yes it is, please note the time stamp below: "In another unusual move, Rumsfeld has tapped Army Gen. John Keane, the No. 2 officer in the Army, to succeed the current chief of that service, Gen. Eric Shinseki, whose term runs out next year. Selecting a successor for the current chief so far in advance is highly unusual." Ricks, Thomas E.; "Bush Backs Overhaul of Military's Top Ranks"; Washington Post Thursday, April 11, 2002 so a year before the invasion, and 5 months prior to the 8 month long rush to war, rumsfeld announced shinseki's replacement. Shinseki served his full term, too, btw. so how, exactly, did bush replace shinseki because he suggested the need for more troops? please, i'll wait while you move the goal posts...
Yes he did. There are no goal posts being moved. As I said you should read the point where Shinseki says by naming the replacement early it undercut even the remaining time at his position which could have been extented. Semantics won't help in this case.
i dont know if this was posted but its somewhat relevant. Letters to the Editor for Monday, November 28, 2005 Stars and Stripes European and Mideast editions (EDITOR’S NOTE: These are the letters that appeared in each edition of Stripes on this publication date. Click here to jump ahead to the Pacific edition letters) War based on a lie Weapons of mass destruction? I’m still looking for them, and if you find any give me a call so we can justify our presence in Iraq. We started the war based on a lie, and we’ll finish it based on a lie. I say this because I am currently serving with a logistics headquarters in the Anbar province, between the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. I am not fooled by the constant fabrication of “democracy” and “freedom” touted by our leadership at home and overseas. This deception is furthered by our armed forces’ belief that we can just enter ancient Mesopotamia and tell the locals about the benefits of a legislative assembly. While our European ancestors were hanging from trees, these ancient people were writing algebra and solving quadratic equations. Now we feel compelled to strong-arm them into accepting the spoils of capitalism and “laissez-faire” society. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching Britney Spears on MTV and driving to McDonald’s, but do you honestly believe that Sunnis, Shias and Kurds want our Western ideas of entertainment and freedom imposed on them? Think again. I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic. The reality in Iraq is that the United States created a nightmare situation where one didn’t exist. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil man who lied, cheated and pillaged his own nation. But how was he different from dictators in Africa who commit massive crimes again humanity with little repercussion and sometimes support from the West? The bottom line up front (BLUF to use a military acronym) is that Saddam was different because we used him as an excuse to go to war to make Americans “feel good” about the “War on Terrorism.” The BLUF is that our ultimate goal in 2003 was the security of Israel and the lucrative oil fields in northern and southern Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction? Call me when you find them. In the meantime, “bring ’em on” so we can get our “mission accomplished” and get out of this mess. Capt. Jeff Pirozzi Camp Taqaddum, Iraq http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=33305
semantics??? i don't doubt that rumsfeld had some sort of issue with shinseki, but to suggest that he fired him for views he had yet to express...are you saying rummy is clairvoyant?
General Pace: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it," Rumsfeld: "But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it." General Pace: "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it ." and that sir is why you can't accuse me of hating the US military. the real men in the military are men with morals and courage. its just assholes like rummy that ruin it.
But Shinseki's agenda and transformation goes back to 1999. The specific comments might not have come yet, but the exact same basis in reality that Shinseki advocated wasn't new when Rumsfeld made the announcement of replacing him.
how exactly do you spin that to mean rummy/bush fired him for saying there were too few troops? it's baffling, beyond nonsensical, and yet, there you go again.
I will grant you that it was only part of the reason. I don't know what you mean by "There you go again" Anytime you disagree with a point I'm attempting to make feel free to speak up. That is what this board is for. Anyway it would have been more accurate of me to say that We know that Shinseki spoke out against the way things were being planned, it angered Rumsfeld, and others in the administration, and he was replaced. There is a slight difference there between my original claim, though it isn't all that far removed. It might also be noted that in retrospect Shinseki was correct both in his assessment of Iraq, and his plans for shifting the focus of our military. Those that were angered by his comments were the ones that ended up being wrong, yet they were either kept on, or promoted, while Shinseki was replaced.
