Gotta Love That Junkyard Dog

The Presiden’s approval rating was at 31% yesterday and I bet my favorite junkyard dog… Donald Rumsfeld would be at 2% if they polled his numbers.Why oh why isn’t my favorite Cabinet Secretary loved by one and all?

I have to admit it:
I like Donald Rumsfeld.
Even though the logicial side of my brain screams at me that he has cost the President dearly in the polls,there is something about that junkyard dog that I love.
He's the type of guy that you would want at your back in a barroom brawl.Somehow,when he circles those crooked fingers of his at a press conference and tells everyone that we are making progress in Afganistan and Iraq,I think the only people who believe him are OBL and our Jordanian friend who can't shoot straight.
The military has re-invented itself from a Cold War force to a lightening- quick special ops force in no time at all,and the best thing about it is that he did it while fighting a nasty war in the Mid-East...kinda like building a plane when it's flying.
Yep,I like the old geezer.
He was the right guy at the right time.
Question is: Now that the President is in the midst of his spring house cleaning,should we let the junkyard dog take it easy now and let the younger pit bulls take over?

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at May 8, 2006 10:27 PM
Comments
Comment #146451

I figure he must be doing something right. The left hates him. People do not like someone straight foreward and blunt unless it is on their side of the fence. In my opinion he was the right man for the job! Keep him.

Posted by: Doc at May 9, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #146452

Wow, you’re serious aren’t you?

Posted by: Dave at May 9, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #146456

KEEP DON IN THE JOB—HE IS GREAT!

Posted by: JOHN B at May 9, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #146458

Dave:

Never underestimate the ability of Rightwingers to delude themselves.

Remember!!! The earth is 6,000 years old and Global Warming is not happening…

Posted by: Aldous at May 9, 2006 9:30 AM
Comment #146459

“The military has re-invented itself from a Cold War force to a lightening- quick special ops force in no time at all,and the best thing about it is that he did it while fighting a nasty war in the Mid-East…kinda like building a plane when it’s flying.”

I almost vomited when I read this.

Posted by: Aldous at May 9, 2006 9:41 AM
Comment #146461

SE,

“He’s the type of guy that you would want at your back in a barroom brawl.”

He makes a grand combination with the guy that would shoot the dog.

Posted by: Rocky at May 9, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #146462

Eagle:

Rumsfeld has been a longstanding member of the Bush administration. That said, he is a lightning rod for the left. Of course, the left looks for lightning bolts. One of the main tactics is to vilify Republicans…one needs only to look at the venom with which Dems refer to Bush, Cheney, Quayle, Gingrich, Reagan, Ollie North (okay, some venom deserved here), Ahhhnold, etc. The list goes on and on.

Most of the attacks are of a personal nature, or at the very least have a personal touch to them. Its the liberal elitist attitude: If you disagree with our wonderful skilled and educated minds, something must be wrong with you.

Rummy should remove himself anyway. He is at the end of a long and distinguished career…better to ease off now than to continue being vilified. He can probably do as much from behind the scenes as he can accomplish in front of the cameras.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 9, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #146463

JBOD, no. Keep him on. The Dems need all the help this administration is providing them. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #146466
Most of the attacks are of a personal nature, or at the very least have a personal touch to them. Its the liberal elitist attitude: If you disagree with our wonderful skilled and educated minds, something must be wrong with you.

What a bunch of BS this comment is. It’s all about issues. Like, why can’t they catch OBL? Or when are going to bring the prisoners in Gitmo up on charges and publicly address them? Or why the hell do we have our military bogged down in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and are doing nothing more than creating more terrorists? But, I guess that must be your definition of a “personal attack.”

Posted by: bobo at May 9, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #146475

I am a ww2 and Korean veteran2…Europe and Japan are democracies. South Korea is a democracy…is it too hard to figure out what will happen in the middle east when Iraq is finally a functionin democracy?…..paul

Posted by: Paul Graessle at May 9, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #146476

I am a ww2 and Korean veteran2…Europe and Japan are democracies. South Korea is a democracy…is it too hard to figure out what will happen in the middle east when Iraq is finally a functionin democracy?…..paul

Posted by: Paul Graessle at May 9, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #146478

SE,

To give credit to Rummy for “reinventing” the military is below even the BushCo standard of care for truthiness. BTW: You need to fix your profile: “moderate to right tilt” LOL!

