Father of Soldiers in Iraq: Rumsfeld must resign

Date:Friday September 26, @12:47PM
Author:ewing2001
Topic:News
from the NY-Times/MoveOn/xinhuanet dept.

UPDATE:
Salon: Bush* Abandons Troop Protection Plan (09/27)
'You lied, they died,' US parents tell Bush (Guardian 09/27)
Genral Zinni Calls Bush's Iraq War a "BRAIN FART" (09/26)
Newsweek Poll (09/27): Should Rumsfeld resign? (95% Yes)

Full Page Ad in NY Times, supported by Moveon.org

Father of two US soldiers in Iraq: Rumsfeld must resign

Xinhuanet -September 26

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 (Xinhuanet) -- The father of two US soldiers fighting in Iraq said Friday that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld must resign, accusing him of betraying the US troops and the nation.

　　"I'm a patriotic American with three sons in the military, two serving in Iraq," said the father, Larry Syverson, from Richmond, Virginia, on a whole-page advertisement on the New York Times. "I'm proud of their service. But I'm angry with those who have led us into what can only be called a quagmire."

　　Syverson said Rumsfeld, the chief architect of the war with Iraq, "has left our troops poorly equipped and vulnerable in an increasingly hostile environment" by bad planning.

　　"We now know that the President and those who serve him misled us about weapons of mass destruction, about Saddam's supposed nuclear program, about a link between Saddam and September 11," the advertisement said.

　　"I'm in awe at the courage of my sons and the honorable service they give. But the leaders they serve have not acted honorably. They have failed my sons. They have failed all of us," Syverson said.

　　"At the very least, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld must go."

Is Bush's War in Iraq A "Brain Fart"?

09/26/2003 @ 4:50pm

Did retired General Anthony Zinni really call George W. Bush's war in Iraq a "brain fart"? That seems to be the case. But first, some background.

On Thursday night, Zinni, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command, was interviewed by Ted Koppel on Nightline. And he was rather sharp in his assessment of George W. Bush's policy in Iraq. Before the war, Zinni, who had been an envoy for Bush in the Middle East, opposed a U.S. invasion of Iraq, arguing that Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat. On Nightline, Zinni compared Bush's push for the war with the Gulf of Tonkin incident--an infamous episode in which President Lyndon Johnson misrepresented an attack on two U.S. Navy destroyers in order to win congressional approval of the war in Vietnam--and he challenged "the credibility behind" Bush's prewar assertions concerning Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and its association with anti-American terrorists. "I'm suggesting," Zinni said, "that either the [prewar] intelligence was so bad and flawed--and if that's the case, then somebody's head ought to roll for that--or the intelligence was exaggerated or twisted in a way to make a more convenient case to the American people." Zinni said he believed that Hussein had maintained "the framework for a weapons of mass destruction program that could be quickly activated once sanctions were lifted" and that such a program, while worrisome, did not immediately endanger the United States.

Zinni raised the issue that Bush might have purposefully misled the public and not shared with it the true reason for the war: "If there's a strategic decision for taking down Iraq, if it's the so-called neoconservative idea that taking apart Iraq and creating a model democracy, or whatever it is, will change the equation in the Middle East, then make the [public] case based on that strategic decision....I think it's a flawed--like the domino theory--it's a flawed strategic thought or concept....But if that's the reason for going in, that's the case the American people ought to hear. They ought to make their judgment and determine their support based on what the motivation is for the attack."

more...

A decision by the White House and a GOP-dominated Congress would leave troop-transport jets vulnerable to missile attack.

Even as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made headlines this week by announcing that up to 20,000 fresh troops may be called to Iraq, President Bush and members of the congressional leadership were quietly abandoning a plan to protect troop-transport airliners from missile attack by terrorists or Saddam loyalists.

The measure, first advanced by the Pentagon, would have begun an ambitious program to equip the commercial airliners that are used for troop transport with advanced technology to protect them from the shoulder-fired missiles. Confused by disarray in the administration's plans to protect airliners from missile attack, the House of Representatives slashed the original $25 million request to $3 million. Congressional officials say the Bush administration did nothing to win approval of the full measure -- despite recent missile attacks on U.S. military craft flying near the Baghdad airport.

The outcome shocked many in the Defense Department and, critics said, it clearly could leave troops vulnerable. "I am appalled," said one Defense Department official who asked to remain anonymous. "We are setting ourselves up for a fall. We are paying lip-service to force protection and instead are digging a deeper hole in which to bury our head."

...

No president in recent memory has been a fiercer ally of men and women in uniform. "We will not cut corners when it comes to the defense of our great land," Bush said last year. Even Ronald Reagan, one of the most forceful proponents of a strong military ever to inhabit the White House, never donned a flight suit and flew onto the deck of an aircraft carrier aboard a Navy plane. But this week, officials said, the Bush administration offered no support to protect the troop-transport planes.

"The administration never made the case for why it needed the money," said John Scofield, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee. "It was never clear what they were going to do with the money." An aide to a Republican senator, who asked to remain anonymous, said the full funding would have been approved if Bush had pressed for it. "If the president says that something is important, he will get the funding from this Congress," the aide said. "All he has to do is ask."

more…
http://salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/27/missiles/index.html

'You lied, they died,' US parents tell Bush

Guardian -Saturday September 27, 2003

The father of a soldier killed in Iraq accused President George Bush yesterday of being responsible for his son's death.

Fernando Suarez, whose 20-year-old son, Jesus, was one of the first fatalities, said: "My son died because Bush lied."

Mr Suarez, from Escondido, California, speaking at a press conference to publicise tomorrow's anti-war demonstrations in eight US cities, said that about 1,300 parents of troops stationed in Iraq were involved in a movement against the oc cupation. "It is time for these troops to come home," said Mr Suarez. "Neither my wife nor my family want more children to die in this illegal war. We are no less patriotic for wanting peace. Bush wants $87bn [£52m] for this war, but what does he give us for our schools?" he asked.

Please check out also

Military Families speak out

and

bringthemhomenow.org

Compare U.S. Soldiers in Iraq: "Bring us home"

More at

Iraq Coalition Casuality Count

Occupationwatch.org

Iraqbodycount.net, Iraqometer.com and Costofwar.com

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies.

printed from Father of Soldiers in Iraq: Rumsfeld must resign on 2004-05-25 21:43:06