Do you approve of Donald Rumsfeld's performance?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

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?

Uh, he's the Secretary of Defense...when he screws up the major war at the moment, I fail to see how "besides Iraq" could provide a whole lot of mitigation of his incompetence.

Here's the thing about Iraq, there are mistakes, and then there are truly heroic levels of incompetence. Congress and the intelligence community DID make mistakes, as did the Bush administration officials. But those mistakes were NOT the end of the world in terms of fighting the war. Contrast that with Rumsfeld's much larger mistakes, mistakes that pretty much everyone under him TOLD him he was making, that screwed our chances of winning in Iraq without tens of thousands of people needlessly killed.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito
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!

Hey I gave Rummy some Luv. :heart:

I am not sure he is 100% to blame for what goes on in Iraq, but that is because I am out of the loop as far as decision making goes. If he is the one against sending more troops then he should go.

I think post election it might be a good idea for Bush to look for a replacement, or at least find someone else and put him in charge of the war. Something along the lines of saying "John Warner is now going to be the administrations point man on Iraq war policy and he will take over the day to day decisions in how the situation in Iraq is handled." If that doesn't work then maybe Rummy needs to go.

I do think we need to re-look at the whole Iraq war policy and make some tough long term choices as to what we want to do and whether we are willing to stay there and finish the job or not.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito
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!

Hey I gave Rummy some Luv. :heart:

I am not sure he is 100% to blame for what goes on in Iraq, but that is because I am out of the loop as far as decision making goes. If he is the one against sending more troops then he should go.

I think post election it might be a good idea for Bush to look for a replacement, or at least find someone else and put him in charge of the war. Something along the lines of saying "John Warner is now going to be the administrations point man on Iraq war policy and he will take over the day to day decisions in how the situation in Iraq is handled." If that doesn't work then maybe Rummy needs to go.

I do think we need to re-look at the whole Iraq war policy and make some tough long term choices as to what we want to do and whether we are willing to stay there and finish the job or not.

There is only one person who can override Rummy's decision to send in more troops.

 

[Lemon law]

Publically---GWB and Rummy are saying this troop increase is due to army generals saying they need more troops to quell rising civilian deaths. But when in the history of
the world have either Rummy of GWB ever listened to our generals?---in fact Rummy has a long hostory of disregarding advice from generals and muzzling any public or private
comments from army leaders.

My theory is that Bush is doing all he can pre-election to keep Iraq from blowing up in his face before election---and it looks like GWB&cpo. has been very sucessful in pushing major issue beyond the elections---all the corruption scandal trials--delayed past election---no dictating to foreign leaders in the UN over Iran or Hezbollah---GWB is even mild on N. Korea and is not beating the war drums----its almost like we have a new GWB.

But after the election---I fear we will get the same old GWB back---with a vengance.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I am not sure he is 100% to blame for what goes on in Iraq, but that is because I am out of the loop as far as decision making goes. If he is the one against sending more troops then he should go.

No offense, but this is very very basic information. This is the very reason Rumsfeld sacked General Shinseki, who insisted more troops were needed, as Army Chief of Staff. He also threatened, months before the war, to fire any military officer who talked about the need for a post-war strategy. I guess I'm at a loss to understand how anyone paying attention to the news over the last few years wouldn't know at least about Gen Shiseki.

What I think people lose sight of (or never knew in the first place) is that this was essentially Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's war, and they, along with Dick Cheney, Doug Feith, and several other highly-placed persons in the White House and Pentagon, stated in writing before Bush was even elected that war in Iraq was an important part of the US' global strategy for the 21st century. 9/11 just happened to create an apparently reasonable basis for undertaking that war (obviously there is precious little precedent in our nation's history for an offensive war against another sovereign). The preplanned nature of OIF makes it particularly unforgiveable that Rumsfeld refused to plan an exit strategy, or listen to the sage counsel of his own generals.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I am not sure he is 100% to blame for what goes on in Iraq, but that is because I am out of the loop as far as decision making goes. If he is the one against sending more troops then he should go.

No offense, but this is very very basic information. This is the very reason Rumsfeld sacked General Shinseki, who insisted more troops were needed, as Army Chief of Staff. He also threatened, months before the war, to fire any military officer who talked about the need for a post-war strategy. I guess I'm at a loss to understand how anyone paying attention to the news over the last few years wouldn't know at least about Gen Shiseki.

I've heard what you guys in here say about him, but don't think I have read anything else about him from an outside source.

As GenX has been saying, fire him and replace him with someone who is willing to raise the troop levels to the point they are needed to win

I am sure the Dems would love that...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I've heard what you guys in here say about him, but don't think I have read anything else about him from an outside source.

