Keep in mind, criticism based on 20/20 hindsight is very easy. So i criticism without responsibility.

Either argument you choose….Can you defend Rumsfeld’s decisions? Can you defend that track record? I wouldn’t want Larry DiRita’s job, I’ll say that much.

That’s a rather sweeping dismissal.

The examples you cite as proofs are allegations. I just posted a link to Opinion Journa piece – go read it and see if you still want to defend the generals.

To wit — eschewing Geneva, politically motivated declassification, cherrypicking intel, breaking the FISA law, editing or deleting objective scientific research…They are even rumored to be discussing (planning?) a pre-emptive nuclear first strike, the negative consequences of which cannot be overstated.

Which dangerous precedents bother you more? Which are the precedents which invite future abuse? You may trust this group, and that is a personal judgement. (I do not.) I agree with the principle of civilian leadership of the military, and weigh the risks of allowing this public criticism against the possibility of future abuse. Conversely, those on the right should examine the dangerous precedents of the Bush administration against the strong possibility of future abuse by ambitious and deceitful politicians.

We cannot entrust our rights to the benevolence of those who wield power. What power you extend to those you trust increases the risk of being wielded by those you don’t. Men aren’t governed by angels.

In a similar analysis to one I made above…case-by-case, you may make an argument that this criticism or that is out of line. Critic by critic, there may be valid points against. I will also concede that I too am bothered by the fact that retired generals are bucking the chain and going public with criticism. It doesn’t sit well with me in principle. However, the patterns they speak out against — of dismissing experts, of gross mismanagement, and of setting dangerous precedents cannot be denied.

It seems likely that their going public is a consequence of their (well founded) concerns being ignored by the civilian leadership in private. It is for this same reason that Murtha came forward with a plan for strategic redeployment, putting his reputation and career on the line to say what the active duty folks could not, and what the Bush administration doesn’t want to hear.

At some point, they’ve got to listen to someone. If not the retired generals, if not the veterans and statesmen like Murtha, if not former NSC people like Clarke, and Reagan-era officials like Webb and others, if not Scowcroft and Powell, if not returning Iraq war vets…who then?

Who can say what needs to be said, so that those who need to hear it, will hear it?

Do you not understand the dangerous precedent here? I would not care what administration was being attacked by the retired generals. Apparently, it does not bother you that they are meddling in civilian politics. It bothers hell out of me.

If it were one or two cases, maybe the right would have a point. But Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, Scott Ritter, Joe Wilson, Jack Murtha, Chuck Hagel, the 9/11 Commission and families, Gold Star Mothers, a number of Iraq war vets, federations of scientists, auditors, FISA judges, retired generals….on and on. All dismissable?

The chorus of criticism has grown with each Bush debacle — Iraq, Katrina, deficits, port security, domestic spying, Schiavo, Plame, etc — until the majority of the country has grown dissatisfied. The right acts like the majority are on the margins, when it’s the other way around. The critics are the majority, and the few full-throated supporters who refuse to admit the mere possiblity of a course correction are the ones out of the mainstream, blinded by something incomprehensible.

Is there no end to the excuses used by the administration and it’s followers to ignore the content of what’s said, however authoritive or solution-based? The responses to valid criticisms (and the alternatives presented) have become utterly predictable. Attack, dismiss, obfuscate, smear, claim ulterior motives….anything, ANYTHING but addressing it on the merits.

Perhaps if the administration didn’t reject the expert opinions which don’t suit their pre-conceived notions, they wouldn’t be in the toilet, and the nation would unite behind them. When Eric Shinseki, or Colin Powell, or Richard Clarke, or David Walker or Jack Murtha are telling you you’re on the wrong course and here’s what we need to do to fix it — try taking it under advisement. That’s why we pay them. Pity the Bush admin refuses to see that.

I hope I’m not attacked (or censored) for saying all this here, but regardless of your politics, we are all Americans, and regardless of your politics, a reasonable person should listen to good advice. Failure and gross mismanagement can only be tolerated for so long, in any job.

So dismiss these generals as you may…America will be worse off for it. And what rationalization will be used to ignore the meritorious arguments of the next critic?

Last week, six retired generals were pitchforked into the international headlines when, one by one, they blasted Secr……

No, that certainly would be inappropriate, and just as inappropriate as the media generated firestorm describing the opinions of these S I X as somehow a major revolt against Rumsfeld.

And isn’t it amazing how those on the left who routinely dismiss ANY statement by our military regarding our progress in Iraq embrace the opinions of these S I X as gospel?