This just in: Rumsfeld doing a "really fine job"

[utdbear]

Seems like both to me.

Wait, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. In one sentence we hear, "we aren't armoring enough (insert equipment)", then in another we hear "there aren't enough troops in Iraq". A soldier thats home can't be a KIA in Iraq. How does trying to send the least amount of troops necessary show a disregard for soldiers' lives? I am thinking that keeping as many soldiers here in the States shows a great sanctity held by the administration on the soldiers' lives.

bear(interested in the response)

 

[Doctrine1st]

Wait, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. In one sentence we hear, "we aren't armoring enough (insert equipment)", then in another we hear "there aren't enough troops in Iraq". A soldier thats home can't be a KIA in Iraq. How does trying to send the least amount of troops necessary show a disregard for soldiers' lives? I am thinking that keeping as many soldiers here in the States shows a great sanctity held by the administration on the soldiers' lives.

bear(interested in the response)

How about being spread to thin and having to leave know munition dumps to go fight a battle in Bagdhad, and the dump is raided of it's tons of plastic explosives, and it's used to "KIA in Iraq"

They are not being kept home, they are stretched way to thin, are being held over for tours of duty, and depleting the National Guard who really are being used beyond their means, and thus prone to be "KIA in Iraq"

If I remember right I it think was Rumsfeld, the person this thread is about, who said we had the ability to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and who was it at the same time? Oh here it is:

"Amid criticism that an Iraq invasion would leave American forces overextended, Rumsfeld said the U.S. could handle Saddam Hussein, a deployment in Afghanistan and other threats.

Responding to a hypothetical scenario, Rumsfeld said the U.S. would have the firepower to respond even if China decided a U.S. military strike against Iraq created an opportunity to invade Taiwan.

In addition, the U.S. "would have the capability of conducting a number of lesser contingencies, such as Bosnia or Kosovo," Rumsfeld added, referring to existing peacekeeping missions."

It was China!!!

Given this opinion it is more than obvious he thought Iraq would be far easier than it has been, and far quicker than it has been. It's a good thing none of these scenerio played out or else we really would have been up you know what creek without a paddle.

 

[utdbear]

Ok, so the military being stretched too thin, is an act of the former President Clinton, who basically stripped our military. That has no doubt behind it, both admitted to by the 'Pubs and the 'Crats. That does not excuse our military's duty to defend our nation against attacks both present and future. By the way, my grandfather marched from Normandy to Berlin, and he didn't get a brand new armored vehicle to drive in, he had to steal his armor from the Nazis. Somehow I get the impression that the complaints from the military ranks are few and far between, just like they were in his time.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Ok, so the military being stretched too thin, is an act of the former President Clinton, who basically stripped our military. That has no doubt behind it, both admitted to by the 'Pubs and the 'Crats.

No we can't blame Clinton for everything. The problem is the manner in which they were deployed. The problem now is anyone who is able to get out is getting out fast, and recruitment levels are low.

That does not excuse our military's duty to defend our nation against attacks both present and future.

Here's the problem utdbear, once we start using our troops to fight wars without merit, without a viable end, without proper troop rotations, it will create a vaccum that will affect our ability to deal with REAL threats, not just the ones we have to shake the coconut tree to find a justification to embark on.

 

[Norseman]

The whole idea of the war was to kill Iraqis. They had a choice, fight or flee.

Quite frankly, I'm staring at my screen in a state of shock and horror that anyone would say something like that. You think we're in Iraq to just have some big slaughterfest? The more you kill the happier? Have you ever heard of the phrase "genocide"? If you haven't, look it up. That's what was going on in Germany when Hitler tried to erradicate the Jews. Guess what happened to him? Now do you want the same to happen to us and the Iraqis?

