperial difference, and one that negates, I think, historical context.

          by Idaho Progressive on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 07:09:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Those'd be some amazing bazookas (none / 0)

        They'd have to shoot through time to hit NK T-72s.

        T-72 tanks weren't introduced until the late 70's

        T-54, that's your tank, and yeah, WWII bazookas would bounce off em like spitballs.

        Just being picky

        by BonScott on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 11:03:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Current armor fails on gunshot wounds to torso (none / 0)

      The Marine Corps and Army are working to upgrade body armor to prevent fatalities caused by torso wounds from gunshots and explosions

      by No Preference on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:41:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Speaking up! (4.00 / 12)

    Thanks you, General Clark and General Kennedy, for speaking out!

    by mariawells on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:29:21 PM PDT

  •  Lt. General Claudia Kennedy (Ret.) (4.00 / 17)

    Kennedy retired from the military in June 2000 after 31 years in the Army. During the 2000 U.S. presidential election, Kennedy was critical of George W. Bush's military policies, especially as they related to the status of women in the armed forces. According to General Kennedy: "If Mr. Bush becomes president, his campaign platform says he will move us back to a much earlier time."

    In 2002, Democrats actively sought to recruit General Kennedy to challenge U.S. Senator John Warner, a Republican from Virginia. Kennedy passed on the race.

    Kennedy endorsed Senator John Kerry for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination in September of 2003, and has served as an advisor to the Kerry campaign. (see 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry). She was sometimes mentioned as a possible cabinet member (as Secretary of Defense or Secretary of Homeland Security) in a Kerry administration.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:31:10 PM PDT

  •  clark for president... (4.00 / 15)

    Thank you both for speaking up when so many are so afraid of this moron...Its refreshing to hear someone speak for us...love ya wes..

    by bayside on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:47:09 PM PDT

  •  DNC release (4.00 / 5)

    Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, http://www.democrats.org.

    It's fantastic to see that the DNC is supporting General Clark when he stands up.

    by westcott on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:53:15 PM PDT

  •  way to go!!!!! (4.00 / 5)

    about fucking time! ok, who's going to be next to speak out? you don't have to be the first one anymore. All the cool kids are doing it.

    Anti-McCain T-shirts - Get 'em here!

    by OrangeClouds115 on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:00:51 PM PDT

  •  Yes, Yes, Yes (4.00 / 2)

    "This is a clear case where Congressional investigation is warranted."

    by mexdem on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:02:57 PM PDT

    •  don't get your hopes up (none / 0)

      While you are just about dead el righto--this IS a clear case where Congressional investigation is waranted--your expectations (and mine) are doomed to result in disappointment.
      You forget that Congress as it is now is a rubber stamp for the presidents policies--he can trump them everytime he wants to with a "signing statement.". The Republican Congrsss, if it even investigates this, will wind up giving all concerned the Medal of Freedom, if Bush doesn't
      The only thing that can change this is an election--or a revolution

      If Liberals REALLY hated America we'd vote Republican

      by exlrrp on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 06:59:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  another reason to first go after rumsfeld. n/t (none / 1)

    by stagemom on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:06:50 PM PDT

  •  Go Clark and Kennedy! (4.00 / 6)

    Warner/Clark 08. Just sayin'. :).

    by jj32 on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:06:51 PM PDT

  •  Pretty strange days indeed (4.00 / 7)

    when 3 and 4 star Generals have to point out the emperior's nekked... Bless 'em both! and the DNC for putting it "out there."

    If only we had more Dems like Clark and Dean, not afraid to tell it like it is! Woot!

    Thanks MikeP!

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right. --Hunter/Garcia

    by jen on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:09:15 PM PDT

  •  2 generals, but... (4.00 / 3)

    ones a girl and the other one acts like one--so who cares?

    Sorry. Just had to go Nostradamus on the freepers and Michele Malkin.

    Today's Special: Chickenhawk, slow-baked in its mother's basement.

    by Earl on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:11:00 PM PDT

  •  Dems should hit hard (4.00 / 5)

    Bush must take responsibility for 9/11, Iraq, casualties, lack of safety in the US.

    fouls, excesses and immoderate behavior are scored ZERO at Over the Line, Smokey!

    by seesdifferent on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:11:05 PM PDT

  •  Bush only seeks spin, Clark speaks truth! (4.00 / 13)

    This is especially important to articulate, and it's great that Wes Clark addressed it, now!