As GenX has been saying, fire him and replace him with someone who is willing to raise the troop levels to the point they are needed to win

I am sure the Dems would love that...

How can you have made it through the past 4 years without reading anything about Rumsfeld from any other source? He is one of the most important men on the planet. I am flabbergasted if this is true. Moreover, if you know so little about him, and never served in the military, how can you even have an opinion on him?

FWIW, it doesn't matter what the "Dems" think about his successor as SecDef (though I hasten to point out that most Democrats want what's best for this country, and that includes having a competent SecDef). Congress will never, ever approve a draft unless we are attacked again. There would be no way to get the votes for it, and there would be an endless hue and cry among the public. Actually a draft was, IIRC, proposed by one Democratic senator a couple of years ago, and summarily shot down in committee.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Interesting...
So the only person in this thread who has approved of Rumsfeld's performance is Pabster the "partisan hack".
Pretty much everyone else said he needs to be replaced.

Rummy, you're doing a heck of a job.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Well to be fair, Rummy is polling a spectactular 5.7%+ approval rating.
That's not quite as high as a turd in a punch-bowl would get.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Lothar
Interesting...
So the only person in this thread who has approved of Rumsfeld's performance is Pabster the "partisan hack".
Pretty much everyone else said he needs to be replaced.

Rummy, you're doing a heck of a job.

Don't forget about "ProfJohn," who, remarkably enough, says he has never read anything about Rumsfeld, other than on this board, which he joined less than three months ago. I guess if I had never read anything about Idi Amin, I'd like him too - the name has a nice ring to it.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Where's the option that "I laughed so hard about dumbsfeld's performance I nearly choked on my tongue"

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Well to be fair, Rummy is polling a spectactular 5.7%+ approval rating.
That's not quite as high as a turd in a punch-bowl would get.

Turds in punch-bowls everywhere are outraged at you associating them with Rummy.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Lothar
Interesting...
So the only person in this thread who has approved of Rumsfeld's performance is Pabster the "partisan hack".
Pretty much everyone else said he needs to be replaced.

Rummy, you're doing a heck of a job.

Don't forget about "ProfJohn," who, remarkably enough, says he has never read anything about Rumsfeld, other than on this board, which he joined less than three months ago. I guess if I had never read anything about Idi Amin, I'd like him too - the name has a nice ring to it.

Don't forget about Baby Doc Duvalier . . . he has to be a good guy.

Oh and Lenin . . . you know like John Lennon . . . except spelled differently . . . and a different country.

Charles Taylor has a nice ring to it. He might be related to James Taylor.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
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.

:roll:


Damn, you just don't get it.

Not sending enough troops to do the job right is one of the biggest complaints "lefties" have about Rumsfeld.

Of course that's all water under the bridge now, thanks to Rummy, as this pooch will never get un-screwed.

 

[Gaard]

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.

echo?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Gaard
echo?

The "echo" is yourself trolling yet another thread.

 

[ProfJohn]

Can somebody on the left clarify something for me.

You bitch that Rummy did not send enough troops in the first place.

So does that mean you would now support more troops being sent to Iraq to try and make up for this problem?

For the record, I have read a little bit here and there about Rummy. I am not sitting around in my free time reading Policy and Review and trying to decide how the Pentagon should be run. I do know that while the MSM seems to love beating up on Rummy, you do not hear a lot of negativity about him in conservative circles.
Since I know the MSM is more interested in selling news and pushing papers than making sound decisions I tend to ignore them in matters like this. And I know the Democrats are more interested in politics than anything else.
Therefore, until I start to hear rumbling from the right that Rummy must go I shall refrain from calling for his replacement.

And before you attack me for getting news and opinion from National Review or talk radio you should know that National Review does a very good job of backing up their ideas with information and stories from other sources. They are not moveon.org or dailykos by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can somebody on the left clarify something for me.

You bitch that Rummy did not send enough troops in the first place.

So does that mean you would now support more troops being sent to Iraq to try and make up for this problem?

For the record, I have read a little bit here and there about Rummy. I am not sitting around in my free time reading Policy and Review and trying to decide how the Pentagon should be run. I do know that while the MSM seems to love beating up on Rummy, you do not hear a lot of negativity about him in conservative circles.
Since I know the MSM is more interested in selling news and pushing papers than making sound decisions I tend to ignore them in matters like this. And I know the Democrats are more interested in politics than anything else.
Therefore, until I start to hear rumbling from the right that Rummy must go I shall refrain from calling for his replacement.