Doc,

So your standard for a “good” SecDef is that the “left” doesn’t like him? Does that mean you’d like Limbaugh in that job too? What high standards we have now!

Paul,

The mideast is not a culture amenable to our version of democracy. Iran is a democracy; that is what Iraq will look like if we can ever leave. Thanks Rummy, George, and Dick.


When will the rest of the GOPers admit they screwed up when they picked these bozos to represent us? So far more than 20 million have.

Posted by: Dave at May 9, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #146479

“Remember!!! The earth is 6,000 years old and Global Warming is not happening…”


Uh, didn’t we have 6 Ice Ages in that time? Was that “Big Oil’s” fault? Must have been those Republican Dinosaurs that ran the earth into the ground? Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 9, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #146480

Bobo…and the rest of you with the same opinion about UBL — if you think it is that easy to locate UBL in the area he is believed to be, while being protected by tribes, and dealing with the politics in the region, go right ahead and fetch him yourselves — there’s a big reward in it for you — go for it.
BTW— he had a bullseye on his forehead with a trigger half pulled -before Bush- that was not acted on due to a former admin and global politics…
…and I have already heard all the crap about Clinton being a former prez - like we are all supposed to believe things he did and did not do have nothing to do with what followed his historical presidency.

Posted by: bug at May 9, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #146481

Paul,

It should be noted that the ROK did not become a democracy until 1987 and that more than half of Europe did not become multi-party democracies until the 1990s. The common theme in all of these transformations was internal pressures for governments to reform, not military occupation.

Granted, we have the case of post-war Japan. But anyone who fails to miss the important differences between Japan in 1945 and Iraq in 2006 needs to spend a bit more time reviewing their notes from history class.

Posted by: J. at May 9, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #146486

Bug, Bush gave that military dictator in Pakistan millions upon millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Where is OBL? Safe in the dictator’s back yard. Yet another failure of the Bush administration and squandering of American tax dollars.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #146489

J. absolutely right. Plus, the western allies completely and totally subjugated Germany and Japan with military might sparing nothing, not even nuclear bombs. That is a key and fundamental difference between WWII and the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld war of limited military force and now limited engagement to keep our losses low. There really is no parallel between Japan-Germany and Iraq. Entirely different strategies, commitments, and resolve.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #146490

I like Don for none of the above. Granted, He has transformed the military into special ops much to the dislike of many of the generals. I like him because he does not suck up to the media.

We need more like Rumsfield who will tell the media to go to hell.

Posted by: Texas Drifter at May 9, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #146491

bobo:

The attacks on the personal intelligence of the Republicans I referred to are not issue attacks. They are personal. One does not need to look far to see the difference between personal attacks and attacks on issues. Please don’t confuse the two. Calling someone stupid is a personal attack; disagreeing with their stance on a topic is an issue attack.

Re OBL and not finding him. Consider that Italian authorities recently found a Mafia Don who has been on the loose for 37 years…ON AN ISLAND!! I don’t know the ins and outs of hunting someone down, but its considerably harder than most would think, apparently.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 9, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #146492

So; you people still think that even if we had succeeded in giving the Iraqi’s elections w/o insurgency that they would model our version of Democracy and not Iran’s?

Posted by: Dave at May 9, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #146493

Yes David -but- the fine line of global politics seems to be the issue here.
The Bush haters complain either way… when he tries to use direct talks or when he lets others take the lead.
Whichever it is that he chooses to do is wrong - even when the opposition wanted it that way to begin with.

Posted by: bug at May 9, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #146498

I didn’t know Cheney was Jordanian.

Posted by: gergle at May 9, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #146499

Yikes!
My feathers are singed after reading these posts!

Looks like Rummy evokes passion on both sides of the debate today.

Aldous

Try eating dry toast.Does wonders for an upset stomach.

