From John Kerry’s May 27 remarks:
Does anyone have a credible cite for the bolded statement?
Thanks,
Pash
In the political climate of the day, the idea that anyone actually would “not let ideology trump truth” makes me snort derisively.
This is more of the “foreign leaders endorse me, but I can’t tell you who they are” from Kerry. If he is ever pressed about this, he will not be able to produce any names.
If any dopers provide a cite of someone who says their military career was ended for “providing an honest assessment”, I will take back the above statement and apologize to all for my impertinence. But I’m not exactly shaking in my sneakers.
This be indicative of your personal relationship with facts.
There actually are people who make decisions based on facts rather than ideology. And, no, facts don’t change depending on who’s looking at them.
SimonX, Evil One’s statement is an example of what someone here on the SDMB in a thread of the misuse of science by this Administration dubbed the new post-modernism of the Bush Administration and their defenders. When the facts are against them (e.g., for example, on the science of climate change), they argue that everything is really subjective and there is no way to determine the objective truth, so one viewpoint must be as good as any other. So, for example, if you have the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the councils of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union saying one thing but you can find a few scientists in the employ of right-wing think-tanks and/or the fossil fuel industry to say another, then the uncertainty is simply too great to come to any conclusions.
What a bunch of Clintonesque claptrap.
Neocons aren’t true Scotsmen. They’re liberals who’ve acquired the pro-life vote. The :wally es
General Eric Shinseki is the most prominent example. He was removed as Army Chief of Staff for saying that the occupation would take several hundred thousand troops. He paid with his career.
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski got similar treatment as the price of maintaining her honor.
General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion, has had some strenuous disagreements with Rumsfeld and has been retired, as well. But who’s been right?
The number of lower-ranking officers who didn’t get into the news is unknown.
Primarily, my statement is grounded in my observance that someone’s ideology is the prism through which they view facts. They embrace those they agree with and discount those they don’t. To Bush supporters, Kerry is a liberal flip-flopper who will raise taxes and wimp out on terror. To Kerry supporters, Bush is an evil warmonger bent on destroying civil liberties in his quest for world domination. Neither man will satisfy the other side…there will always be a conclusion to jump to and a fact to parse. Hence my statement about the OP…you will not find evidence of anyones career being ended. Kerry is simply playing to the home crowd while trying to bolster his aura of “Commander-In-Chiefness”.
Oh by the way, SimonX…woo pig sooie.
ElvisL1ves, I checked out the site that you linked. The “Center for Media and Democracy” seems to have quite the whiff of liberalism. You are doing what the OP asked, but it appears on the surface that your source has some objectivity issues. Of course, if I cite something from the Media Resource Center or something similar, I’m sure you would say the same thing.
No, I wouldn’t. Facts are facts. If you have differing ones, then stand and deliver.
The desire you show to dismiss facts that don’t support the view you’d prefer to hold is similar to the Administration’s own, isn’t it?
Sure, ideology may be a prism…But, the question is whether they are so wedded to their ideology that they are blind to facts that go against their ideological bent.
One telling difference between this Administration and, say, the Clinton Administration, is the way the people who are wedded to ideology are in control. In the Clinton Administration, it tended to be the (few) fairly ideological people (like Robert Reich or Lani Guinier) who either resigned or (in Guinier’s case) had her nomination dropped by Clinton. [And, in neither case is there any evidence I know of that these more ideological people were so ideological that they were blinded to fact or reason.] In this current Administration, it is the few less ideological people (like Whitman or Powell) who have either resigned or been marginalized in the Administration. The ideologues are in control and they are clearly blinded to fact or reason in many cases.
The question isn’t the source is it? The question is: Was General Shinseki removed for publicly opposing the official DOD line on the military requirements for an Iraq war?
It looks to me like he was. And I don’t believe he was the first one. Gen. Mitchell was court martialed for the same thing. MacAurthor was relieved of command for it. And in my view Gen. Powell should have been for his public opposition to the president’s announced policy on gays in the military.
My guess is that a military historian could find a lot of them. The chain of command, right or wrong, can’t tolerate public opposition from lower ranking members once a decision has been reached at the stratospheric levels.
Just for balance, Here is an article which describes the Shineski - Rumsfeld interaction slightly differently. It is from National Review, so take it with a grain of whatever you wish. But it seems that Rumsfeld and Shineski were fueding well before any public declaration of the troop level needed in Iraq.
And just so you don’t have to read the whole thing to see what I’m babbling about,
and
Liberal view- Shinseki was fired for being “the lone voice of reason in the rush to war”.
Conservative view-Shinseki retired because he couldn’t get along with the boss and tried to strongarm him.
The truth? Nobody knows but Shinseki and Rumsfeld. But what you choose to believe depends on your ideology.
Exactly. Disagree publically and you will pay. It’s the way the world works. People will spin the results in the way that confirms what they already believe.
The “source” (singular) is not only anonymous but uncorroborated even by other anonymous sources. Discussion of Shinseki’s political future is purely speculative despite being presented as fact. Discussion of Shinseki’s “refusal” to “transform” the Army presented in same article as mention of his championing the Stryker. Not a word about his assessment of troop levels, or the timing of his ouster.
Yes, malicious gossip should always be taken with a grain of salt.
That’s kind of what I was thinking. And it doesn’t even have to be public opposition, if it’s determined that the level of oppostion impedes accomplishing the task or objective.
One can debate the rightness or wrongness of the Iraq war, but once the decision is made in the military, you either salute and say YES SIR! or you get the hell out.
I hate to take both sides, but I have to disagree with this attitude. I’m afraid this suggests an omniscience on the part of the Commander in Chief that is not credible. There are posts in the Pentagon and the Army which are tasked with determining the “facts on the ground”, so to speak. These posts should disagree and often with arguments put forth from above. Remember, we are not talking about Shineski’s refusal to obey an order to invade Iraq. We are only talking about his disagreement with the administration on how many troops it would take to do the job right. That is exactly what a general in his position is supposed to do.
Now, the administration has every right to fire him for this opinion. But it should not be intimated that the opinion is any sort of misconduct on his part. Although, perhaps, the public nature of the disagreement could be called inappropriate.
Glad to see someone who knows about Fayette Nam
You took that sentence out of context. If you take the whole post as a basis, can you still say you disagree?
FHS class of 1980, SimonX. Write me if you like.