And before you attack me for getting news and opinion from National Review or talk radio you should know that National Review does a very good job of backing up their ideas with information and stories from other sources. They are not moveon.org or dailykos by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah, just ask Stephen Glass.

 

[fire400]

"You go to war with what you have." -Rumsfeld

-we have billions of dollars invested into the military

-what we have is what our soldiers should have. they are not drones, they should be able to think and act as soldiers should, using equipment necessary to win any war.

-war is something many politicians cannot understand until they are in the battlefield themselves, like the father of our country, George Washington who fought alongside the troops in the early days of the 13 Colonies.

-there is nothing to hold back if it's a war. it's not even a draft, soldiers volunteered to join the service, thus they are putting their lives at risk for the sake of this country.

---rumsfeld sucks, what more can I say? solution is to find someone more dedicated to the work, rather than make themselves so macho in front of the camera and the press.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can somebody on the left clarify something for me.

You bitch that Rummy did not send enough troops in the first place.

So does that mean you would now support more troops being sent to Iraq to try and make up for this problem?

For the record, I have read a little bit here and there about Rummy. I am not sitting around in my free time reading Policy and Review and trying to decide how the Pentagon should be run. I do know that while the MSM seems to love beating up on Rummy, you do not hear a lot of negativity about him in conservative circles.
Since I know the MSM is more interested in selling news and pushing papers than making sound decisions I tend to ignore them in matters like this. And I know the Democrats are more interested in politics than anything else.
Therefore, until I start to hear rumbling from the right that Rummy must go I shall refrain from calling for his replacement.

And before you attack me for getting news and opinion from National Review or talk radio you should know that National Review does a very good job of backing up their ideas with information and stories from other sources. They are not moveon.org or dailykos by any stretch of the imagination.

Actually, I think there's a good argument for sending more troops even now. It will never happen, since it would necessitate a draft, but to the extent we care about winning the war (assuming for the moment that that is even possible at this point), it is critical.

The better fix, of course, would have been not starting the war in the first place, and for that I assign a large share of the blame to Rumsfeld. He, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Feith et al had planned on this war long before 9/11. Once they had decided to do it, he ignored the advice of his commanders about the needed troop strength numbers, and fired and threatened them for telling him the emperor had no clothes.

I don't really take issue with your choice of pundits when it comes to reading opinion pieces on Rumsfeld - I take issue with your ignorance of the facts of his conduct, with Gen Shinseki being just the most obvious example. I don't see how you could have escaped hearing about Gen Shinseki, if you're a politically aware person.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Gaard
echo?

The "echo" is yourself trolling yet another thread.

Any chance you might actually tell us why you believe Rumsfeld is "doing a good job"?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can somebody on the left clarify something for me.

You bitch that Rummy did not send enough troops in the first place.

So does that mean you would now support more troops being sent to Iraq to try and make up for this problem?

For the record, I have read a little bit here and there about Rummy. I am not sitting around in my free time reading Policy and Review and trying to decide how the Pentagon should be run. I do know that while the MSM seems to love beating up on Rummy, you do not hear a lot of negativity about him in conservative circles.
Since I know the MSM is more interested in selling news and pushing papers than making sound decisions I tend to ignore them in matters like this. And I know the Democrats are more interested in politics than anything else.
Therefore, until I start to hear rumbling from the right that Rummy must go I shall refrain from calling for his replacement.

And before you attack me for getting news and opinion from National Review or talk radio you should know that National Review does a very good job of backing up their ideas with information and stories from other sources. They are not moveon.org or dailykos by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah, just ask Stephen Glass.

ummm perhaps you should have googled "stephen glass" before posting.

Stephen Glass worked for "New Republic" which is a left wing magazine.

Domestically, the current version of TNR supports policies first associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and "New Democrats" like former President Bill Clinton and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, who received the magazine's endorsement in the 2004 Democratic primary. These policies, while seeking to achieve the ends of traditional social welfare programs, often use market solutions as their means, and so are often called "business-friendly". Typical of some of the policies supported by both TNR and the DLC during the 1990s were increased funding for the Earned Income Tax Credit program and reform of the Federal welfare system.

Unsigned editorials prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq expressed strong support for military action, citing the threat of WMD as well as humanitarian concerns. Since the end of major military operations, unsigned editorials, while critical of the handling of the war, have continued to justify the invasion on humanitarian grounds, but no longer maintain that Iraq's WMD facilities posed any threat to the United States.

