Donald Rumsfeld, yuck!

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

If this clown resigns, i will be completely amazed. Interesting article out of many about Rumy's troubles. The part that speaks of a rift between he and Rice, i totally believe that! She is the only "hawk" in the Bush inner circle.

MANAGUA, Nicaragua - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, coming under renewed fire for his management of the Iraq war, said Sunday he is not considering resigning and said the president had called him personally in recent days to express his continued support.

Speaking to reporters en route to Nicaragua for a meeting of defense ministers, Rumsfeld said he was not surprised by reports in a new book that White House staff had encouraged President Bush to fire him after the 2004 election.

"It's the task of the chief of staff of the White House

[sttombiz]

but hes soo cute. why do you want him to resign?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

but hes soo cute. why do you want him to resign?

Hes a mess. I want him to resign because he is a bit way too political for me Im a firm believer in committing American forces to the battelfield for only one purpose and one purpose only, and thats to win! Not any policing actions. Mr Rumsfeld and his buddy Cheney have other ideas such as spreading democracy and such. I dont like it, but thats just me

[Guest Marty]

How much longer are you Libs going to bet this dead horse. and by the way Condi is a little girl wearing her mothers clothes. She is in way over her head folks.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Marty

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

How much longer are you Libs going to bet this dead house. and by the way Condi is a little girl wearing her mothers clothes. She is way over her head folks.

I have been called many things, but liberal has NEVER been one of them. First time for everything

[RedScare]

I have been called many things, but liberal has NEVER been one of them. First time for everything

That is pretty funny. Marty has only been around about a month, so I suppose he doesn't know any better.

His comment DOES shine light on the fact that most people only talk in labels and metaphors, though. Those of us who know 1stWord's views know he would never be accused of being a liberal, yet because he has a dim view of a member of Bush's administration, Marty immediately put a liberal label on him. In 1stWord's case, nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Guest Marty]

Well i take back the lib comment Moon

That is pretty funny. Marty has only been around about a month, so I suppose he doesn't know any better.

His comment DOES shine light on the fact that most people only talk in labels and metaphors, though. Those of us who know 1stWord's views know he would never be accused of being a liberal, yet because he has a dim view of a member of Bush's administration, Marty immediately put a liberal label on him. In 1stWord's case, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Bush is a BIG lib too. I been a lurker since 3-1-2005 i can be silly at times.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Marty

[DJ V Lawrence]

Why is it such a negative label on a person when they're called "Liberal" or "Conservative"? Good grief!

Aight, to Rumsfeld. It sounds like everyone wants him to resign, but I'm not sure why anyone expects him to. He's experienced as his job, probably has some Halliburton investments going on the side, and has been a Bush/Reagan administrator/close family friend for god knows how long. What role would he play after Secretary of Defense?

[TheNiche]

Why is it such a negative label on a person when they're called "Liberal" or "Conservative"? Good grief!

Aight, to Rumsfeld. It sounds like everyone wants him to resign, but I'm not sure why anyone expects him to. He's experienced as his job, probably has some Halliburton investments going on the side, and has been a Bush/Reagan administrator/close family friend for god knows how long. What role would he play after Secretary of Defense?

I'd heard long ago from a forgotten source that Rumsfeld was actually a political opponent of Bush Sr.'s. Can anyone substantiate that or shed light on the subject?

[Guest Marty]

I'd heard long ago from a forgotten source that Rumsfeld was actually a political opponent of Bush Sr.'s. Can anyone substantiate that or shed light on the subject?

I think Rumsfeld was part of the Reagan administration. Ronald Reagen did not like Bush because he thought that Bush #1 was part of the New World Order, after his assassination attempt there's was a lot of speculation that Bush #1 and the Yale blue bloods orcastrated it. After that Reagan appointed Bush #1 as vice president. I heard this on the History Channel.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Marty

[Heights2Bastrop]

I think Rumsfeld is a brilliant man, and one of the smartest people in Washington along with Dick Cheney. Rumsfeld has transformed the military into a leaner, meaner fighting machine. His means are unconventional, and that has pissed off some off the Top Brass who are now striking back at him. But I say it is nothing more than sour grapes.

I don

[DJ V Lawrence]

I think Rumsfeld was part of the Reagan administration. Ronald Reagen did not like Bush because he thought that Bush #1 was part of the New World Order, after his assassination attempt there's was a lot of speculation that Bush #1 and the Yale blue bloods orcastrated it. After that Reagan appointed Bush #1 as vice president. I heard this on the History Channel.

