Why is Rumsfeld still here?

dragonfly · Sep 29, 2006

This past Monday, 3 more retired Generals testified to Congress about why Rumsfeld should go. I think the total is up to 8 or 9 now who are calling for his resignation. Why isn't the Administration listening to them?

Wildkow · Sep 29, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 29 2006, 04:08 PM) [snapback]325810[/snapback]</div>

This past Monday, 3 more retired Generals testified to Congress about why Rumsfeld should go. I think the total is up to 8 or 9 now who are calling for his resignation. Why isn't the Administration listening to them?
[/b]
Click to expand...

It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. The liberals don't want to as evidenced by their "Cut N' Run" solution to terrorism and by Clinton's inaction. Don't get me wrong I believe Bubba had a great desire to off that SOB-OBL but when the going got tough the Bill went golfing or for a BJ in the Oval.

Wildkow

p.s. OK got my waders on ready for the offal to flow, BABY! :lol:

huskers · Sep 29, 2006

I thought the administration said a number of times that they always listen to their generals. I guess they have selective hearing. :huh:

daniel · Sep 29, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 29 2006, 04:08 PM) [snapback]325810[/snapback]</div>

This past Monday, 3 more retired Generals testified to Congress about why Rumsfeld should go. I think the total is up to 8 or 9 now who are calling for his resignation. Why isn't the Administration listening to them?
[/b]
Click to expand...

'because Rummy's W's friend, and friendship is more important than the competence of the people running the so-called Department of Defense.

tleonhar · Sep 29, 2006

Besides that, someone has to control Bush's puppet strings. h34r:

dragonfly · Sep 30, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 29 2006, 06:24 PM) [snapback]325812[/snapback]</div>

It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Ok... how about somebody competent?

The liberals don't want to as evidenced by their "Cut N' Run" solution to terrorism
[/b]
Click to expand...

The liberals advocate going after those who attacked us, not those who had nothing to do with it.

and by Clinton's inaction.
[/b]
Click to expand...

As you well know this is a lie that has been thoroughly discredited in another thread.

Wildkow · Sep 30, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 29 2006, 09:12 PM) [snapback]325920[/snapback]</div>

Ok... how about somebody competent?

The liberals advocate going after those who attacked us, not those who had nothing to do with it.

As you well know this is a lie that has been thoroughly discredited in another thread.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Sure and I bet your definition of competent is someone who will "Cut N Run"?

Seems to me terrorism is more wide spread than just AQ in Afgan. BTW, flights of our military jets enforcing the UN's NoFly zone were targeted and shot at on a daily basis and the 9/11 commission report said that Saddam was preparing to restart their WMD program. Should we have waited for them to drop one on us?

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Sep 29 2006, 04:32 PM) [snapback]325814[/snapback]</div>

I thought the administration said a number of times that they always listen to their generals. I guess they have selective hearing. :huh:
[/b]
Click to expand...

Nope they just recognize politically motivated testimony when they smell it or step in it.

Wildkow

p.s. Or in the case of the whacko left when their lips are moving.

Sufferin' Prius Envy · Sep 30, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 29 2006, 04:08 PM) [snapback]325810[/snapback]</div>

This past Monday, 3 more retired Generals testified to Congress about why Rumsfeld should go. I think the total is up to 8 or 9 now who are calling for his resignation. Why isn't the Administration listening to them?[/b]
Click to expand...

Oh my God! Eight or nine?
Time to replace the Secretary of Defense!!! :angry:
I'm surprised the MPs aren't grabbing Rumsfeld by the arms, marching him out the Pentagon doors, and kicking his butt down the stairs.

Eight or nine retired generals and admirals . . . out of THOUSANDS!!!! :huh:
http://www.slate.com/id/2139847/sidebar/2140026/

Don't Ask, Don't Tell got more of a response out of retired flag officers than Rumsfeld ever will. :mellow:

Isn't politiKs grand. [insert puke smiley here]

dragonfly · Sep 30, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Sep 30 2006, 03:55 AM) [snapback]325952[/snapback]</div>

Oh my God! Eight or nine?