    Today, Bush initiated a new spin campaign in his speech before the VFW.  In attempt to divert blame onto himself for the real prospect of failure in Iraq's new government,  Bush asserted "blame" to his critics and "left-wing partisans", instead!

    Bush is solely accountable as President!

    As Clark forewarned for years, Bush's foray into Iraq would be the biggest strategic blunder in US history, and it's his failures in leadership that  misled our soldiers and compromised their safety during war, all based on lies! It was Bush who further compromised America's national security by outing US agents dedicated towards preventing terrorist from acquiring nuclear material!

    Bush is wholely incompetent as President!

    StopIranWar.com

    by Knightrider on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:11:43 PM PDT

  •  two RETIRED generals (2.50 / 6)

    wow am I tired of misleading diary titles

    by bleargh on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:12:55 PM PDT

    •  that worked for the Kerry campaign (none / 1)

      geez.
      Oh yeah.... rah, rah, go guys (and girls) and all that.

      by NYFM on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:18:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No intention to mislead. (4.00 / 7)

      Like Presidents and Governors and others, retired Generals are still called by that title.  Generals who are not retired cannot speak out at this time.  There would be retribution.  Just Ask General Shinseki, who as punished for saying we needed more soldiers before the war started.

      The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

      by mikepridmore on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:20:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Beyond the Shinseki example (none / 1)

        I'm not sure I would want active duty generals to offer public opinions on policy. That to mean would sound like a deliberative military, and me, personally, I'm just fine with my soldiers taking orders from civilians.

        Yes, We Can

        by litho on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:24:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I said nothing about intention (2.50 / 2)

        But that is implied in what I said isn't it?  Language is a tricky thing.

        The crucial "retired" datum is not just missing from the title -- it's also missing from the diary.  So it seems like a big deal, if you don't know who these generals are (of course everyone knows Clark is retired).  And yes I am thinking specifically of Shinseki and more recently General Pace when he contradicted Rumsfeld (before he flip-flopped).  So I appreciate that in the comments someone clued us in to Unknown General's retired status.

        Somehow this just doesn't seem like a big deal to me.  Murtha's dissent towers over this stuff, IMO.

        by bleargh on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:40:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I thought it was implied (2.50 / 2)

          not necessarily though. I guess I understand the feeling--I'm changing that three to t four because I don't think you deserve it. It just seemed harsh and a bit, IMO, of a mistranslation of  the feeling.

          I too felt something like a letdown when I saw it wasn't current generals. But I took that on myself. It's my judgement of former generals and why should I have it? I can see no reason. And whether Murtha's dissent towers over this is irrelevant. This is what it is, nothing more, and needs no automatic write off.

          Today's Special: Chickenhawk, slow-baked in its mother's basement.

          by Earl on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:50:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That may be hard to understand (none / 0)

            When i said : I'm changing that three to t four because I don't think you deserve it. It just seemed harsh and a bit, IMO, of a mistranslation of  the feeling., I meant that your comment seemed harsh and accusatory. Doesn't seem so now. As far as the  "mistranslation of the feeling," well, pretty presumptuous of me, but I  attempted to explain that in the last response.

            Today's Special: Chickenhawk, slow-baked in its mother's basement.

            by Earl on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:54:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't mean automatic writeoff (none / 0)

            but thanks for explaining your reasoning

            hope you understand mine better now

            by bleargh on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:54:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Still referred to as "general" (none / 1)

      and still has his rank.

      Today's Special: Chickenhawk, slow-baked in its mother's basement.

      by Earl on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:28:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As in (none / 0)

      that was not a misleading title, you were mistaken--and insulting.

      Today's Special: Chickenhawk, slow-baked in its mother's basement.

      by Earl on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:30:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ...so am I. ...And Great title, Mike! (4.00 / 4)

      Title is totally acceptable and perfect!

      Besides you did apply appropriate etiquette,
      "General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander..."


      How to address current--and former--public officials
      Military personnel:
           "...Address military officers and enlisted personnel by their full rank, full name, abbreviation of their military branch, and add the abbreviation "ret." for retirees (as in "Lieutenant Commander Quinton McHale, USN, Ret."). The salutation should address a military officer's primary rank, so a letter to Master Sergeant Ernest G. Bilko would begin, "Dear Sergeant Bilko" (although writing "Dear Master Sergeant Bilko" also would be acceptable). Similarly, use "Dear Lieutenant" for all grades of lieutenant. ...

      http://www.editpros.com/...

