"Six retired generals, including three who commanded troops in Iraq under Rumsfeld's leadership, have publicly stated their criticism of Rumsfeld's leadership and called for his resignation."
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/14/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html

So it's not 6 recent generals. Who are the six?
Gen. Anthony Zinni. And Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton. And Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold. I suppose are 3 of this six.
Zinni of course isn't new, he worked for John Kerry.

So Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack is suppose to be recent and said to be 5th one. According to video he doesn't have much to say other than in his opinion Rumsfeld should leave. He complained about generals not getting promoted due to merit [we can guess he includes himself in this category] and says that Rumsfeld "micro manages". Perhaps Swannack has something more substantial and perhaps expecting much information from short video clip is unreasonable.
And there is this: "In May 2004, while still on active duty, Swannack told the Washington Post that he thought the United States was losing strategically in Iraq." This could explain at least some of the micro managing being administered by Rummy:)
Maj. Gen. John Batiste came out on wednesday, so he would be 4th, since Swannack came out thursday. So who is 6th?
"The two most senior generals to voice their unease were Maj Gen John Riggs and Maj Gen Charles H Swannack Jr"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4910950.stm
So I guess Riggs is 6th

So nothing really very interesting. I had thought they might be referring about something along the lines of what Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson said. Which I saw on CSPAN:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Wilkerson%20Speech%20--%20WEB.htm
That is fairly critical but interesting and somewhat useful and different prospective.

So, basically there 3 instead 6, and out of hundreds of these guys, we get 3 who think Rummy should be replaced.
Maybe Rummy should be replaced- just to get some new blood in there, but then again who would you get to replace Rummy and would this replacement be equal or better than Rumsfeld. Would replacing Rumsfeld at this time help win the war?
Rather than take the advice of reporters who are completely and utterly clueless or the advice of 3 generals who have retired [keep in mind that retiring generally indicates that these generals see little chance of advancement- or perhaps better opportunies if they retire]. Though, generals can retire in more exciting circumstances- such as refusing to carry out some policy- but I don't see this here.