Why We Support the Troops and Not the Administration

There is a good reason that many Americans are willing to fully support the troops, but give a vote of no confidence to the civilian military leadership. I think the discourse between Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace and Donald Rumsfeld:

When UPI's Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval.

But Pace had a different view. "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it," the general said.

Rumsfeld interjected: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."

But Pace meant what he said. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," he said, firmly.

God, I wish we had a President and Secretary of Defense that spoke and acted like General Pace. I am so sick of listening to Bush and Rummy talk about how we are in Iraq to put an end to Saddam's torture chambers and then turn around and refuse to condemn, ban, or even give more than lip service to torture. Do they really think that they will be seen as credible about our role in Iraq when they refuse to actually support the rationale for our invasion. Unfortunately, if either of the two were to lose their jobs, it would most likely be General Pace and not Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld's War On 'Insurgents'