Do you approve of Donald Rumsfeld's performance?

[Don Vito Corleone]

Inspired by a recent discussion:

What is your opinion of Donald Rumsfeld's performance as Secretary of Defense? If you answer that you approve of his performance, please post the reason for your opinion in whatever detail you see fit. I'm particularly interested in hearing why Rumsfeld supporters like him. Obviously anyone else is free to post their opinions as well.

For my part, I think he's a real abomination as SecDef. He has McNamara's corporate mentality of wanting to do more with less, and shares his inclination toward second-guessing uniformed leadership. Worst of all, he and Paul Wolfowitz dreamt up the disaster that is Operation Iraqi Freedom, and sacked and/or threatened commanders who questioned their lack of an exit strategy or told them the emperor wore no clothes. He has even let down his own President, by failing to keep him in the loop on pending PR disasters like Abu Ghraib.

PLEASE VOTE!

 

[theeedude]

Dumbsfeld < McNamara

 

[Moonbeam]

If the house and senate go Democratic it will largely be due to Rumsfeld. Hard not to love the guy.

 

[Extelleron]

He hasn't done badly, but he's largely ignored the cries of military leaders for more troops in Iraq, which were clearly necessary in the crucial stages following the 2003 invasion. I also believe he completely forget that he'd have to do something after Saddam's regime toppled, and really didn't plan anything beyond Mission Accomplished.

I support Mr. Bush, but I think he'd do himself good finding a man with some good experience, and who looks ahead to the future a bit more.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
He hasn't done badly, but he's largely ignored the cries of military leaders for more troops in Iraq, which were clearly necessary in the crucial stages following the 2003 invasion. I also believe he completely forget that he'd have to do something after Saddam's regime toppled, and really didn't plan anything beyond Mission Accomplished.

I support Mr. Bush, but I think he'd do himself good finding a man with some good experience, and who looks ahead to the future a bit more.

[pukes]

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Extelleron
He hasn't done badly, but he's largely ignored the cries of military leaders for more troops in Iraq, which were clearly necessary in the crucial stages following the 2003 invasion. I also believe he completely forget that he'd have to do something after Saddam's regime toppled, and really didn't plan anything beyond Mission Accomplished.

I support Mr. Bush, but I think he'd do himself good finding a man with some good experience, and who looks ahead to the future a bit more.

[pukes]

Is there a problem, lefty?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
He hasn't done badly, but he's largely ignored the cries of military leaders for more troops in Iraq, which were clearly necessary in the crucial stages following the 2003 invasion. I also believe he completely forget that he'd have to do something after Saddam's regime toppled, and really didn't plan anything beyond Mission Accomplished.

I support Mr. Bush, but I think he'd do himself good finding a man with some good experience, and who looks ahead to the future a bit more.

QFT :thumbsup:

 

[brownzilla786]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Extelleron
He hasn't done badly, but he's largely ignored the cries of military leaders for more troops in Iraq, which were clearly necessary in the crucial stages following the 2003 invasion. I also believe he completely forget that he'd have to do something after Saddam's regime toppled, and really didn't plan anything beyond Mission Accomplished.

I support Mr. Bush, but I think he'd do himself good finding a man with some good experience, and who looks ahead to the future a bit more.

[pukes]

Is there a problem, lefty?

I think that should clerify things for you

 

[imported_Lothar]

He's an idiot that needs to go.

 

[trenchfoot]

the problem with rumsfeld is that he was just smart enough to convince the "right" people that invading and subjugating iraq was going to be easier than stealing votes from the democrats. but, was stupid enough to believe his own sales pitch.

like many other men that had ambitions of ruling the planet, he told the people who mattered what they wanted to hear precisely when they wanted to hear it.

and when things didn't go the way he said it would, all the folks who bought into "the plan" that he, cheney and wolfowitz cooked up way back when, couldn't back out of supporting the"plan" without looking like the gullible fools they turned out to be so they proceeded to come up with stuff like "stay the course" and other such madison avenue inspired drivel.

as someone posted earlier (step up and take a bow please), these guys couldn't get it straight that what wins elections won't necessarily win wars.


*edit* - spl

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Extelleron
He hasn't done badly, but he's largely ignored the cries of military leaders for more troops in Iraq, which were clearly necessary in the crucial stages following the 2003 invasion. I also believe he completely forget that he'd have to do something after Saddam's regime toppled, and really didn't plan anything beyond Mission Accomplished.

I support Mr. Bush, but I think he'd do himself good finding a man with some good experience, and who looks ahead to the future a bit more.

[pukes]

Is there a problem, lefty?

Who has more experience as SOD than Rummy? Bush is a poor leader surrounded by poor leaders following him.

This administration is doing a poor job on every level and it makes me sick that some people continue to believe in them after 6 years of the same old stupid decisions.

That doesnt make me lefty it makes me non partisan with brain :|

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
He hasn't done badly, but he's largely ignored the cries of military leaders for more troops in Iraq, which were clearly necessary in the crucial stages following the 2003 invasion. I also believe he completely forget that he'd have to do something after Saddam's regime toppled, and really didn't plan anything beyond Mission Accomplished.