Would U be able to clear that? That doesn't make any sense. U mean Bush was VP DURING the assasination attempt, and that someone may have tried to take out Reagan in order for Bush Sr. to become prez, right? I don't think that happened, but I can see why the allegations would come into play.

I don

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I think Rumsfeld is a brilliant man, and one of the smartest people in Washington along with Dick Cheney. Rumsfeld has transformed the military into a leaner, meaner fighting machine.

This sounds good and looks good on the surface, but i can tell you if i were in the upper ranks of miliary command, this would be something that would make me resign. This leaner meaner stuff is bad news for the simple fact that it cuts out most of the redundacies and places a higher amount of confidence in the equipment at hand. The current systems we have been investing in scare me and Rumsfeld and Cheney are the major push behind them :(:(

[TheNiche]

This sounds good and looks good on the surface, but i can tell you if i were in the upper ranks of miliary command, this would be something that would make me resign. This leaner meaner stuff is bad news for the simple fact that it cuts out most of the redundacies and places a higher amount of confidence in the equipment at hand. The current systems we have been investing in scare me and Rumsfeld and Cheney are the major push behind them :(:(

You've peaked my interest; please explain.

[TJones]

\ after his assassination attempt there's was a lot of speculation that Bush #1 and the Yale blue bloods orcastrated it.

That sounds EXTREMELY painful ! Why not just orcheastrate something, that way they wouldn't have to get their hands so dirty ?

Edited October 2, 2006 by TJones

[nmainguy]

Why is it such a negative label on a person when they're called "Liberal" or "Conservative"? Good grief!

I never attached a negative connotation to either label-it's only when those who slam them know little of either.

Now the label "GOP" may need to be revisited. It used to mean Grand Old Party but I believe it's been recently changed to Gross Old Pedophiles

Oh as for Rumsfeld-Bush seems to thrive on surrounding himself with like-minded incompetents so don't look for any of his boys and girl to be going anywhere anytime soon.

Now them there was the good old days!!!

Edited October 2, 2006 by nmainguy

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

To call Rumsfeld incompetent is to show how little you know about him. That man is "intelligent" not incompetent. To call someone "intelligent" in military circles, by the way, is an insult.

Intelligent people are to intelligent to see the obvious

[nmainguy]

To call Rumsfeld incompetent is to show how little you know about him. That man is "intelligent" not incompetent. To call someone "intelligent" in military circles, by the way, is an insult.

Intelligent people are to intelligent to see the obvious

I'm not sure what that's ^^^ all about but me and 2700+ dead soldiers would love to know.

[webdude]

Remember how during the hearing before the war in iraq, when general shinseki's gave his opinion on the number of troops needed to secure iraq, rumsfield laugh, dismiss and insulted general shinseki, then substituted his own much lower estimates. He was undercutting an experienced general's opinion with his own inexperience.. Turns out shinseki was right. If rummy along with wolfy and bush had been less arrogant and willing to listen and not so gungho in going to war, the securing of iraq would have probably go smoothier and saved more lives.

Brillant, lol, his arrogance has made him incompetant more than once.

Edited October 2, 2006 by webdude

[TheNiche]

If rummy along with wolfy and bush had been less arrogant and willing to listen and not so gungho in going to war, the securing of iraq would have probably go smoothier and saved more lives.

Actually, there is a valid counterargument to be made that originates from the fields of probability and game theory. I studied this in high school, so bear with me...my explanation may be somewhat lacking. Also, just to be clear, I'm sure that this applies theoretically, but I don't know what the coefficients are...so I'm not going to pretend to be a qualified judge as to whether this would be an effective strategy. It works intuitively, at least.

The idea is that when conflict occurs between armies of similar skill and experience but with one army that is numerically-disadvantaged, even though victory is much less likely for the smaller army, the per-soldier-damage inflicted by the smaller army on the larger army is likely to be higher. The basic rationale is that targets are easier to come by if you're vastly outnumbered, and they don't require a great deal of searching or exposing oneself in order to inflict damage. But this isn't a realistic scenario.

