Powered by TypePad

« Libby's Team Replies On Disclosure | Main | Meanwhile, Back At The Washington Post... »

April 14, 2006



There is in a museum at West Point, the map Custer drew as he progressed west across the Dakotas toward his destiny. It is as literal a transcript of descent into madness as some of the Dems and the Kos Dancers are figuratively now tracing.



You aren't allowed to vote.

Kim; Your vote for the Custer statement
speaks volumes about your LiberalHate.

Semanticleo's BushHate compels him to
leave this dying thread to the dead-enders
in their 'last throes'.

Farewell and adieu


I find neoconservatism to be metaliberalism.


And your interpretation of my vote lacks volumes of reason.


And your defense of the Democrats postion is as weak as their defense of this country. Farewell, and Kumbaya.


Gee ... I miss him already ...


He should read the Euston Statement.


Writing it was voting for it.


With due respect to Custer,he was a volunteer,had a distiguished military career dueing the Civil War,unlike modern liberals he didn't hightail it to Canada at the fist sign of a draft.


Get rid of him like Sharon.


Who ensi,poor little semanticleo? A pest, but hardly worthy of capital punishment,much better a slap round the ear with a dead cod.

JM Hanes


Still content challenged, I see.


Of course,obviously a follower of those fancy French Philosphers who maintain any random aggregation of words has the same value as a sentence.
Any opinion which comes bubbling up from the subconscious is as valid as a carefully thought out comment.


An opinion which comes bubbling up from the subconscious is as valid as a dream, which may be completely valid.


Even that of our burger flippers on the correct numbers of troops to deploy?


The opinions would be most valid if they were dreams of KP.

richard mcenroe

PeterUK — In the Civil War, Custer had a reputation for aggression. He also had a record of getting two successive regiments shot to pieces in one battle, and in another managing to get surrounded (whoa! vooja de!) and lose his entire supply train before another unit was able to relieve him at the cost of heavy casualties.

Postwar, embittered by the army's failure to make his brevet generalship permanent he began to deal with various political factions outside the chain of command while still on active service. As for his final engagement, where he got over 200 men of the 7th Cavalry massacred, the most succinct description I ever heard, from a vet, was "lost, drunk, untrained and disobeying orders."


I did say he was a Democrat.


James Thurber has a wonderful little quote about Grant surrendering to Lee after waking up in confusion in a welter of maps and spilt wine the morning after the battle. As he passed his sword over the Lee he said, There you are, General. We dam' near licked you. If I'd been feeling better, we would of licked you."

Soylent Red

Interesting thing about Custer, if I'm remembering correctly...

In spite of all, he was at one point in time considered a viable presidential candidate.

Sort of like Wesley Clark.


One of Rush's funniest ploys is the nicknames he gives political figures. "Ashley Wilkes" for Wesley Clark always struck me as right on the mark.


Where have you been? Missed you!

GatewayPundit did a great piece including some of the finer recent Rumsfeldians aimed at the LSM.

American Thinker has post calling the Generals "CanCanDancers for Clinton"

"CanCanGenerals" hmmm.....
Do they realize all that
strutting and bouncing
renders volume to the
jingles of
pieces of silver in their pockets!

Happy Easter.
They have pulled out all stops to ruin Holy Week and Passover - but they failed.

Pope Benedict's:

“Despite all the darkness in the world, evil does not have the last word,”

Rick Ballard


I believe he still had presidential aspirations right up until the setback at the Little Big Horn. He was very much like Clark - a political man in a uniform. Nuts, too.

Thaddeus Hoffmeister

Close to three years have passed since he last roamed the corridors of the Pentagon's inner ring, but remnants of his leadership style and philosophy--standing up for what you believe in--can still be found in the military culture. Arguably, this trait should be present in all military leaders; however, as of late it appears to be in short supply.

In 2003, he bucked the trend of 'yes-men' and offered his own candid assessment of what was needed in Iraq. His prophetic predictions about Iraq were unfortunately ignored and now haunt those responsible for planning and executing the war.