Dave.
Moderate to right tilt is correct….the point is we are debating,no?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 9, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #146502

“Where is OBL? Safe in the dictator’s back yard. Yet another failure of the Bush administration and squandering of American tax dollars.”


And “Yet” another attempt to attack the Bush Administration; rather than the real enemy. Prez Mushraff (sp?) has had multiple assassination attempts from the fundementalists, the same ones protecting OBL. Yet, you guys overlook that stuff.

Bug is (absolutely) correct when he said:

“if you think it is that easy to locate UBL in the area he is believed to be, while being protected by tribes, and dealing with the politics in the region, go right ahead and fetch him yourselves — there’s a big reward in it for you — go for it.”

Absolutely correct. As the President says “We’ve got alot of Big Talkers”.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 9, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #146505

joe:

Questioning someone’s competence for the position based on their lack of intelligence is an issue attack, no matter what you want to call it. Their intelligence is very much at issue. If you had someone working for you who could not perform his job due to an actual lack of intelligence, would you consider someone pointing out that you should fire him to be a person attack on that employee?

Texas Drifter:

Do you not understand that “the media” is the only source of news the public has? Without it, we have no chance of being an informed electorate. And public officials telling the media to go to hell is effectively telling US to go to hell, that they don’t have to answer to the public or provide information to us by which we can form an honest opinion of them and their actions and thereby alter our votes accordingly.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” -In a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)

Posted by: Jarandhel at May 9, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #146511
Calling someone stupid is a personal attack; disagreeing with their stance on a topic is an issue attack.

joebagodonuts: I await the citation where the Dems call Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. “stupid.”

Of course, you’re welcome to quote Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, and a whole host of other unelected media celebrities if you like, but it would be nice is you could include citations for a few of the party’s actual nationally-known politicians as well.

Posted by: bobo at May 9, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #146512
I bet my favorite junkyard dog… Donald Rumsfeld would be at 2% if they polled his numbers.

SE,

Actually, in the most recent opinion poll, Rumsfeld has a 37% favorablity rating. That is 6 points higher than Bush’s.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 9, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #146517


Can issues be debated on fact? On point? Every response I read has some personal attack, left and right. Rummy has spent the better part of his life in public service. If you believe he’s corrupt and making money on the backs of the US military via some type of insider trading, or just incompetent, then you’ll never look seriously at his accomplishments good or bad. If you believe he walks on water and singlehandedly reinvented the armed forces of the US, you’re too enamored of republican ideals. Give me facts, make an argument based on things that can be researched, identified and verified. Name calling can be fun, cathartic perhaps, but if you are debating the pro’s and con’s of an indivduals job, his impact on national issues and how this helps or hurts America, keep it real.


Posted by: JR at May 9, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #146518

Jarandhel
“Do you not understand that “the media” is the only source of news the public has? Without it, we have no chance of being an informed electorate.”


As long as the public is being informed fairly; not with a slanted, liberal bias. Yet, the majority of media is (indeed) liberally bias.

And, the media is deserving of criticism just as much as any elected official; the media made its’ bed, now they must lie in it.


Jayjay,
“Rumsfeld has a 37% favorablity rating. That is 6 points higher than Bush’s.”

And, that’s 15 points higher than congress.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 9, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #146519
It should be noted that the ROK did not become a democracy until 1987 and that more than half of Europe did not become multi-party democracies until the 1990s. The common theme in all of these transformations was internal pressures for governments to reform, not military occupation. Granted, we have the case of post-war Japan. But anyone who fails to miss the important differences between Japan in 1945 and Iraq in 2006 needs to spend a bit more time reviewing their notes from history class.

One of the truly great topics of discussion is what are the conditions that allow a country to become a democracy.

In political science, you can always find exceptions, but one of the great universals about democracy is that the country must have a stable, literate, and concerned middle class. (Middle class defined in the context of the culture.) It must also have respect for institutions. Germany and Japan had both of those before WWII. I suspect ROK’s didn’t develop until several decades after the Korean War. Throughout Europe those conditions largely hold true as well. They are becoming more common in Latin America.