Click to expand...

For retired generals to publicly critize current military leadership is unheard of. According to Woodward's new book, Bush is keeping Rumsfeld in office in order to avoid admitting things are going poorly, thereby opening him up to criticism.

And you guys continue to defend this behavior.

dragonfly · Sep 30, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 30 2006, 12:11 AM) [snapback]325935[/snapback]</div>

Sure and I bet your definition of competent is someone who will "Cut N Run"?
[/b]
Click to expand...

No, somebody competent would be someone not willing to roll over for Bush and "stay the course" in order to prevent the admin from looking bad. Truly, I'd be happier if they sent in the number of troops that the military leadership has called for from the beginning of this thing, and get control of the country. But they're not doing that... I don't know why. So, the next best thing is to get out. Either of those two options would be better than the current situation.

IsrAmeriPrius · Sep 30, 2006

WASHINGTON â€” Former White House chief of staff Andrew Card twice sought to persuade President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the second time with the support of first lady Laura Bush, Bob Woodward writes in a new book on the Bush administration's Iraq war policy.

Card today did not dispute that he had talked about a Rumsfeld resignation with the president but said it was his job to discuss a wide range of possible replacements, including his own. He denied talking to Mrs. Bush about the subject.

As for the war, Woodward writes that White House and Pentagon officials voiced concern about the conduct of the fighting in reports and internal memos and that a secret intelligence report circulated last May predicted violence would continue for the rest of 2006 and increase in 2007. At the same time, Bush, Rumsfeld and other senior officials insisted publicly the situation was going well, Woodward writes, according to the Post.

The White House spokesman did confirm one detail in Woodward's forthcoming book â€” that Henry Kissinger has been advising Bush about Iraq.

In an interview scheduled to air Sunday night on CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," Woodward says Kissinger, who served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, has been telling Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that in Iraq, "victory is the only meaningful exit strategy."

Houston Chronicle - Book: Card tried to get Bush to fire Rumsfeld[/b]
Click to expand...

Stev0 · Sep 30, 2006

We're talking about an administration that would rather see thousands of soldiers killed and injured than to admit maybe, just maybe, it may have made a mistake. Of course Rummy isn't going anywhere.

We only have a couple of years left of this arrogant idiotic administration; hopefully in January, 2009 there will be a someone moving into the White House who cares more about the U.S. than they do their own butts.

Godiva · Sep 30, 2006

More like why was he put in charge in the first place.

The Administration is not listening because they are RETIRED generals. And ACTIVE generals aren't going to criticize. So you have a sort of Catch-22.

Rumsfeld will be just another nail in Bush's "legacy coffin" once he's out of office and the flood of books comes out analyzing his administration. Should be a hoot.

ditto231 · Sep 30, 2006

I believe at the present time, Rumsfeld is the best man for the job. Who do you think can do a better job and why?

Stev0 · Sep 30, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ditto @ Sep 30 2006, 12:57 PM) [snapback]326053[/snapback]</div>

I believe at the present time, Rumsfeld is the best man for the job. Who do you think can do a better job and why?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Any of those three generals, because unlike Rumsfeld, they actually served in Iraq so they know what it's like and what's going on.

Alric · Sep 30, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ditto @ Sep 30 2006, 11:57 AM) [snapback]326053[/snapback]</div>

I believe at the present time, Rumsfeld is the best man for the job. Who do you think can do a better job and why?
[/b]
Click to expand...

I urge you to follow the link on my sig to Frontline and watch the documentary "Dark Side". It might change your mind about Bush and Co.

daniel · Sep 30, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Sep 30 2006, 08:36 AM) [snapback]326023[/snapback]</div>

... hopefully in January, 2009 there will be a someone moving into the White House who cares more about the U.S. than they do their own butts.
[/b]
Click to expand...