      StopIranWar.com

      by Knightrider on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:37:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you & Earl are begging the question (none / 0)

        There is a distinction.  Let's try again -- please allow the impulse to travel through the cerebral cortex this time before responding.

        No, Earl, I am not mistaken -- it is 100% true that they are retired generals.  It does not matter one bit that it is appropriate to refer to retired generals as capital-G Generals.  What matters in the context of this diary is that some sort of generals returned fire at Bush.  Now, I don't know about you but when I read "General" I default to the non-retired variety.  For purposes of clarity -- the ONLY reason I would make a comment about a title -- they should be referred to as retired generals.  It would be huge if these generals were active or whatever the military lingo is for someone who isn't retired.  It is much less huge that they are retired.

        If everyone else defaults to "retired general" when the read "General" then I will concede utter and total defeat.  Somehow, I don't think that's the case.

        by bleargh on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:52:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  yes it's misleading (4.00 / 3)

      i thought that W. got in a gunfight with two generals...

      SO WHAT? Why you gotta bring the party down?

      i think they're attacking me cause i'm awesome. how's that??

      by missreporter on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:31:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is Wesley Clark (4.00 / 9)

    the Reggie White of the US Army?

    Back in the 1980s, Green Bay was a death destination in the National Football League. Good players simply wouldn't go there, for any amount of money, under free agency, and the team suffered through a series of mediocre coaches directing at times less than mediocre talent. Never got quite as bad as the 1990s Cincinnati Bengals, but the Packers fairly consistently stunk up the joint.

    Then in 1991 Ron Wolf was hired as general manager. Among his important personnel moves in his first years were to hire Mike Holmgren as coach and trade for a third string quaterback in Atlanta by the name of Brett Favre. His biggest move, though, was signing Philadelphia Eagles defensive end Reggie White to a massive free agent contract.

    As the premier defensive player of his day, White brought instant credibility to the Packers' rebuilding efforts. It suddenly became possible to sign low-level first-tier and high quality second-tier players to Packers contracts. In just a few years -- at then end of the 1994 season -- the Packers were back in the Super Bowl -- the first time they'd gotten back since Super Bowl II. The following year, the Packers won.

    Has Clark done for Democrats in the Army what White did for football players in general in Green Bay? There seem to be an awful lot of Democrats today in Iraq, not just among the soldiers on the ground but even at command levels. It's the first time since the Vietnam era that is true.

    Yes, We Can

    by litho on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:13:51 PM PDT

  •  Support Clark for President (4.00 / 7)

    visit http://www.securingamerica.com and join his online community!

    John W. McCain, Bush's third term.

    by aaraujo on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:14:26 PM PDT

  •  Shrub is a "War President" (4.00 / 2)

    Well, the war is a royal mess, and--guess what?--he's responsible. For royally screwing up the war, Shrub is being--rightfully--critiscized. Responsibility+criticism=Responsible criticism.

    Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

    by drewfromct on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:16:55 PM PDT

  •  Who would you trust (4.00 / 11)

    to know what's best for our troops: A) Wesley Clark, a Retired 4 Star General  or  B) George W. Bush, an AWOL Monkey?

    by reggiesmom on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:17:39 PM PDT

  •  General Clark is the BEST (4.00 / 8)

    There is noone on the Democratic side with the credentials to speak to this issue with more authority than Wes.  The DNC got the BEST voice out there.  Excellent!

    by cheeto on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:24:37 PM PDT

  •  Send Wesley Clark your best wishes! (3.00 / 3)

    He can be reached this way:

    Wesley Clark
    c/o
    Camp X-Ray
    Guantanamo Naval Station
    CUBA

    But, as Ari Fleisher has said: 'be careful about what you say'.