I support Mr. Bush, but I think he'd do himself good finding a man with some good experience, and who looks ahead to the future a bit more.

LOL. How can you look at your own words in bold and then deduce that he hasn't done badly? Am I missing something here?

 

[Screech]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
He hasn't done badly, but he's largely ignored the cries of military leaders for more troops in Iraq, which were clearly necessary in the crucial stages following the 2003 invasion. I also believe he completely forget that he'd have to do something after Saddam's regime toppled, and really didn't plan anything beyond Mission Accomplished.

So, in other words.....he's done badly?

edit for clarification: What would actually constitute doing the job badly, in your opinion?

edit2: looks like CellarDoor beat me to it.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: screech


So, in other words.....he's done badly?

edit for clarification: What would actually constitute doing the job badly, in your opinion?

he did'nt say that

HE DID'NT SAY THAT!!!!!!!

 

[techs]

Rummy and McNamara have a lot in common in so far as their approach and the enormous failures of their tenure.
What saves McNamara from being the worst Sec of Defense is that McNamara could well have saved the country during the Cuban Missile Crisis when Gen. LeMay tried to start WW3.

 

[MAW1082]

Ol' Rummy reminds me of 'the smoking man' from the X-Files now that I think about it . . . "deny everything"

 

[Lemon law]

At least McNamara's failures were honest---Rumsfeld is not only a liar, but he has been responsible for a lot of bone head Republican corruption over the years---can any forget that its his hand shaking that of Saddam's when Saddam was our guy in the mid-east---but add unethical to the list of Rummies sins---and then add fact that the guy is incompetent in the extreme---and too damn conceited to ever admit he was wrong.

And no I was not duped by Bush's or Rummies lies on Iraq pre-invasion--nor did I vote for GWB.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Lothar
He's an idiot that needs to go.

Actually, what I've read is that he's a sharp guy. The problem is that he's an arrogant arsehole. The only leader worse than an imbecile (Bush) is a leader that thinks he knows everything.

 

[jackschmittusa]

You mean the guy that recently told the Army to go to Congress themselves and beg for money (which has always been the SecDef's job)? My guess is that he knows that they need more than some people are comforable with, and he is trying to distance himself from the fallout.

The one who formed his own secret intellegence agency because he did not like the answers the standing agencies came up with?

The one who thinks "whip 'em quick with high tech" and there is nothing more to do?

The one who is adamant that he knows something when it serves the agenda, but claims to have never said he knew it (several times) when he is proven to be wrong?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Extelleron
He hasn't done badly, but he's largely ignored the cries of military leaders for more troops in Iraq, which were clearly necessary in the crucial stages following the 2003 invasion. I also believe he completely forget that he'd have to do something after Saddam's regime toppled, and really didn't plan anything beyond Mission Accomplished.

I support Mr. Bush, but I think he'd do himself good finding a man with some good experience, and who looks ahead to the future a bit more.

QFT :thumbsup:

Ah yes, Rumsfeld's been great...except for that whole thing about totally fvcking up doing his job. But he's been great at the other stuff...like looking all relaxed and unconcerned while our troops are dying in Iraq due to his inability to do his job, cause he's pretty good at that. Maybe Bush can give him a medal.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lothar
He's an idiot that needs to go.

And just what are your qualifications?

I have a feeling Rummy's IQ is higher than most on this forum.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lothar
He's an idiot that needs to go.

And just what are your qualifications?

I have a feeling Rummy's IQ is higher than most on this forum.

So? I don't think anyone on this forum would be qualified to be SecDef, the fact that Rumsfeld might be smarter than most people on this forum does not make him a good SecDef.

What is it with Republicans and setting the bar a little too low? The torture bar is "not as bad as Al-Qaeda", the personal freedoms bar is "better than North Korea" and the line in the sand for the SecDef is "smarter than Dave". That's great, could be have some grownups running the country now?

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lothar
He's an idiot that needs to go.

And just what are your qualifications?

I have a feeling Rummy's IQ is higher than most on this forum.

Higher IQ is your requirement/qualification for Secretary of Defense?

 

[imported_Lothar]

*DP*

 

[Lemon law]

Rummy may have a high IQ---but he is an moral midgit---the worse nightmare---someone smart enough to get alot of people killed.

And no wonder he is so relaxed---his fellow moral midgits are in charge and they would never fire him---no matter how incompetent he is.

But one thing seems to terrify Rummy---being sent to the Hague to face war crimes---as he shreds papers meanwhile.

When and if GHB's presidential papers are released---GWB is putting the release on hold---we may get a good look at some of the
other mischefs Rumsfeld has been up to over the years.

And from Yahoo news comes a report that a new and maybe contraversial study now puts the Iraqi death toll at 655,000.

Making the GWB administration---much worse of a scouge than Saddam Hussien---by a factor of three or so.