Cal Thomas's authorities on military discipline: Moussaoui and Iranian generals
In his nationally syndicated column, Cal Thomas contrasted the growing number of retired U.S. generals who have recently called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld with Zacarias Moussaoui and Iran's generals, suggesting that because Moussaoui and Iranian generals will not question their authority figures, neither should U.S. generals, who "are encouraging the enemy to fight on, believing we will ultimately surrender."
In his April 18 nationally syndicated column, Fox News host Cal Thomas contrasted the growing number of retired U.S. generals who have recently called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld with Al Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui and Iran's generals. Thomas suggested that because Moussaoui and Iranian generals will not question their authority figures, neither should the U.S. military. Thomas asserted that the U.S. generals' comments "will further embolden America's enemies who are betting that the United States is weak, morally corrupt and lacks the stomach for protracted conflict." "By going public with their criticisms in the midst of the war," Thomas wrote, "those generals are making victory more difficult. They are encouraging the enemy to fight on, believing we will ultimately surrender." By contrast, Thomas noted, Zacarias Moussaoui -- the purported "20th hijacker" arrested before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- "isn't retreating or calling for the resignation of Osama bin Laden or any other leader in the terrorist war on America and the West." Similarly, Thomas noted: "Neither is Iran retreating or in doubt about its nuclear weapon program. ... One can be sure no Iranian general -- active or retired -- will be questioning [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's politics or theology, if he wants to be around for the 'last battle.' "
In his column, Thomas referred to "the six" generals who have advocated Rumsfeld's resignation, but as Media Matters for America has noted, seven generals have publicly called for him to resign.
From Thomas's April 18 column:
What is one to make of the six retired generals who, in recent days, have called not only for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but have questioned whether U.S. troops should remain in Iraq much longer? Only that it will further embolden America's enemies who are betting that the United States is weak, morally corrupt and lacks the stomach for protracted conflict.
[...]
Anyone doubting Rumsfeld should consider the testimony of Zacarias Moussaoui. During the death penalty phase of his trial for involvement in the 9/11 attacks, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert A. Spencer asked Moussaoui if he thought the United States is destined to fall. He coldly replied, "I know it. I know it."
"You wake up every day to destroy the United States, don't you?" asked Spencer.
"To the best of my ability," Moussaoui responded.
Moussaoui said it was "my pleasure" to accept a suicide mission from Osama bin Laden. He mocked relatives of those who died on 9/11, saying he wishes more had been killed. He called those relatives who shed tears during their testimony "weak."
Moussaoui isn't retreating or calling for the resignation of Osama bin Laden or any other leader in the terrorist war on America and the West.
Neither is Iran retreating or in doubt about its nuclear weapons program. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly defies and ridicules the West and the United Nations, as they ponder meaningless resolutions and call for equally meaningless diplomacy against a religious nut case who thinks he has been commissioned by his false god to usher in Armageddon. One can be sure no Iranian general -- active or retired -- will be questioning Ahmadinejad's politics or theology, if he wants to be around for the "last battle."
[...]
This isn't about one secretary of defense or six generals who don't like his policies. This is about winning the most dangerous and important war America has ever fought. By going public with their criticisms in the midst of the war, those generals are making victory more difficult. They are encouraging the enemy to fight on, believing we will ultimately surrender. There can be no good that will come from the comments of the former leaders of our volunteer soldiers, at least no good for what they once called "our side."
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
... lucky for us, most of the folks with scrambled eggs on their hats know what is going on in the field , they're students of history and they're not floating around in the fantasyland ruled by Rummy the Ruthful.
If Cal really believes that our actions in Iraq will do anything to win "the most dangerous and important war America has ever fought", he should switch from writing for editorials to the Peter Pan genre.
As good as they are, the American military can do little to combat terrorists - that should be left to those who know how to properly apply a stiletto to the base of the brain.
Great point. Let's all just sit back and let our government do whatever the hell it wants without question. Do you ever consider the possibility that the reason a lot of those countries live in fear and oppression is exactly BECAUSE they don't question their leaders? And now we should do the same? Another roundabout way of saying what he really wants to say: Shut up, you anti-war people, and stop picking on my boyfriends in the White House.
If you support the troops, you won't criticize the war...or so it was argued.
Now, to support the troops, we must silence the troops. They must fight, bleed, have their limbs amputated, be fitted for glass eyes and colostomy bags, but they must not talk, even if those with greater authority have lesser wisdom, battle savvy, etc.
with the neocon crowd! Please, someone show me just one war, just one, where we had a democratic president at war that they didn't criticize. Anyone? Hello? Anyone there?
because if he were ACTUALLY in charge, or someone with his thinking were, then the U.S. would be embroiled in a war with no game plan, no support from the international community, no exit plan, armor 'malfunctions', etc... Oh..wait..the U.S. IS involved in something like that.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a major factor of WWII's outcome Hitler storming into the Soviet Union when anyone could have told him Napoleon tried the same thing and it didn't work? Is a system where people can't question their superiors at all effective, or does history show it to be a cause of military collapse?