    Cheers,
    XYNZ

    -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

    by xynz on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:29:27 PM PDT

  •  Earmarks (4.00 / 8)

    Earmarks = Dead Marines

    When will the media put the Congressional bribery scandals together in a way that the public can easily understand. You got your Abramoff. You got your Dukestir. Here is how the scam works. Take Cunningham. Defense contractors give the Duke bribes. Thinly disguised. Buy his house for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than it is worth. Give him a yatch to live on. Money, antiques, all sorts of stuff. Then the Duke, becomes the Duck of earmarks. He earmarks the hell out of the defense budget. Hundreds of millions of dollars to these same contractors. Good deal for the contractors. The money they spend on the Duck of Earmarks is pennies on the dollar. A couple of million at the most. In return they get contracts for hundreds of millions for crap the army or the navy or the marines don't really need.

    Unlike, say, body armor. We did all read that report over the weekend didn't we? The report Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor - New York Times:about the study that was done by the pentagon indicating that over 80% of our Marines who have been killed in Iraq could have been saved had they been wearing the proper body armor. Body armor that has been available since 2003. Body armor that has been requested by the commanders in the field since 2003. Requests that have been denied because it was determined that we didn't have the money. Because? Well, because of hundreds of millions of dollars of fucking earmarks. God damn these corrupt motherfuckers. Damn them to hell. And where is the media connecting the dots for the public? These are the facts. This is what is going on in the government today. Its outrageous that it is happening and it is equally outrageous that it isn't being explained to the public by the media. Tim Russert, that means you. Are you afraid of GE?

    by SW on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:44:43 PM PDT

  •  President Wesley Clark (4.00 / 5)

    Yeah, I like the sound of that.

    Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

    by thereisnospoon on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:50:29 PM PDT

  •  Thank you both so much! (4.00 / 3)

    But why aren't our senators and congress-men and women standing up stomping mad about this. This is disgraceful. How could they take another payraise, eat another fancy meal, etc, etc knowing what they are doing to our nations children in the field of battle. Curses on them all until they fix it.

    But the guy that sits next to me at work said since when did anybody have the right stuff. In Vietnam they had world war two equipment which was pathetic to fight in a jungle and on and on back. The guy that gets the money is the pork bellied supplier and the guy that gets the shaft is the pawn that goes after the enemy.

    by ricochet on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:53:20 PM PDT

  •  What I'd like to see... (4.00 / 4)

    I'd like to see Wes. Clark start making speeches in front of the same Veterans of Foreign Wars group as Bush and Cheney like to do. Yes, he's the CiC's critic and probable rival, but he has as much if not more credibility in being there over Bush.

    "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

    by Skid on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:53:49 PM PDT

  •  This armor story is very disturbing (4.00 / 2)

    I'm so glad that Wes Clark helped the Democrats to comment on it.  What can we do to get this story more coverage?  I haven't seen other publications or the TV take up the story.

    by JudyNJ on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:05:15 PM PDT

  •  Wes Clark is our BEST candidate for Pres. in 2008 (4.00 / 5)

    "No Democrat can win in 2008 unless the American people believe that they can defend them! The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America, when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats."

    Wesley Clark, April 16, 2005

    by km4 on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:32:51 PM PDT

    •  I sometimes think this (none / 0)

      is strategic.

      I think Clark may be a foregone conclusion... and the Hillary hubub is just that.

      I honestly don't see Hillary that hungry for power. I think she's wiser than that. Actually.... I think it's a feint. And I do think Dems are that "clubby"... and I think they are thinking ahead.

      I think she respects Wes and understands how much better he'd be received. Sure she wants to be veep... but I think she also wants to secure 08.

      And I just gotta say... Clark I think would probly do that... given early party support.

      Sometimes I think Kerry was a foil of a sort too... to make sure the Republicans "owned Iraq." And maybe the election was a bit of a foregone conclusion too. Rove et al...

      Maybe Dems figured Iraq was f'd anyway, so make the Rethugs own their creation... cynical? Well, that's politics in America I guess. But it may prove to be a smart move by Dems in the long run.

      Shitty and scary right now... and lots of dead brown people... but "long term"... These people (Dem leaders) seem to think they're the ones tasked to be so grandiose...? Heck, maybe they actually are... that'd suck.

      But anyway... I'll almost bet my bottom dollar Hillary and the crew... (even Kos maybe) know that Clark is our guy in 08.

      Cause if we're smart, I think we can cement the win. If we fight amongst ourselves, that in itself will destroy us.

      Yup. I'm hoping... and kinda thinking Clark is the deal. Hillary might accept veep... might. But she also might see her role as risky... a gamble not worth taking.