But Iraq? Sorry. With the tribal factionalism and extreme misery the people are going through, I can’t see democracy taking hold as long as it is enforced by the barrel of U.S. weapons. Those things I cite above: stable middle class and respect for institutions are the indicators I’m looking for for me to be optimistic about Iraq, but I don’t see them working in our favor.

Posted by: bobo at May 9, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #146521
As long as the public is being informed fairly; not with a slanted, liberal bias. Yet, the majority of media is (indeed) liberally bias.

You’re wrong, rahdigly. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! And I’ve provided just as much evidence as you have on that matter.

Posted by: bobo at May 9, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #146522

Rumsfeld should stay as long as both him and Bush feel comfortable with each other.
I don’t know if he reinvented the military or not but the troops seem to have no real problem with him. Of course if the did it wouldn’t make anymore difference than the left not liking him.
Weather he stays or goes is up to Bush and him.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 9, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #146523

Personally I like the guy.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 9, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #146527

SE,

Unfortunately, as JR pointed out, I don’t see much debate. The limitation of blogs is there are too few posters knowledgeable in debating. Instead things degenerate into trollish pundit rehash, usually with no basis in reality. I would point out examples but the editor would say I’m critiquing the messenger and not just their spelling :-).

Posted by: Dave at May 9, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #146532

Bobo,

Oh, ok. Well I must be wrong if you say so…

:O)


RB,

I like Rumsfeld, too. Somedays I feel he’s out of touch, then, other days, I’m (damn) glad that he’s on our side.


Dave,
You’ll hurt people’s feeling and not be taken seriously if you misspell. So (for God’s sake) be careful.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 9, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #146539

I love Rummy! He is just what America needed at this point. I totally agree that he has begun a transformation of the military that will serve us well in this new age of warfare. The fact that Rummy was willing to force a change from WWII tactics has given America the fighting edge. Rummy recognized that changes in military technology called for changes in troop composition and tactics. He was strong enough to push this plan through against the wishes of traditional military voices. With smaller, special purpose units, the US is more capable at fighting conflicts against unequal forces while reducing the collateral damage.

Even if you do not like Rumfelds policies, it is apparent that he has a great mind with a tremendous facility in logical thinking. Who did not chuckle at the known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown knowns answer he gave in a briefing? There is a EP called the The Rummy EP which has two songs taken from answeres given at the briefings.

Perhaps, one of Rumsfelds greatest strengths is the fact that he recognizes that we are at war and he understands the harsh realities of warfare. He wants to win. He is the grinning skull of death to our enemies. Bush should retain his service through the remainder of his term. It is imperative that we get as much done under Bush as possible because all progress on the war against the terrorists will certainly slow, if not stop, after the next presidential election.

BTW, glad you are posting articles SE.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 9, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #146548

GKN

Thanks for the kind words.Here is a sampling of Rummy’s “poetry”


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

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 9, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #146549

Geez….couldn’t have said it better myself…know you know why I love the guy….what an artist…..

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 9, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #146562

SE,
Rumsfeld is a fool, it’s pretty obvious that not only are the logical realistic people against him, but so is the army in general.
Does anybody remeber the mass rebellion of the retired generals, SIX of them came out to say how horribly Rumsfeld handles his job. Not only that, but previous Secretary of State, Colin Powell, also came out to criticize him. He is a harm to U.S. foriegn policy and to the military.

“I am not going to give you a number for it because it’s not my business to do intelligent work.” -asked to estimate the number of Iraqi insurgents while testifying before Congress
>>Actual Rumsfeld quotehere.

