Do you approve of Donald Rumsfeld's performance?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
The OP needs a 5th response on his poll, how about being neutral with Rummy's performance?

Good= his work on transforming the military from a cold war one to one that is more fitting with the reality of today?s world and the reality of our use of the military in the last 20 years. I.E. better methods of getting weapons plans, a faster and more agile military, a military that can leverage our HUGE technological advantage on the battle field.

Bad= the mess in Iraq. From what I have been reading recently it seems that Rummy actually does not want the US to do all the work in quieting Iraq, but thinks that Iraqis need to do that work themselves. In essence he thinks that if they don't do the hard work then they will not appreciate the freedom as much. It's the same as giving a kid a car and making the kid work in order to get a car. The kid who works for it will appreciate it a lot more and will do a better job of taking care of what he was given.

For you lefties... Ironically Rummy may be the main reason why we haven't sent more troops to Iraq, for reasons I point to above, and if you get your wish that he be replaced the first thing his replacement might do is call for 50,000 more troops to head to Iraq. So don't be too surprised if your celebration over his removal soon turns sour.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
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.

I imagine it is. I suspect his judgment and ethics, however, are below the high-water mark in essentially any civilized company (I leave it to you to decide whether this place falls into that category). He doesn't seem especially up on the law of war, either, and I imagine my knowledge of it compares fairly well to his.

I don't think Secretary Rumsfeld's weakness is his intellect, it's his stubbornness, inflexibility, and arrogance (combined with the fact that he brought an agenda for war with Iraq into the Pentagon on his first day as SecDef, which led him to force-fit 9/11 as a rationale for it). He has managed to accomplish the most foolish, poorly-planned major military deployment in American history.

What I, in turn, have to ask is, why do you support him? What is it about his performance that you think is laudatory?
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The OP needs a 5th response on his poll, how about being neutral with Rummy's performance?

Negative - I'm not adding that option. I'm asking for an up or down vote.

 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Neutral? I think it would be obvious to most that he has done a very poor job. I can also see a fantacy reality where some might think he has done a bangup job. But neutral? I would think you would have to be braindead to have a neutral opinion of him.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The OP needs a 5th response on his poll, how about being neutral with Rummy's performance?

Negative - I'm not adding that option. I'm asking for an up or down vote.

Nice! :thumbsup: :D

 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
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.

As I asked last night, why do you approve of Secretary Rumsfeld's performance?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
As I asked last night, why do you approve of Secretary Rumsfeld's performance?

I approve of his performance because I feel he's done a good job. I think he's been turned in to a scapegoat by the left for every little supposed 'wrong' in the war on terror.

From the material I've read and the interviews I've perused, it seems most will admit Rumsfeld is a brilliant man and certainly well qualified for his position.

I'd be interested to know who the lefties here think would do a better job. And, please, let's have some coherent, logical responses. No childish "anyone" answers.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: DonVito
As I asked last night, why do you approve of Secretary Rumsfeld's performance?

I approve of his performance because I feel he's done a good job. I think he's been turned in to a scapegoat by the left for every little supposed 'wrong' in the war on terror.

From the material I've read and the interviews I've perused, it seems most will admit Rumsfeld is a brilliant man and certainly well qualified for his position.

I'd be interested to know who the lefties here think would do a better job. And, please, let's have some coherent, logical responses. No childish "anyone" answers.


That's a non-answer - what is a "good job" in your view? In what way does his "good job" override his innumerable failures as SecDef? Please provide more detail.

To answer your own question, though I don't know that I'm a "lefty," I worked under Rumsfeld for several years, and have many many criticisms of Rumsfeld. As for who would do a better job, several Republicans come to mind, including but not limited to John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham, Colin Powell, and Tommy Franks. Of course, since these men are not neoconservatives they may not be attractive to President Bush, even if they share many of his other geopolitical views.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
The other people I'd like to hear from are the two non-Bush voters who indicate they approve of Secretary Rumsfeld's performance. That is a hard position for me to understand (though I suppose there are those who became convinced of the righteousness of neoconservatism by the events of 9/11).
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,812
11,458
136
Originally posted by: 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?

Apparently, however it isn't for president.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: DonVito
As I asked last night, why do you approve of Secretary Rumsfeld's performance?

I approve of his performance because I feel he's done a good job. I think he's been turned in to a scapegoat by the left for every little supposed 'wrong' in the war on terror.

From the material I've read and the interviews I've perused, it seems most will admit Rumsfeld is a brilliant man and certainly well qualified for his position.

I'd be interested to know who the lefties here think would do a better job. And, please, let's have some coherent, logical responses. No childish "anyone" answers.


That's a non-answer - what is a "good job" in your view? In what way does his "good job" override his innumerable failures as SecDef? Please provide more detail.

To answer your own question, though I don't know that I'm a "lefty," I worked under Rumsfeld for several years, and have many many criticisms of Rumsfeld. As for who would do a better job, several Republicans come to mind, including but not limited to John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham, Colin Powell, and Tommy Franks. Of course, since these men are not neoconservatives they may not be attractive to President Bush, even if they share many of his other geopolitical views.