      But then again... I think she's willing to take that particular risk.

      I honestly believe she is wise enough to secure the Dem win in 08 by going with the safe bet... but I'll also bet she wants the veep position.

      Cause I think she sees the potential as a sitting veep going for POTUS... and all that being a female President will mean.

      I think she'll use Clark to get there. I think she may be faking hard on the War now because she's trying to build up some sort of street creds with America's rural areas... I think she knows she won't be in a position to do anything until 2008... and then Clark will lead. And when Clark's term is over... by then, Iraq will be a very different issue.

      Then I think she'll be her Progressive self. I think she'll put Obama in the copilot seat.

      Either that or Schweitzer will come out of left field in a hockey mask and totally kick all these punks to the curb...

      Either way...

      U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1999 it was 1:475.

      by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 12:18:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Generals are not afraid of Bush (4.00 / 3)

    For two reasons: he's a lame duck, and, unlike Hitler, he's not an imposing personality.  Officers respect the office of President, and the shrub's unfortunate election has put him in that office.  But beyond that, and beyond careerists like Meyers, who got his niece a nice cushy job at FEMA by means of an out of session appointment, they likely despite him for his draft evasion, his lack of compassion for the troops, and his utter lack of any sense of military logic.

    Anyone who steps up to Bush is likely to have his or her career shortened in the short term.  This is what happened to Shishenski, and he wasn't the only one.  But Bush's capacity for reprisal is not limited by the limitations on his term of office.  Officers will speak up.  They spoke to Murtha.  If Bush thinks he had trouble with the CIA, wait till he starts dealing with the Army and Marine Corps brass (the Air Force will stay with him -- just as Goring stayed with Hitler).

    Knut

    by Knut Wicksell on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:52:39 PM PDT

  •  All responsible and rational insiders and (none / 1)

    leaders, past and present, must step forward and speak out now.

    The corporate media are destroying progressive Democrats. The Clintons are destroying the Democratic Party.

    by lecsmith on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:53:14 PM PDT

  •  Let the revolt of the Generals begin! (none / 1)

    n/t

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action -1.75 -7.23

    by Shockwave on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:57:04 PM PDT

  •  Backbones + roots= a winner (4.00 / 3)

    How many times have the grassroots Democrats, the ones who actually follow the news, cried out for some people with backbones to represent them? And how many times have we been disappointed? Sure there are the notable exceptions like Conyers, Feingold, and Boxer, but they remain the exceptions not the rule.

    I have hope in the new Fighting Dems, because there is something to said about people who love their country so much that they signed to put their lives on the line. Combined with support from us, you and me, we really could make a difference this time. Image if you can people who put their country ahead of the chance for a cushy lobbying trip. Wouldn't it be sweet?

    Thank you Gen. Kennedy and thanks again Gen. Clark. Retired or not people that talk truth to power are always in the thick of the battle.

    Wes Clark took for bullets for this country, he's not about to retire and watch this unraveling of all our dreams. Our voices are many but his voice adds the gravitas that can lift up our cries of "enough is enough."

    Get our brothers and sisters some damn armour and get it now.  

    by Donna Z on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:00:35 PM PDT

  •  3 years and 10 days (none / 0)

    until Wesley Kanne Clark becomes our president and begins the decades-long task of cleaning up the devastating MESS made by one chimpanzee and a bunch of flying monkeys.

    Gawd - sometimes I wish I could just go to sleep and wake up on inauguration day!

    by everhopeful on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:43:35 PM PDT

  •  A blast from the past* (4.00 / 3)


    *From the old site the "horse" (MWO)

    The reason people don't learn from the past, is because the past was a repetitious lie to begin with. Mike Hastie U.S. Army Medic Vietnam 1970-71

    by BOHICA on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 10:18:01 PM PDT

  •  Damnit! (none / 1)

    There's just something about how a well-educated military person writes.

    It's so goddam concise. It really makes for excellent political text.

    Wes Clark idealizes what the US Presidency needs to look like in 2006.

    It's just sad we'll have to wait until 2008 to have it.

    And quite frankly... I don't know if it's because Dems don't want to tip their hand... but given the probable National Security situation in America 2008 (ie, if Republicans screw it up even worse than now...), Wes Clark very well may just win the largest landslide victory in the history of this country.