Posted by: greenstuff at May 9, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #146563

Another rummy gem (paraphrase):

“I can’t imagine why we’d need more troops to hold Iraq than we need to defeat it”

Posted by: Dave at May 9, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #146564

Rummy is a junkyard dog - and junkyard dogs are inherently appealing & likable - unless they are trashing your house

does anyone argue we are better off today than before he and his bosses began their wonderful adventure - by the time we are finished almost a trillion dollars in debt will have been loaded on the backs of our children (not counting the bill for the bridges to “Pork Island”) - there are now more terrorists trained and blooded and even more willing to join up to do us harm - and as for “the world is better without Sadam” - that’s true - but its also true of dozens of other dictators - many who we are supporting and are of ultimately greater threat - in addition Sadam was the same bad guy when we armed him to fight Iran - let’s face it it was a convient switch when WMD evaporated - what do you think that does to our credibility in the world

yes he is a junkyard dog - and i’d love to have the luxury of liking a maverick but this one has done to much damage to our nation - he tells the press to “go to hell” when they point things out - albeit often too timidly - that he doesn’t like to hear - hardly commendable for a public official who should be asked to answer to the nation for his actions

Posted by: Terlen at May 9, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #146566

So many Republicans just don’t get it. Japan and Germany became functional democracies because their defeat was total and their surrender unconditional. When the allies entered Germany the war was over in weeks. When the allies through their entire armament at the Japanese, they were pushed back in a year to their homeland. And there, we used our most powerful force to end the conflict.

Rumsfeld is one of the chief architects of a limited force engagement into Iraq in contradiction to what some in the CIA and a number in the DoD were advising in terms of necessary troop strength and preparedness. And because of Rumsfeld’s decision with a pass by the President, we have been engaged in a guarded and defensive posture in Iraq and utterly undermanned to secure Iraq’s borders or rebuild her faster than the insurgency could tear it down. Our incremental approach allowed the threat of insurgency to grow beyond our ability to stamp it out.

Rumsfeld had his head up his ass during history class. Because the same lesson of democracy in Germany and Japan was learned in our defeat in Viet Nam. We failed to engage the North Vietnamese with the total capacity of our military might and all available resources. We incrementalized that war and allowed the North to grow ever stronger and more adept and committed. Rumsfeld reenacted that same fatal flaw in Iraq. And he and Bush and Cheney are responsible for the protracted nature of this war in Iraq with no clear success or victory of a unified and democratic Iraq in sight.

The American people may not be able articulate the argument above, but, they sure can feel the truth of it which explains why Iraq is the #1 political albatross hanging round the Republicans necks in this election year according to all of the polls including Fox’s. Rumsfeld is the chief architect of this political albatross and I think the loyalty that Bush exhibits toward him as well as most Republican politicians is ironically just.

By all means keep him on, our soldiers are going to keep coming home in body bags or with shattered bodies and minds no matter what we do now thanks to Rummies ignorance of history. We are stuck there until we spend enough American soldiers to finally make it work, or leave and allow Iraqis to determine for themselves their future. Since the latter is not in Rumsfeld’s or Bush’s cards, we can look forward to many more American lives lost and shattered unnecessarily. Thank you Donald Rumsfeld for your service to our country and brave military men and women.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #146568

greenstuff:

” … the mass rebellion of the retired generals, SIX of them … “

Six is a mass. Eight is a gaggle. Who knew that a gaggle is larger than a mass?

The logical, realistic opposition to Rumsfeld you mention are the generals, Powell included, who presided over the military during the period when America fought to bring their enemies to a standstill. If we are going to go to war, we should go to win.

The military of the Vietnam era was a very psychotic bunch, who used available military technology, delivering devastating combat actions high on collateral damage and then returned the ruined territory back to the hands of the enemy. The peasants lost in both cases.

Rumsfeld recognized that new technology allowed effective targeted action against enemies without spoiling the prize for the uninvolved citizenry. The military plans to develop specialized teams to go in after the heavy fighting to restore normalcy. We are making progress in evolving our military, but it will take time to develop the resources.

Rumsfeld may be many things, but he is no fool.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 9, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #146570

Eagle,

Rummy is senile—nuff said. He’s probably in a Pentagon office somewhere rehashing episodes of Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon thinking up the warfare of “tommorrowland” like something out of a 1940’s film reel.

The man is out of it. BUT ofcourse any criticism makes you an America hater and probably a commie!!! So be careful and he will eventually give all our soldiers in Iraq the ray-guns and jetpacks to win this war.