If not for his disagreement with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he probably would have been relegated to a mere footnote in history, not that his career was unremarkable. Quite the contrary, anyone who rises to the rank of Army Chief of Staff has been truly a remarkable soldier, especially if you are the first Japanese-American to achieve this feat and have overcome a serious physical injury (while serving in Vietnam he lost a foot stepping on a land mine).

However, his dust-up with Rumsfeld is what most remember. While lacking the cinematic flair and drama associated with the Truman-McArthur firing, it rested on the same basic premise--civilian control of the military. Where McArthur was relieved for aggressively pushing the expansion of the Korean War, Shinseki was eased out early for not pushing the Iraq War aggressively enough.

As most will recall, Shinseki was one of the few, if not the only high ranking active duty military leader in 2003 to challenge the Department of Defense's assessment of Iraq. Knowing that the Army would be responsible for the brunt of any warfighting or peacekeeping, he questioned the proposed troop levels. In testimony before Congress, he stated that the Iraq operation would require "several hundred thousand troops."


Cecil Turner

Where McArthur was relieved for aggressively pushing the expansion of the Korean War, Shinseki was eased out early for not pushing the Iraq War aggressively enough.

If anyone cares, it's MacArthur (and just as the inability of the Times to get rank abbreviations correct makes me suspect their expertise . . .). Shinseki eased out early? Not that I noticed. And his role in the Iraq War, as previously noted, was to provide and train the troops required by CentCom . . . not opine on how he thought the operation should be conducted.

In testimony before Congress, he stated that the Iraq operation would require "several hundred thousand troops."

Except of course it didn't. And it's nice to see such a well-supported and precise requirement floated in such a non-political forum. (And touted ad nauseam by Dem politicos.) Great job.

Soylent Red


So then, Custer's presidential aspirations were thwarted by the Indian vote in South Dakota? Shrum's great grandson must have drawn up the battle plan (and conducted the pre- Little Bighorn focus group).

I also forgot about the nuts connection with Clark.

One big difference is that WC was fired before he could give an order that would doom his command and himself. Not for lack of trying though (just ask the Russians).


Shinseki should have been "eased out" for several reasons, not the least of which is the beret.

Any policy designed to make the American fighting man appear more French should be cause for an immediate drumhead court martial.

Seriously though, Shinseki was the driving force behind the military-industrial boondoggles (not to mention armored cav pet projects) like the underpowered, underarmored Stryker and the Crusader SPH.

Both projects exposed him as a maneuver warfare guy looking to fight the next Desert Storm. Couple that with the "several hundred thousand" figure to topple Saddam (not "win the peace" BTW, which might have been construed as accurate) and it paints a picture. This is not a fellow who thinks in terms of military transformation. He's a politician in general's clothing. It's no big shock that he eventually crossed swords with Rummy.

As an aside to Shinseki, isn't it interesting that the Dems can simultaneously blame our presence in Iraq for the insurgency, yet caterwall about how Chimpy didn't send in enough troops to do the job? Isn't it further interesting that the Pentagon is considered generally despicable and inept by the Left, right up to the point where one of them says something that disagrees with BusHitler? Then they magically become George Patton.


Been working Friday nights so I've been too tired or just plain not home for SNL. Which is a bummer because I looked forward to it.

Feh. I need a new career; my current one is cutting into my hobbies. Have MBA, will travel. Any takers?

Cecil Turner

Shinseki should have been "eased out" for several reasons, not the least of which is the beret.

Probably so, but he wasn't (and my point was that Thaddeus is misinformed).

Shinseki was the driving force behind the military-industrial boondoggles (not to mention armored cav pet projects) like the underpowered, underarmored Stryker and the Crusader SPH.

Yeah, we beat up on him pretty good for the Crusader (and other things) back in this thread.

Then they magically become George Patton.

No kidding. (BTW, I got a good chuckle out of your "Nothing worse than a bunch of washed up flags backseat driving . . ." Nicely done.)


John Fund in WSJ:
The Generals War
What's behind the attacks against Rumsfeld.