People who care more about the country than they do about their own butts (and bank accounts) don't go into politics. An honest person can get elected in local politics in a small town, but not at the state or national level.

IsrAmeriPrius · Sep 30, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 30 2006, 10:53 AM) [snapback]326074[/snapback]</div>

I urge you to follow the link on my sig to Frontline and watch the documentary "Dark Side". It might change your mind about Bush and Co.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Why would a dittohead do that unless Rush told him to do so?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ditto @ Sep 30 2006, 09:57 AM) [snapback]326053[/snapback]</div>

I believe at the present time, Rumsfeld is the best man for the job. Who do you think can do a better job and why?
[/b]
Click to expand...

The wrong secretary was fired:

The book also describes a deep divide between Mr. Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, who was dumped from Mr. Bush's cabinet after the 2004 election and replaced by Ms. Rice. He reportedly told Mr. Card that "if I go, Don should go."

In the end, both Mr. Powell and Mr. Card left the government while Mr. Rumsfeld soldiers on. Mr. Card quit in March, believing that Iraq would go down in history as comparable to Vietnam.

Mr. Woodward reports that General John Abizaid, who commands U.S. forces in the Middle East, told visitors in the fall of last year that "Rumsfeld doesn't have any credibility any more" when it came to U.S. war strategy in Iraq.

The Globe and Mail - Woodward says adviser twice urged Bush to dump Defence Secretary[/b]
Click to expand...

Woodward draws an equally scathing portrait of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who comes off as a bully and control freak who is reluctant to assume responsibility for his department's failures, and who has surrounded himself with yes men and created a system that bleached out "strong, forceful military advice." Rumsfeld remains wedded to his plan to conduct the war in Iraq with a lighter, faster force (reflecting his idÃ©e fixe of "transforming" the military), even as the situation there continues to deteriorate.

Woodward reports that after the 2004 election Andrew Card Jr., then White House chief of staff, pressed for Rumsfeld's ouster (he recommended former Secretary of State James Baker III as a replacement), and that Laura Bush shared his concern, worrying that Rumsfeld was hurting her husband's reputation. Vice President Dick Cheney, however, persuaded Bush to stay the course with Cheney's old friend Rumsfeld, arguing that any change might be perceived as an expression of doubt and hesitation on the war. Other members of the administration also come off poorly. Gen. Richard Myers is depicted as a weak chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who routinely capitulated to the will of Rumsfeld and who rarely offered an independent opinion. Former C.I.A. director George Tenet is described as believing that the war against Iraq was a terrible mistake, but never expressing his feelings to the president. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who appears in this volume primarily in her former role as national security adviser) is depicted as a presidential enabler, ineffectual at her job of coordinating interagency strategy and planning.

Woodward suggests that Rumsfeld decided to make the Iraq war plan "his personal project" after seeing a rival agency, the C.I.A., step up to run operations in Afghanistan (when it became clear that the Pentagon was unprepared for a quick invasion of that country, right after 9/11). And he suggests that President Bush chose Rumsfeld as his defense secretary, in part, because he knew his father mistrusted Rumsfeld, and the younger Bush wanted to prove his father wrong.

Many of the people in this book seem not only dismayed but also flummoxed by some of President Bush's decisions. Woodward quotes Laura Bush as telling Andrew Card that she doesn't understand why her husband isn't upset about Rumsfeld and the uproar over his handling of the war . And he quotes Armitage as telling former Secretary of State Colin Powell that he's baffled by President Bush's reluctance to make adjustments in his conduct of the war.

"Has he thought this through?" Armitage asks. "What the president says in effect is, We've got to press on in honor of the memory of those who have fallen. Another way to say that is we've got to have more men fall to honor the memories of those who have already fallen."

The International Herald Tribune - A portrait of Bush as the victim of his own certitude [/b]
Click to expand...

Sufferin' Prius Envy · Sep 30, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 30 2006, 06:34 AM) [snapback]325992[/snapback]</div>

For retired generals to publicly critize current military leadership is unheard of. According to Woodward's new book, Bush is keeping Rumsfeld in office in order to avoid admitting things are going poorly, thereby opening him up to criticism.