The republicans really like the man, yeah, like they actually know any better. They liked Bush, what does that say about their judgement? Stupid is as stupid does I guess.

In the immortal words of Forrest Gump comes the new Republican (RNC) motto: “Thayat’s ma’ boat”.

Posted by: Novenge at May 9, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #146574

Terlen

Here is what I do know about the Defense Secretary:

At a time when our nation was reeling from the devestation of 9/11 and at a time when the nationial psyche was destroyed due to America being violated by those “marytrs”,The Defense Secretary gave to a certain segment of our society much needed backbone.

Just like the president did.

I will never forget the moments after the Pentagon was hit,and the Defense Secretary helping out with the wounded.Deep down inside of me,I knew that retribution would be swift and deadly,and I think I was right.

Some bloggers have called him a war criminal,and sadly they really mean it.I don’t see it that way.I see him cut out of the same piece of cloth as some of our great generals of wars past.He did it his way.

Yes, guys like Powell and Anthony Zinni and General Baptiste have come against the Secretary…but there are over 4,000 retired generals out there (that’s the figure I heard on a recent CNN talking head program although I can’t verify it)who didn’t…and some of these guys had their own adgenda,I think.

The truth of the matter is that Rummy is a good decent man who has served his country tirelessly for decades and has stood his ground against relentless opposition during these perilious times because he truly believes in what he is doing.

He is a throwback….a man perhaps of another age living in today’s modern times.

You can disagree with his philosophy,with his politics and his military acumen,but this guy is a patriot…at least he is to me.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 9, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #146583

David

With all due respect,both Germany and Japan had an entire generation of its youth wiped out by the allies…almost to a man….and in Japan’s case was occuupied for 5 years after the war while its constitution was drafted and its ecomony rebuilt by McCarthur.

Overwhelming force or not,it still took at least 5 years of occupation by hundreds of thousands of Allied troops to accomplish what is being accomplished in Iraq…and with a lot less troops..and targets..too.

I bet more Americans died in Post- War Germany and Japan in traffic accidents that were killed in Iraq.If not more,then darn close.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 9, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #146584

SE. Sorry I didn’t read all of the posts because I came in late. I served in the USAF Special Operations Command from 1994-1998. Special forces almost doubled in that time under CLINTON. He started the transformation you are give credit to Rummy. Hell half the reason we have the problem in Iraq is we do not have an occupying army anymore. For good or bad Clinton started the transformation to a respond and defend military. Quick strikes and power projection for the defense of our allies. The cold war is over and we got rid of that military. Rumsfled et al. didn’t listed to their generals who said we need more troops to win the peace. Did you miss what General (ret.) Powell said?
He is so quick to attack any idea not his own that he can’t listen to the people who know war. So please keep him. And stop giving him credit for Clintons forward looking insight.

Posted by: timesend at May 9, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #146586

timesend

Thank you on behalf of me and my children for your service to our country.Veterans like you are the true heroes of this country…something I try never to forget.

While Clinton may have started the transformation,surely you cannot argue that Rummy did most of the heavy lifting on that project…can you?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 9, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #146587

I thought this was particularly appropriate a quirp I learned in college

“there is coming a time in your life when you are going to have to say NO.
When that time comes remember who you KNOW
For when you remember who you KNOW then it is easier to say NO.”

anyways I like Rumsfield. Though I have to say I also like Colin Powell. In fact I would take Colin Powells assessment of the military over Rumsfields most of the time. That though is due to personal experience. Now I do not think he should leave his post unless that is what he wants or that is what the President wants. All Presidents should have the cabinet they want (presuming all things are legal) even if I dont like them.

I would agree with many here who stated that he has molded a new army for us. I look forward to see how this new army works for us in the future. I also look forward to finding some fiscally conservative candidates that actually have a chance to win. (yeah right)

I fear that the future only has more of the same. I think we could win this war with money easier then we are going to win with fighting. (I do not want to stop fighting we need to win this one.) Our money and consumerism i think does more to take over a society then anything else we have tried so far. I would say that consumerism is one of the key factors to countries in Asia and Europe. Oh well that is a different discussion.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 9, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #146590

Yep,
You gotta love a man that is working on equaling the American Death toll on 9-11. He’s the Barry Bonds of Empire. He has probably arleady surpassed the casualty figure. Way to snatch defeat from the mouth of victory.