.....How firing Mr. Rumsfeld will help in any of this, none of the critics say. They certainly aren't offering any better military strategy for victory.

....What do Mr. Rumsfeld's critics imagine Iraqis think as they watch former commanders assigning blame?...

....Sacking the Defense Secretary mid-conflict would only reinforce the Iranian mullahs' belief that they have nothing to worry about because Americans have no stomach for a prolonged engagement in their part of the world.

Wretchard writes:
BelmontClub: "consistency in war is often not virtue but vice"

The New Republic has second thoughts about blaming Donald Rumsfeld after discovering that individual Generals also made "mistakes" in fighting the counterinsurgency. Spencer Ackerman uses the difference between the Marine, the 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne methods in Iraq to discredit the criticisms of General Swannack


A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance ...
A time to love, and a time to hate;
a time of war, and a time of peace.

And a time to understand that this is so. The men who judge what works in their area of operations are the Commanders. Sometimes they will be wrong and sometimes get it right. The only demand one can make of command going up the line is to learn from their subordinates' experience and reflect it downward in changed guidance. The failure to adapt is the ultimate command failure. Stupidity was not sending men into the face of machine gun fire in August 1914 when that weapon was encountered in large numbers for the first time. What was stupid was to keep doing it even in the Somme in 1916. For that reason the New Republic's article, though slightly off-base puts its finger on the most disturbing aspect of the debate over the War. The press has made consistency in the prosecution of war a virtue; just as it has made the "failure" to live up to the initial plan the ultimate sin. In consequence so much of the debate consists of archaeology. What George Bush said to Tony Blair in Downing Street. What Joe Wilson heard in Darfur. Yet consistency in war is often not virtue but vice. The hobgoblin of small minds.


"Judas:A Saint for Our Seasons" by Vanderleun

"It is no longer sophisticated or fashionable to speak of selfishness as betrayal."

"I betrayed my country because it gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for it."


CNN just had a real debate on Rumsfeld segment. The Pro-Rumsfeld side made winning points and ended with the shame of these "Generals" that did not do the honorable thing - but waited for the their pensions (the silver jingling).

CNN Anchor announces and goes directly to their "Fallen Heroes" segment - with pics of funerals.

Wish they would tell whose side they are on. %p!


For the record:

At least Wesley Clark got himself fired and summarily retired as NATO commander in comparative disgrace for submarining the Balkans policies of his Oxford classmate President Bill Clinton and his defense secretary, William Cohen.,,,,,,American Thinker today


Gen. Zinni is flogging a book.

MajGen. John Riggs was busted a grade and forced to retire because of a procurement scandal.

MajGen. Eaton oversaw the rebuilding of the Iraqi army in 2003-2004, when everyone now agrees this was a disaster.

When Swannack, for example, blames Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib, he gives up the game," wrote retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, now a professor at Boston University, in the Los Angeles Times. "By pointing fingers at Rumsfeld, the generals hope to deflect attention from the military’s own egregious mistakes.

Record re-enlistment rates do not suggest widespread dissatisfaction among the rank and file with the secretary of defense


Rumsfeld had an excellent Presser today, worth watching the press squirm.

Guard: “Sire, the peasants are revolting.”

Groucho: “They certainly are.”
..............Groucho Marx
as the premier of Fredonia in Duck Soup

"The Generals are Revolting by Herbert E. Meyer
Mr. Secretary, this plan won’t work!
Oh, what do you suggest then, general?
Fresh ideas and fresh faces, Mr. Secretary.

....Gen. Newbold thinks “we need fresh ideas and fresh faces.” I can hear Ann Coulter asking “could you be a bit more specific?”......

..... I have a lot of sympathy for what Rumsfeld has been dealing with in the Pentagon.

"Rumsfeld's Enemies and the White Flag of Surrender" by Greg Richards
along with Rick's excellent "Connecting Some Dots in Plamegate"


Talk to the handfull of cholers, Senor.

The comments to this entry are closed.