And you guys continue to defend this behavior.[/b]
Click to expand...

The fact that YOU may find it unheard of doesn't surprise me.

Eight or nine retired generals involving themselves in politics is not the groundbreaking, unheard of event you may think it is. For decades, retired generals and admirals have been crossing the military tradition line of being apolitical.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/6671.html
Do they have the right? Yes. But make no mistake, active duty officers tend to be very apolitical. The vast majority don't even vote. They wish to remain neutral servants.

BUT, retired ones can play politics with the best of them . . .
''He is a very progressive guy and many of these guys [in uniform] still want their heavy divisions," said retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, attributing much of the bitterness toward Rumsfeld to generals wishing to preserve their fiefdoms.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...history/?page=3

Retired officers don't remain quiet out of fear of reprisal (their retirement benefits are secure), or because they were told to keep quiet. Most remain apolitical out of force of habit from years of being apolitical, and yes, many are loathe to criticize current military leadership. They know they are no longer privy to classified information and they know first hand how situations change from one moment to another.

Surprise yourself at how many of the Presidents of the United States were former generals or colonels . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...y_military_rank

And you know what "this behavior" is?

hycamguy07 · Sep 30, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Sep 30 2006, 06:29 PM) [snapback]326214[/snapback]</div>

The fact that YOU may find it unheard of doesn't surprise me.

Eight or nine retired generals involving themselves in politics is not the groundbreaking, unheard of event you may think it is. For decades, retired generals and admirals have been crossing the military tradition line of being apolitical.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/6671.html
Do they have the right? Yes. But make no mistake, active duty officers tend to be very apolitical. The vast majority don't even vote. They wish to remain neutral servants.

BUT, retired ones can play politics with the best of them . . .
''He is a very progressive guy and many of these guys [in uniform] still want their heavy divisions," said retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, attributing much of the bitterness toward Rumsfeld to generals wishing to preserve their fiefdoms.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...history/?page=3

Retired officers don't remain quiet out of fear of reprisal (their retirement benefits are secure), or because they were told to keep quiet. Most remain apolitical out of force of habit from years of being apolitical, and yes, many are loathe to criticize current military leadership. They know they are no longer privy to classified information and they know first hand how situations change from one moment to another.

Surprise yourself at how many of the Presidents of the United States were former generals or colonels . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...y_military_rank

And you know what "this behavior" is?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Niiiiiice

It kills me to read the "Decepticons" (Extreme Leftist Libs) and their anti-American propaganda (If you dont see the country the same as they do) Your in the wrong. Posts spread their twisted look of half truths or rumors.. Anything to promote their cause.. (I hate to compare them to Hitler) but it could be said they are acting just as he did except to the opposit extreme. When they can see your not following them they resort to name calling and or insulting what you may believe in again because its not what they see as truth.....
Ahh a new name: "Deceptanazi" You know who you are.. (their the ones that will take offence to this reply) B)

Not all Libs are bad, just the EXTREME LEFTIES...

Why is Rumsfeld still here?

dragonfly New Member

Wildkow New Member

huskers Senior Member

daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

tleonhar Senior Member

dragonfly New Member

Wildkow New Member

Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

dragonfly New Member

dragonfly New Member

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

Stev0 Honorary Hong Kong Cavalier

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

ditto231 New Member

Stev0 Honorary Hong Kong Cavalier

Alric New Member

daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

hycamguy07 New Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Why is Rumsfeld still here?

dragonfly New Member

Wildkow New Member

huskers Senior Member

daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

tleonhar Senior Member

dragonfly New Member

Wildkow New Member

Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

dragonfly New Member

dragonfly New Member

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

Stev0 Honorary Hong Kong Cavalier

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

ditto231 New Member

Stev0 Honorary Hong Kong Cavalier

Alric New Member

daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

hycamguy07 New Member