Wasn’t that pretty the way the Iraqis applauded when the Brittish helicopter crashed in peaceful town of Basra? Yep, they want us to be there. Nope we aren’t fomenting more terror.

Posted by: gergle at May 9, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #146593

SE, how culturally relative of you to forget the 10’s of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of occupation as well a great many innocents among their numbers.

Japan’s occupation did not contain a growing insurgency SE, so your analogy does not hold up. Our Japanese occupation was spent building infrastructure, not fighting insurgents. Rumsfeld’s failure to follow the lessons of history, resulted in our still fighting insurgents instead of building infratstructure.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #146596

gergle

Stats can be massaged anyway the person using them desires.

While 2400 deaths and untold billions is beyond tragic (in the case of the deaths) and stupid(in the case of the cost),I often wonder about the 43,000 people who were killed in 2005,and the other 42,000 killed in 2003 and the 39,000 killed in 2002 on our nations highways alone.
There is a nationial tragedy here that needs discussion someday…not to mention the thousands killed in homicides in our nation’s cities and towns every year too….
At least I can say that our heroes died not in vain but rather for a noble and heroic cause.Sadly,I cannot say that about highway fatalities or homicides….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 9, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #146598

David

Cultural revelance?How about the several hundred thousand Japanese who died of radiation poisioning between 1945 to the present?Do they count somewhere on your balance sheet?

And,as I recall,as I write this,we still have bases in Japan…some 60 years after their “total” surrender,no?

It’s a slippery slope when you compare apples and sushi,I think

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 9, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #146599

gergle gergled:

Wasn’t that pretty the way the Iraqis applauded when the Brittish helicopter crashed in peaceful town of Basra? Yep, they want us to be there. Nope we aren’t fomenting more terror.

Right, right, reason #102,304,883 that the US is the problem. I mean, who doesn’t think that British and American troops dying in fire and shrapnel is cheer worthy? Maybe if you try hard enough YOU can earn their applause too eh gerbel?

Posted by: Craig at May 9, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #146603

Sicilianeagle
I understand your points - they were the people there after 9/11 - but be honest - you would have found support for most leaders in those circumstances - Giuilani did pretty well in NY and would have been accepted in a broader roll i believe - we look for leaders in those circumstances and we often supply the attributes we want to see to them - Cheny & Rummy were decisive - but wrong - Bush would still be sitting in a Florida classroom without them

- the administration wanted to attack Iraq from the time they came into office (nobody has denied O’Neil’s report on this) - after 9/11 Rummy was suggesting attacking Iraq - nobody denies it - what you seem to be ignoring is that his/their actions were based on false premises and that Americans are worse off for it - - going to Afganistan was right - but we should have finished the job there - we are at risk of that country backsliding now - someone should be held accountable for that - i like curmudgeons too - but we it owe to our country to hold - even those we like - responsible for their mistakes - and the mistakes have been numerous - instead of focusing on how many are pointing out the strategic & tactical mistakes - ask if they are right or wrong - let’s face it “Mission Accomplished” was a huge mistake and they were advised it wouldn’t be over - they just didn’t listen and they didn’t prepare - like the guy but don’t forgive his mistakes - the country can’t afford it

Posted by: Terlen at May 9, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #146606

Terlen

All good points but I would now like to clear the historicial record a bit and try to delete as many talking points as I can.

First,the “Mission Accomplished” thing is a joke…and has legs only because the politicial left and liberal press has made it so.We all know that that banner was placed there by the ship’s commander,and there isn’t any evidence that I know of that it was orchestrated by the White House.The President should have ripped it down and belted the commander in the mouth,honestly.He was acomplete dork for not doing that.By the way,he was a double-dork for flying that plane there too.He reminded me of Mike Dukakis with that tank photo.Sheer stupidity.

That being said,thank God for Rudy Guilianni on September 11,12,13,and thereafter.He is also my here,to be honest with you and would make a damn good president.