Besides, we're talking about religious fanatics here, right? Isn't the adherence to dogma and the inability to consider matters outside of the context of religion what makes religious fundamentalism something to fight, instead of emulate? Unless, of course, Thomas thinks we should be representing Christianity, with God's sidekick Dubya leading the charge...
You are correct about Hitler's failed march into Russia. But there's a little known factoid regarding this move that is illustrative with regards to our current leader's unchecked hubris.
Hitler actually intended to invade the Soviet Union a full six weeks before Operation Barbarossa actually started. The delay was the result of the meglomania and ego of the Nazi leader. Hitler had previously installed a puppet government in Yugoslavia, allowing Hitler to conserve resources and avoid invasion and occupation of that country. Unfortunately for Hitler, his complicit puppet was overthrown in a coup by parties who actively opposed Hitler. Hitler was enraged. In a fit, he redirected forces and resources bound for the Soviet invasion to crush the Yugoslavian regime. This caused the six week delay in Barbarossa. Because of this delay Hitler found himself repeating the failure of Napoleon, his troops decimated by a winter he originally planned to avoid.
We have a similar ego in the White House now. There's this idea that you can cause victory by pure force of will even when the military realities say otherwise. The difference here is that Hitler could verywell have won had he kept his ego in check. Instead, Bush's plans were disastrous and ill thought out from the start. History doesn't look kindly upon Hitler, I'm confident Bush will experience a similar fate by historians yet born.
Who cares about this moron. He is a hasbeen.
I think anyone that voted for Bush should bear the additional trillions of dollars of debt. And anyone that voted for Bush should be susceptible to a draft. If you believe in this man, unless you repent your sin, you should bear the burdens of this belief. Why are Democrats asked to share the burden of wanton Republican spending and imperialism?
Blind belief in Bush deserves the debt and danger that Bush has incurred.
With actions. The people who are benefiting from this administrations policies should pay the bill when it comes due. And I'd love to see the Bush Twins in uniform going out on patrol in the Sunni Triangle.
but I'd have to decline implementing it. I really want to see America coming together again, and if we lump in the centrists with the lunatic fringe we'll push the center back into the arms of dollars over depression.
Why'd you have to go and be so sweet and sensible just as I launched my ship, H.M.S. Rant? Now, I gotta call her back to drydock and refit her for union rather than war.
Yes, America does need to lessen the division. We need to hate less and listen more. When someone asserts something that we instantly reject, it could be because they're seeing something that lies within one of our many blindspots.
Cal Thomas is CONSISTENT.
Cal Thomas wishes to "fight" terrorists by becoming JUST LIKE THEM.
We should attack without provocation. We should "shock and awe" the civilians, killing them in droves. We should silence all critics of the "great leader." We should torture without remorse. We should continue fighting, no matter WHAT, and continue sacrificing our young people to "the cause". And we must protect, above all else, the DECISION MAKERS who sit in safety and make life and death decisions for everybody else.
Sorry, Cal. No sale.
America has ever fought?"
This guy is an idiot! The "Global War on Terror" does not represent the risk to the United States that we faced during the Cold War (did Mr. Thomas ever hear of the "Cuban Missle Crisis?"); World War II; the American Civil War; or the (combined) American Revolution / War of 1812. - In terms of threats we face - not fought, but face - China is a far more dangerous adversary. Additionally, the Industrialized Nations' "War On Our Earth" may well render these squabbles moot...
The most dangerous and important war America has ever fought, has just begun. It is the war on intellect. Intellect's enemy is ignorance. No one is allowed to think, only to react. Anything else might appear cowardly. We allow the powers that be to overrule the scientists' warning about Global Warming. We allow low lever political appointees overrule on women's heath issues at the NIH. We allow a senator to diagnose someone else's patient by looking at an old ten second video clip. We have a president that says that we should teach parlor tricks by a supernatural being in our science classes alongside theories that have been developed and refined scientifically for more than 100 years. We ridicule candidates for office because they think before they speak. We let political hacks overrule military commanders.
Walt Kelly was right. "We have met the enemy, and he is us"
Well said!
And, even though a few of Duhhbya's horde of Rovian Thought Nazis have been exposed, I shudder to think how many more of these mind-warped, born-again, boot-licking toadies remain undetected, lurking in the shadows, feverishly Ctrl-X-ing, Ctrl-C-ing and Ctrl-V-ing.
yes, we should be just like them, Cally Boy!
I understand the concept that military discipline requires a certain amount of deference to the man, but I also understand a thing called "the truth"
if Rummy is screwing up, we should say so - and then replace his arse...
what's playing out in Iran right now was foreseen in a sci-fi movie decades ago... nope, not some "Elron" Hubbard schlock either... religious zealots with the bomb, and not afraid to use it... just substitute Iranians for mutants and Americans for apes...
[link to blogdebogs.blogspot.com]
I am amazed at the frequency we see the word "embolden" written or said by those on the right. Isn't it wonderful how much love one word gets by there henchmen on tv, blogs, talk radio, and newspaper? It's as if it is constantly on the talking points list. What morons.