    I think people are starting to get it. Bush is just running on empty... and he's starting to look crazy.

    Wes Clark and his kind of policy/rhetoric could... with fair media presentation and party backing, totally change the political landscape for all time.

    I don't think even Joe Lieberman could ignore the importance of Democrats deservedly taking over the title of the National Security vote. Could he? Hopefully we won't have to find out.

    :)

    Republicans are NOT good for National Security.

    Democrats ARE GOOD for National Security.

    It's just fact at this point.

    Clark 08

    U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1999 it was 1:475.

    by Lode Runner on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 11:56:37 PM PDT

  •  So if 'our guys' had better armor... (none / 0)

    ...they could kill more of "their guys". How is that an improvement?

    I'll admit that this is a good issue to tar the Bushies with - it might make some sense to hawkish types that it's bad for 'our guys' to go without proper armor.

    But if you know and acknowledge that the war was a sham from the word go, how can you also make the argument that the US Military should be able to more effectively carry out its bogus mission, which of course involves killing Arabs on their own land?

    Look, I know 'our guys' didn't choose this war, and I don't want them to be hurt or killed - but neither do I want them to hurt or kill anyone. The death of an Iraqi is every bit as tragic the death of an American.

    Are even we on the Left now assigning higher value to American lives than to Iraqi lives? You can count me out. That road leads to bad, bad things.

    Allons enfants de la Patrie

    by VictorLaszlo on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 01:52:31 AM PDT

    •  Please Purchase a Clue (none / 0)

      I know war is horrible, but it's horrible for you to not want to protect OUR GUYS (what's up with the quotes- it screams- I don't really think that they're our guys).

      Your entire point seems to be-> we should allow as many of our troops to die as possible, that way we won't want to fight any more wars. Funny how you claim to want to avoid violence and yet you obviously yearn for the death of our soldiers.

      Future Majority and Young Philly Politics - the Kidz are coming for ya!

      by Minister AlX on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 07:32:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you saying... (none / 0)

        ...it's better for Iraqis to die than Americans?

        I say it's exactly the same. A life is a life.

        All this talk about 'saving American lives' seems to suggest that it's OK for Arabs to die. I have a big problem with that.

        I'm afraid the MSM- er, 'traditional media' has done a fine job of conditioning even us on the Left.

        The headline '12 Insurgents Killed In Iraq' is seen as positive, while 'Johnny Smith of Springfield was killed by an IED yesterday; he leaves behind a young wife and two children' is seen as negative.

        What, the 'insurgents' weren't people? They didn't have families? Did they just melt into piles of goo when they died, like some nameless video game characters?

        I'm calling bullshit.

        Allons enfants de la Patrie

        by VictorLaszlo on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 09:52:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you kidding? (none / 0)

          Where did I say anything about it being better for Iraqis to die than Americans?

          And while none of this suggests that "it's OK for Arabs to die" you certainly are suggesting that you don't mind that our soldiers are dying and being maimed.

          You're calling bullshit? Maybe that's cause you've got your head lodged way to far up your rear end...

          Future Majority and Young Philly Politics - the Kidz are coming for ya!

          by Minister AlX on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 11:51:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Darn (none / 0)

    I was hoping it was gonna be from a couple of those "You can't handle the truth!" Jack Nicolson types. Oh well, still cool anyway.

    by WalkerRenterBusRider on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 05:01:30 AM PDT

  •  I'll bet.... (none / 0)

    when he and the other assholes in his administration go to Iraq for their photo-op trips, THEY are wearing body armor of the newest technlogy. Busch was wearing his armor when he was "in" the air nat. guard, his Daddy.

    a splendid time is guaranteed for all

    by KBueno on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 07:14:24 AM PDT

  •  General Wes Clark Conference Call (Listen Here) (none / 1)

    The DNC hosted a conference call with General Wesley Clark and Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Horne, a candidate for U.S. Congress in KY-3 against Republican incumbent Anne Northup. The call starts with a discussion of the NY Times revelation that 80% of Marines who have died in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have been saved with the proper body armor; it concludes with a brief Q&A from local and national reporters.

    LISTEN TO THE CONFERENCE CALL
    http://a9.g.akamai.net/...

    http://dnc.org/...

    by cheeto on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 09:11:36 AM PDT

Permalink | 141 comments