 

[praying]

Wait, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. In one sentence we hear, "we aren't armoring enough (insert equipment)", then in another we hear "there aren't enough troops in Iraq". A soldier thats home can't be a KIA in Iraq. How does trying to send the least amount of troops necessary show a disregard for soldiers' lives? I am thinking that keeping as many soldiers here in the States shows a great sanctity held by the administration on the soldiers' lives.

bear(interested in the response)

You can spin it that way if it makes you feel better but we all know that the lack troops in Iraq was poor planning and not "trying to send the least amount of troops necessary". He was told by numerous military sources on the ground once major operations were over and the insurgency began that there were not enough troops on the ground. As for the armour like Milla (i believe) said we knew we were going why wasn't the armour issue addressed before we went. Poor planning.

The war in my opinion was folly but we are there now and it was made abundently clear troop levels needed to be adjusted.

 

[starchild]

Hey, I can understand why some people want Rumsfeld to stick around... he's one of the few people who can speak a few minutes and make the president look very intelligent, in comparison.

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Glass Box
You know, it's the old glass box at the—
At the gas station,
Where you're using those little things
Trying to pick up the prize,
And you can't find it.
It's—
​

And it's all these arms are going down in there,
And so you keep dropping it
And picking it up again and moving it,
But—

Some of you are probably too young to remember those—
Those glass boxes,
But—

But they used to have them
At all the gas stations
When I was a kid.

—Dec. 6, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

A Confession
Once in a while,
I'm standing here, doing something.
And I think,
"What in the world am I doing here?"
It's a big surprise.

—May 16, 2001, interview with the New York Times

Happenings
You're going to be told lots of things.
You get told things every day that don't happen.

It doesn't seem to bother people, they don't—
It's printed in the press.
The world thinks all these things happen.
They never happened.

Everyone's so eager to get the story
Before in fact the story's there
That the world is constantly being fed
Things that haven't happened.

All I can tell you is,
It hasn't happened.
It's going to happen.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

The Digital Revolution
Oh my goodness gracious,
What you can buy off the Internet
In terms of overhead photography!

A trained ape can know an awful lot
Of what is going on in this world,
Just by punching on his mouse
For a relatively modest cost!

—June 9, 2001, following European trip

The Situation
Things will not be necessarily continuous.
The fact that they are something other than perfectly continuous
Ought not to be characterized as a pause.
There will be some things that people will see.
There will be some things that people won't see.
And life goes on.

—Oct. 12, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

Clarity
I think what you'll find,
I think what you'll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042

 

[utdbear]

You can spin it that way if it makes you feel better but we all know that the lack troops in Iraq was poor planning and not "trying to send the least amount of troops necessary". He was told by numerous military sources on the ground once major operations were over and the insurgency began that there were not enough troops on the ground. As for the armour like Milla (i believe) said we knew we were going why wasn't the armour issue addressed before we went. Poor planning.

The war in my opinion was folly but we are there now and it was made abundently clear troop levels needed to be adjusted.

There's no spin there. The anti-war crowd is saying those exact statements. And no, we can't blame Clinton on everything, but we can blame him on two things: Lying to his wife, and gutting the military. Recruitment levels are not bad, they are on track with what their supposed to be. I know 8 troops in Iraq, and I just got an email from a friend tonight who was down in Umm Qasr and now headed for Baghdad. His response to the allegations made by the anti-war crowd? Foobar.

 

[Doctrine1st]

There's no spin there. The anti-war crowd is saying those exact statements. And no, we can't blame Clinton on everything, but we can blame him on two things: Lying to his wife, and gutting the military. Recruitment levels are not bad, they are on track with what their supposed to be. I know 8 troops in Iraq, and I just got an email from a friend tonight who was down in Umm Qasr and now headed for Baghdad. His response to the allegations made by the anti-war crowd? Foobar.

"Anti-war crowd"

Is there a group who are actually "Pro-war" other than those who are making a mint off of it?