On June 23, 2006, editor Martin Peretz, in response to criticism of TNR from the blog Daily Kos, wrote the following as a summary of TNR's stances on recent issues, "The New Republic is very much against the Bush tax programs, against Bush Social Security 'reform,' against cutting the inheritance tax, for radical health care changes, passionate about Gore-type environmentalism, for a woman's entitlement to an abortion, for gay marriage, for an increase in the minimum wage, for pursuing aggressively alternatives to our present reliance on oil and our present tax preferences for gas-guzzling automobiles. We were against the confirmation of Justice Alito."

Next time you try insulting someone do a little leg work so you don't end up looking like a fool.

 

[Pens1566]

Yep, got me there. My mistake. It happens. I'm able to admit mine, unlike some in here.

edit:

On that note, I'm still way less of a fool than you. Start a poll if you don't think its true.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can somebody on the left clarify something for me.

You bitch that Rummy did not send enough troops in the first place.

So does that mean you would now support more troops being sent to Iraq to try and make up for this problem?

For the record, I have read a little bit here and there about Rummy. I am not sitting around in my free time reading Policy and Review and trying to decide how the Pentagon should be run. I do know that while the MSM seems to love beating up on Rummy, you do not hear a lot of negativity about him in conservative circles.
Since I know the MSM is more interested in selling news and pushing papers than making sound decisions I tend to ignore them in matters like this. And I know the Democrats are more interested in politics than anything else.
Therefore, until I start to hear rumbling from the right that Rummy must go I shall refrain from calling for his replacement.

And before you attack me for getting news and opinion from National Review or talk radio you should know that National Review does a very good job of backing up their ideas with information and stories from other sources. They are not moveon.org or dailykos by any stretch of the imagination.

Actually, I think there's a good argument for sending more troops even now. It will never happen, since it would necessitate a draft, but to the extent we care about winning the war (assuming for the moment that that is even possible at this point), it is critical.

The better fix, of course, would have been not starting the war in the first place, and for that I assign a large share of the blame to Rumsfeld. He, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Feith et al had planned on this war long before 9/11. Once they had decided to do it, he ignored the advice of his commanders about the needed troop strength numbers, and fired and threatened them for telling him the emperor had no clothes.

I don't really take issue with your choice of pundits when it comes to reading opinion pieces on Rumsfeld - I take issue with your ignorance of the facts of his conduct, with Gen Shinseki being just the most obvious example. I don't see how you could have escaped hearing about Gen Shinseki, if you're a politically aware person.

I hear about the General on here from you people every day. But then I read and hear what Tommy Franks says and it sort of balances out right?
There were people on both sides who said more troops or less troops.
From a quick reading it seems that his view on the need for more troops was that we needed 500,000 just to get Saddam out of power, and then large amounts to keep the peace. Well we obviously we didn't need 500,000 to take over, most likely could have done it with a lot less. So he was wrong about that for sure (never hear anyone on here point out that mistake, instead you just focus on where he agrees with you and ignore the rest)
As far as how many troops were needed, Rumsfeld was of the belief that you would need less troops after the take over than before, and of course Rummy was wrong on that.
I think the blame of our failures after the take over go beyond Rumsfeld and fall more into a failure of the system ala 9-11. The people in charge just didn't seem to grasp the size of the problems we would have post take over, they thought Iraq would quickly convert to a peaceful nation. They'll be writing books about this for a long time to come. And I am sure they will be teaching this in the war college as well, just like they teach Vietnam now, or did last time I heard.
The question is how much of this failure do you lay at Rumsfeld's feet?

For some historical perspective look at Les Aspin and the Somalia problem. Aspin refused the request for tanks and AC-130 gun ships and after 18 soldiers died many in congress demanded he resign, and yet Clinton stood behind him. So it is not unusual for a President to stand behind the Sec of Defense even after mistakes have been made.

Read Erink Shinseki's profile on wiki for some interesting stuff.
One thing to note, he was not forcefully "retired" as Kerry and I believe some on this board say, he retired right as he had be scheduled, not forced out.

Edit: :thumbsup: to Pen for admiting his mistake, so many would have just ignored it and moved on.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can somebody on the left clarify something for me.

You bitch that Rummy did not send enough troops in the first place.

So does that mean you would now support more troops being sent to Iraq to try and make up for this problem?

You act like one will solve the other. Unfortunately, there's no going back in time to increase troop levels DURING THE WINDOW we had to stop the insurgency in its tracks. It's quite possible (and IMHO very likely) that it's too late to stop the insurgency by increasing troop levels now. I would support it regardless as at least it would represent some out-of-the-box thinking from the brain-dead "stay the course" BS which seems to be a mainstay of the Admin and their fervent followers.

In other words, it's a disingenuous question.