I'll add James Baker to that.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,448
47,828
136
Hell no. The man is as much a failure as his boss quite frankly. Manipulation of intelligence and political doublespeak from this admin aside, this SoD's lack of a follow up plan (or rather, his outright refusal to form one!) in Iraq as well as diverting assets away from Afghanistan before the job was done is downright disgusting. Politicians like him who consider American lives as an expendable medium make me sick.

This arrogant prick makes McNamara look like a saint. The only positive things I've heard about Rumsfeld come from the small number of cheerleaders on this forum, and occasionally from the talking heads on radio. All the hardcore conservatives in my family as well as those I'm personally friends with wish this idiot to spend the rest of his days in Levinworth.

Idealogues like Rumsfeld are a liability to this country. That he is incompetent, dishonest and arrogant makes him all the more dangerous - Bush should have taken a lesson from Lincoln and fired those who can't deliver. Our future is too valuable to suffer fools.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,812
11,458
136
IMO, he should have been sh!t-canned after the "known unknowns/unknown knowns" briefing.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Prof John does ask an interesting question---regarding the question of how to transition our military to face the wars of future---or should I say the wars of the present.
Where before our military was more something like a ww2 concept---large set armies opposing other large armies with the goal being to occupy the capital of the opposing
country(s) or to destroy the economy through bombing.

My answer to that is that is more of a goal than a policy---and the policy is the test--------and at least in my mind---Rummy is flunking that also---and will likely do more long term damage to our military and its reserve system than anyone in history. A decent secretary of defense who states you go to war with the army you have would have more of a sense of urgency about getting body armor to the troops and getting our vehicles armored than Rummy has shown---nor would a decent secretary of defense who understands modern warfare
have rejected using inadequate numbers of initial troops and fired those who disagreed. Nor would a decent secretary of defense require the army itself to go to congress and beg for its budget.

SO I conclude that someone else is going to have to take a demoralised and depleted military to a new nervana of modern warfare---Rummy has been the wrong man at the wrong time. And regardless of troop level increases now---given initial mistakes---its too late now.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: DonVito
As I asked last night, why do you approve of Secretary Rumsfeld's performance?

I approve of his performance because I feel he's done a good job. I think he's been turned in to a scapegoat by the left for every little supposed 'wrong' in the war on terror.

From the material I've read and the interviews I've perused, it seems most will admit Rumsfeld is a brilliant man and certainly well qualified for his position.

I'd be interested to know who the lefties here think would do a better job. And, please, let's have some coherent, logical responses. No childish "anyone" answers.

Great non-answer! I've seen very little claiming Rumsfeld was 'brilliant'. A more appropriate analysis is to say he's a better than average intelligence and has proven to be a competent if not exceptional businessman. Those qualities plus his experience in government certainly means he was almost the most qualified person in Bush's inner circle aside from Powell and maybe Cheney.

But here's the kicker . . . 'qualified' and even 'highly qualified' people FUBAR stuff all the time. The odds certainly favor someone like Rumsfeld over say a George W. Bush, Michael Brown and virtually everyone associated with the CPA. The problem is that the greater your responsiblities; the lower the margin for error becomes. Basic competency goes a long ways at the DMV but if you are running the DOD . . . eh no so much.

For instance, despite his strong resume as a CEO . . . DOD still cannot account for over a trillion dollars worth of equipment and is incapable of either self-audit or an external one. So anyone that claims he's this great 'transformational' leader, the reality is that almost anyone might have done a comparable if not better job . . . given a huge budget, annual budget increases and minimal accountability.

I do consider an intriguing irony that GWH Bush (you know the one with the actual coalition to spank Hussein) did not like Rumsfeld and that Jr. selected Rumsfeld . . . in part for that very characteristic.

Oh yeah who could do it better . . . in no particular order:

William Cohen
Sam Nunn
Colin Powell (granted he declined the job the first time and probably would have declined it the 2nd time after Rummy had run the military ragged)
John Warner
John McCain

Random candidates:
Hugh Shelton
GHW Bush
Lindsay Graham (young and relatively inexperienced but he's competent and unlike Rummy . . . he's morally decent)

EDIT: Geez! Great minds think alike. I just noticed your list, Don Vito. Granted, my mind wasn't as strong as Penns. I don't know how I overlooked Chuck Hagel. Good call.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: blackllotus
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.

intelligence != competence


Henry Kissinger was at one time considered to have the among the highest IQ's on the planet and..........
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
As part of the Clinton admin's attempt to persuade NK to positively engage with the west, in 2000, they agreed to allow a couple of light water reactors to NK. The company that actually sold those reactors to NK is ABB, a large European engineering firm based in Zurich. One member of the board of directors of ABB from 1990 to 2001 was one Donald Rumsfeld, who lobbied his political friends for this deal. From The Guardian, Friday May 9, 2003:
The two faces of Rumsfeld

2000:
director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change

Randeep Ramesh
Friday May 9, 2003
The Guardian


Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons.[/b]

Mr Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (£125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defence secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration.

The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.

The sale of the nuclear technology was a high-profile contract. ABB's then chief executive, Goran Lindahl, visited North Korea in November 1999 to announce ABB's "wide-ranging, long-term cooperation agreement" with the communist government.