Let me say this about Clinton since one can't critique this administration without the blame being laid on Clinton somehow, someway. The budget was balanced under Clinton, to which the Republican controled congress was quick to take the credit for, because of their stalwart fiscal responsibility. The military being the largest budget of course took their hits . Now of course, the Republicans are distancing themselves from having anything to do with his budgets and are faulting Clinton. Clinton can't pass his own budgets.

Moreover our recruitment levels are down, as well as Britains.

 

[AngelusSax]

No we can't blame Clinton for everything.

No, but we can and will blame him for the stuff he did. And he did do this (gut the military, which undoubtedly has some bearing on the thinness of the military... either that or we can be an ostrich who will never blame Clinton for anything, ever, no matter what....... Which I am willing to bet will be the case actually.

Let me say this about Clinton since one can't critique this administration without the blame being laid on Clinton somehow, someway. The budget was balanced under Clinton, to which the Republican controled congress was quick to take the credit for, because of their stalwart fiscal responsibility. The military being the largest budget of course took their hits . Now of course, the Republicans are distancing themselves from having anything to do with his budgets and are faulting Clinton. Clinton can't pass his own budgets.

Clinton could've fought for the military, and chose not to. So yes, he is partially to blame.

 

[starchild]

No, but we can and will blame him for the stuff he did. And he did do this (gut the military, which undoubtedly has some bearing on the thinness of the military... either that or we can be an ostrich who will never blame Clinton for anything, ever, no matter what....... Which I am willing to bet will be the case actually.


Clinton could've fought for the military, and chose not to. So yes, he is partially to blame.

Why stop at Clinton? Let's go back and really hash this out...

Reagan spent scads too much on the military, including millions on the unsuccesssful "Star Wars" scheme. Papa Bush, recognizing that things were completely out of control, along with his head of the DOD (Cheney) started the "gutting" of the military, aka bringing it down to a reasonable size, which Clinton continued.

That army was plenty large to do the required job in Afghanistan... but some people (the PNAC infesting the administration) didn't want to fight in Afghanistan...as they'd made clear before 2000, they wanted war with Iraq.

Now, the current administration had been in office for what was approaching a year, when they allowed the foray in Afghanistan - and for more than two years (if I'm counting correctly), when they started the war in Iraq on their own timeline, for their own (never confirmed in reality) reasons.

So, even if Papa Bush and Clinton are evil army-gutters, how stupid or clueless did the head of the DOD and the Commander in Chief have to be to start a pre-emptive, on their own timeline war with an army that is 1) "gutted" and 2) poorly equipped?

 

[Doctrine1st]

No, but we can and will blame him for the stuff he did. And he did do this (gut the military, which undoubtedly has some bearing on the thinness of the military... either that or we can be an ostrich who will never blame Clinton for anything, ever, no matter what....... Which I am willing to bet will be the case actually.


Clinton could've fought for the military, and chose not to. So yes, he is partially to blame.

You are hinting around it, so just go ahead and say it, it won't hurt, just got ahead and say the Republican controled congress under Clinton were complicit in cutting military spending.

In my post I stated that Clinton cut the military, being the largest spenditure, to balance the budget in light of the REPUCLICAN'S 1994 CONTRACT WITH AMERICA where they in controlling congress promised to cut spending, promote fiscal responsibility, and balance the budget. So it is just ridiculous to point the finger soley at Clinton which Republicans and their followers naively do.

The truth shall set you free.....

 

[TheBear]

So, bottom line seems to be...we hate Rumsfeld and wish him ill for no reason whatsoever...except he's in with Bush.

This does not reflect my sentiment. For me, there is no hate of anyone involved, and I don't wish ill on anyone. And I don't make Rumsfeld automatically guilty by association with Bush. I take the more reasonable and pragmatic approach.

That being said, there have been plenty of questionable issues raised about Rumsfeld's performance. Maybe they can all be nicely explained away, maybe not. But when I found out that he does not personally sign the letters of condolence, I lost all respect for him. Even his boss, President Bush, takes time out of his busy schedule to personally sign them.

What a poor example of compassion.