If you then allow a relatively high force multiplier for the numerically-inferior army (the variable that adjusts for skill, competence, and experience), then the smaller force may be able to hold its ground or even dominate under various tactical circumstances. Moreover, the per-soldier-impact becomes extremely high. This would be in-line with Rumsfeld's insistence upon the 'leaner, meaner military'. Its also been a while since I've seen a death toll for the insurgents, but on the few occaisions that I do, I'm struck by the amazing kill ratios that we're able to attain. Believe me: if there are more of our people out there, more people will be killed--that's pretty much unavoidable.

A mathematically-intangible benefit to the smaller force is that it is less likely to look like an occupation army to civilians. That was certainly a matter of some concern to the politicians...I'm not sure whether that's effectively been avoided, but I'm pretty sure that a really big occupying force would've seemed much more intrusive. And as bad as things seem to be, I'm sure that they could be worse.

Edited October 2, 2006 by TheNiche

[Heights2Bastrop]

The criticism of Rumsfeld is all about rhetoric.

He was right on about the number of troops needed to oust Saddam. Where the Administration erred was underestimating the number of insurgents, and not foreseeing the infighting between factions of Iraqis. But then, no one saw that coming.

I seriously doubt we could have secured the borders even had we had 10 times the number of troops deployed there. All we would have accomplished is provide 10 times the number of targets for the insurgents to attack. And I gar-on-tee, the Left would be screaming that we had too many troops now.

[RedScare]

Where the Administration erred was underestimating the number of insurgents, and not foreseeing the infighting between factions of Iraqis. But then, no one saw that coming.

Actually, that was predicted. However, the prediction was ignored. The result is present day Iraq.

Niche, your hard to follow counterargument is somewhat similar to Rumsfeld's pitch for a leaner, more mobile force. This is in direct conflict with General Powell's strategy in the first Gulf War of overwhelming the enemy with a superior force, both in troops and equipment. Of course, Bush 41 and Powell intentionally left the Iraqi government in place, so no insurgency broke out. The 2nd incursion specifically took out the government, and disbanded the police and military, leaving no one to police the locals....this is the overwhelming idiocy of the Rumsfeld/Cheney plan.

[nmainguy]

The criticism of Rumsfeld is all about rhetoric.

And I gar-on-tee, the Left would be screaming that we had too many troops now.

The criticism is Rumsfeld's refusal to heed the voices of experience. To try to deflect the argument to some fantasy "Left" might-have been does nothing to bring back 2700+ wasted lives on a war we were lied into.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

The number of troops was good enough. The facts speak for themselves. Any student of any sort of strategy can see that a mile away.

Im no fan of spreading democracy and freedom around the world because im not so conviced the world is dieing to be like us. The exact opposite proves true, most of the world doesnt want to be like us. Look at the United Nations and thats a prime example of what much of the world thinks of America and our freedom and democracy. When it comes time to commit American forces to a battlefield situation, i support only one strategy, and that is to win by any means at our disposal and come home, period. Thats not the plans of Rumsfeld. If he were supporting a kill kill policy, there would be no need to leave large amounts of US hardware there and establish bases there.

Rumsfeld and Cheney are"intelligent". They are dumb and they are not stupid. They also dont believe in a "kill kill" policy for if they did it would be counter productive to spreading "freedom and democracy" and thats what thier plan is. The great USA coming to save the day by spreading freedom and democracy. Sickening.

Stupid political garbage.

[TheNiche]

Niche, your hard to follow counterargument is somewhat similar to Rumsfeld's pitch for a leaner, more mobile force. This is in direct conflict with General Powell's strategy in the first Gulf War of overwhelming the enemy with a superior force, both in troops and equipment. Of course, Bush 41 and Powell intentionally left the Iraqi government in place, so no insurgency broke out. The 2nd incursion specifically took out the government, and disbanded the police and military, leaving no one to police the locals....this is the overwhelming idiocy of the Rumsfeld/Cheney plan.

I know that I'm hard to follow, particularly in this instance. I'm trying to sum up the contents of a couple of chapters of abstract concepts that I'd read about six years ago into a couple paragraphs, so I can only hope to appologize and try to elaborate if it is unclear.

To address your points, the military handling of the two gulf wars was entirely different. I think that each approach was suited to the characteristics of the strategic mission. The two experiences aren't really comparable, after all. And you're right that the complete disbanding of the police forces was probably a big mistake; I certainly won't put forth some argument that the U.S. is an invincible and omnipotent force that can do no wrong...just wouldn't seem to make sense, you know.