The company also opened an office in the country's capital, Pyongyang, and the deal was signed a year later in 2000. Despite this, Mr Rumsfeld's office said that the de fence secretary did not "recall it being brought before the board at any time".

In a statement to the American magazine Newsweek, his spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said that there "was no vote on this". A spokesman for ABB told the Guardian yesterday that "board members were informed about the project which would deliver systems and equipment for light water reactors".

Just months after Mr Rumsfeld took office, President George Bush ended the policy of engagement and negotiation pursued by Mr Clinton, saying he did not trust North Korea, and pulled the plug on diplomacy. Pyongyang warned that it would respond by building nuclear missiles. A review of American policy was announced and the bilateral confidence building steps, key to Mr Clinton's policy of detente, halted.

By January 2002, the Bush administration had placed North Korea in the "axis of evil" alongside Iraq and Iran. If there was any doubt about how the White House felt about North Korea this was dispelled by Mr Bush, who told the Washington Post last year: "I loathe [North Korea's leader] Kim Jong-il."

The success of campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have enhanced the status of Mr Rumsfeld in Washington. Two years after leaving ABB, Mr Rumsfeld now considers North Korea a "terrorist regime _ teetering on the verge of collapse" and which is on the verge of becoming a proliferator of nuclear weapons. During a bout of diplomatic activity over Christmas he warned that the US could fight two wars at once - a reference to the forthcoming conflict with Iraq. After Baghdad fell, Mr Rumsfeld said Pyongyang should draw the "appropriate lesson".

Critics of the administration's bellicose language on North Korea say that the problem was not that Mr Rumsfeld supported the Clinton-inspired diplomacy and the ABB deal but that he did not "speak up against it". "One could draw the conclusion that economic and personal interests took precedent over non-proliferation," said Steve LaMontagne, an analyst with the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington.

Many members of the Bush administration are on record as opposing Mr Clinton's plans, saying that weapons-grade nuclear material could be extracted from the type of light water reactors that ABB sold. Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and the state department's number two diplomat, Richard Armitage, both opposed the deal as did the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, whose campaign Mr Rumsfeld ran and where he also acted as defence adviser.

One unnamed ABB board director told Fortune magazine that Mr Rumsfeld was involved in lobbying his hawkish friends on behalf of ABB.

The Clinton package sought to defuse tensions on the Ko rean peninsula by offering supplies of oil and new light water nuclear reactors in return for access by inspectors to Pyongyang's atomic facilities and a dismantling of its heavy water reactors which produce weapons grade plutonium. Light water reactors are known as "proliferation-resistant" but, in the words of one expert, they are not "proliferation-proof".

The type of reactors involved in the ABB deal produce plutonium which needs refining before it can be weaponised. One US congressman and critic of the North Korean regime described the reactors as "nuclear bomb factories".

North Korea expelled the inspectors last year and withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in January at about the same time that the Bush administration authorised $3.5m to keep ABB's reactor project going.

North Korea is thought to have offered to scrap its nuclear facilities and missile programme and to allow international nuclear inspectors into the country. But Pyongyang demanded that security guarantees and aid from the US must come first.

Mr Bush now insists that he will only negotiate a new deal with Pyongyang after the nuclear programme is scrapped. Washington believes that offering inducements would reward Pyongyang's "blackmail" and encourage other "rogue" states to develop weapons of mass destruction.
As "Deep Throat told Woodward and Bernstein, "Follow the money." :shocked:
Originally posted by: ayabe
Henry Kissinger was at one time considered to have the among the highest IQ's on the planet and..........
Nixon was pretty bright, too. Intelligence does not insure benevolence. History shows both of them are fully confirmed members of the American "axis of evil."
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
hell no. I feel that we need a new Secretary of Defense ASAP. I place most of the blame for the stalemate in Iraq squarely on his shoulders.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
I'd be interested to know who the lefties here think would do a better job. And, please, let's have some coherent, logical responses. No childish "anyone" answers.

John McCain, John Warner, Collin Powell, Anthony Zinni, Brent Scowcroft, Wesley Clark, John Murtha.

Hell, Tom Clancy included.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,812
11,458
136
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Pabster
I'd be interested to know who the lefties here think would do a better job. And, please, let's have some coherent, logical responses. No childish "anyone" answers.

John McCain, John Warner, Collin Powell, Anthony Zinni, Brent Scowcroft, Wesley Clark, John Murtha.

Hell, Tom Clancy included.

At least Clancy could think of planes flying into buildings as a possibility. And that was way back in '96 or so. Guess no one could have possibly imagined people flying planes into buildings, huh Condi????
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Originally posted by: 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?

He's completely messed up in Iraq. But then again, so did the intelligence community, and so did everyone who started the war (Congress + Bush.) However, BESIDES IRAQ, what has he done badly?
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Curiously, we still have yet to hear anything substantive from Rumsfeld supporters, other than that he's "doing a good job."

I'm really not looking for this to turn into a pile-on - I'm interested in hearing from Rumsfeld supporters. Come out and tell us what you like and admire about him!