But I think that a couple of points are pretty clear: if you insert more troops into the environment that exists today, you'll have to deal with more dead ones. And there are diminishing returns when all you do is send more people over there...the costs, on the other hand seem to be pretty much proportional to the number of warm bodies we've got in the field.

[webdude]

The criticism of Rumsfeld is all about rhetoric.

He was right on about the number of troops needed to oust Saddam. Where the Administration erred was underestimating the number of insurgents, and not foreseeing the infighting between factions of Iraqis. But then, no one saw that coming.

I seriously doubt we could have secured the borders even had we had 10 times the number of troops deployed there. All we would have accomplished is provide 10 times the number of targets for the insurgents to attack. And I gar-on-tee, the Left would be screaming that we had too many troops now.

I just gave you the what happened at the hearing and you tell me 'no one saw that coming'. The generals predicted it. Rummy, wolfy went beyond ignoring it, they snickered at him and his estimation. This is way more than just an underestimation, its gross negligence.

If you want to make this a left thing, at least do it without a imaginary situation with a imaginary outcome.

Edited October 3, 2006 by webdude

[DJ V Lawrence]

The number of troops was good enough. The facts speak for themselves. Any student of any sort of strategy can see that a mile away.

Im no fan of spreading democracy and freedom around the world because im not so conviced the world is dieing to be like us. The exact opposite proves true, most of the world doesnt want to be like us. Look at the United Nations and thats a prime example of what much of the world thinks of America and our freedom and democracy. When it comes time to commit American forces to a battlefield situation, i support only one strategy, and that is to win by any means at our disposal and come home, period. Thats not the plans of Rumsfeld. If he were supporting a kill kill policy, there would be no need to leave large amounts of US hardware there and establish bases there.

Rumsfeld and Cheney are"intelligent". They are dumb and they are not stupid. They also dont believe in a "kill kill" policy for if they did it would be counter productive to spreading "freedom and democracy" and thats what thier plan is. The great USA coming to save the day by spreading freedom and democracy. Sickening.

Stupid political garbage.

I'm not a "spreading democracy and freedom" in regions that didn't ask for it either. But I'm not sure how a "kill kill" policy makes America safer? And I'm not sure how "kill kill" would help Americans parents if they knew their sons and daughters were butchers instead of soilders. R U trying to say that because Rumsfeld hasn't adopted a "kill kill", he should resign?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I'm not a "spreading democracy and freedom" in regions that didn't ask for it either. But I'm not sure how a "kill kill" policy makes America safer?

Im not suprised.

[TJones]

The number of troops was good enough. The facts speak for themselves. Any student of any sort of strategy can see that a mile away.

Im no fan of spreading democracy and freedom around the world because im not so conviced the world is dieing to be like us. The exact opposite proves true, most of the world doesnt want to be like us. Look at the United Nations and thats a prime example of what much of the world thinks of America and our freedom and democracy. When it comes time to commit American forces to a battlefield situation, i support only one strategy, and that is to win by any means at our disposal and come home, period. Thats not the plans of Rumsfeld. If he were supporting a kill kill policy, there would be no need to leave large amounts of US hardware there and establish bases there.

Rumsfeld and Cheney are"intelligent". They are dumb and they are not stupid. They also dont believe in a "kill kill" policy for if they did it would be counter productive to spreading "freedom and democracy" and thats what thier plan is. The great USA coming to save the day by spreading freedom and democracy. Sickening.

Stupid political garbage.

Yea, sure your right Moonman, why let people try to have a decent life for a change, instead of living in fear that they will be "killed" at the first sign of anyone speaking their beliefs. After all, that's what they've been used to for the past 30 years, right ? We might as well keep the "Status Quo".

I seem to recall an Empire that tried that philosophy of tyranny and "kill kill" mentality to any other country that tried to speak out against them, and if they wanted freedom, and NOT be slaves to that country and forced to fight in their army, they would be cut down like the mongrels they were, according to Ceasar. Can you tell me what finally happened to Rome in the 400s?

[west20th]

Yea, sure your right Moonman, why let people try to have a decent life for a change, instead of living in fear that they will be "killed" at the first sign of anyone speaking their beliefs. After all, that's what they've been used to for the past 30 years, right ? We might as well keep the "Status Quo".

And this has changed? The only difference now is Sadaam isn't doing the killing any more. But it continues. And if you believe the line "we went to Iraq to free the people" I've got a bridge you may be interested in.