As far as any “plot” to invade Iraq without reason or “cooked up” reasons..well that’s why I have been blogging against the likes of about 50 of my favorite lefties here…I agree with the reasoning then,I agree with the reasoning now,and I don’t believe for a second that bad will or evil was the root of their decision.

Without repeating myself (what the hell,I will),if the president had not acted the way he did after the CIA,Mossad,Egyptian intelligence and British intelligence all confirmed WMD would have been criminally negligent in light of 9/11.

Now,hindsight being 20/20,the intelligence was wrong…but history is replete with decisions being made by wrong intelligence.Remember,Saddam keep the fact that he had no WMDs even from his high command.Only his two (dead) sons knew the truth.
My view anyway.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 9, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #146608

We also have bases in Germany and Philipines and Korea and etc…….

I see no reason to leave 100% we should have a base of operation there. We should lease the land and make a base similar to how we do in other countries around the world. It makes good economic sense and we are close to one of the most troubled parts of the world.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 9, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #146609

SE,

Without repeating myself (what the hell,I will),if the president had not acted the way he did after the CIA,Mossad,Egyptian intelligence and British intelligence all confirmed WMD would have been criminally negligent in light of 9/11.

When any President invades a country based off “intelligence”, he/she should double check the information, we can’t all act on impulse, especially the President.
Now it’s pretty obvious that Mr. Bush didn’t check his intel, because if he did, he would have realized that it was just a load of crap.
Instead, he impatiently invaded a foriegn country without an exit strategy. Now who is in charge of the intelligence during this administration, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
It is pretty obvious that Rumsfeld is incapable of commanding his post, not only did he give the president faulty information, but he also sent thousands of Americans to war, losing their lives in vain.

Posted by: greenstuff at May 9, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #146613

Sicillian Eagle wrote:

“Without repeating myself (what the hell,I will),if the president had not acted the way he did after the CIA,Mossad,Egyptian intelligence and British intelligence all confirmed WMD would have been criminally negligent in light of 9/11.”

You clearly still beleive there was a connection between Osama and Sadaam. Preposterous. Osama previously called for Sadaam’s execution for his crimes against muslims in his own country and because Osama supports Islamist rule, not secular rule. Al Qeada is only acting opportunistically by contributing to the havoc in Iraq. They just want to fight us. We gave them the battlefield to do so. On some level it is better to fight them there than here, true, but we CREATED a battlefield at great expense in lives. Ours, civilian Iraqi’s and those who support Al Qeada alike. Further we did so in a mannre that is nothing short of treasonous if you believe we had the inteligence to know better, and sadly incompetent, if you believe we honestly thought there were WMD’s.

How can you revere the architect of that?

RGF


Posted by: RGF at May 9, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #146614

Sicilian Eagle,

I can hardly wait for your lockstep support blog on Andy Card. Boy it’ll be an exciting one, I’m sure. “Gotta love that White House organizer guy?”

Sicilian—I know you praise and worship these guys and that’s kind of, well rather spitlittle but dag-gum patriotic. But really the reasons they get this criticism is on quite valid points. And even more validity as the voices come out of very experienced military circles.

Just admit it Eagle—Rummy has some serious shortcomings. Or admit Cheney is a corporate privateer who doesn’t give a god-damn about this country and Bush, well Bush just looks really dumb dispite the activities of Hughes and Rove—who make him look less-dumb. You can’t be that blind to this administration’s incompetency.

I never supported Clinton this boot-licky as the Republicans support these corpo-crony dungbeetles. Bush wasn’t even all that brave on 9-11, fluttering away like a scared pigeon to his secret destinations like a puss. He’s no hero and you know it.

Admit it Sicilian Eagle!!!! Admit it!!!!

Posted by: Novenge at May 9, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #146617

SE, we are in Japan by invitation. It is not an occupation. There is no comparison to our presence in Japan 60 years later and our presence in Iraq.

Sure the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki play in to my tally sheet of losses. But, give it a break SE, they attacked us. The whole world was plunged into war as a result of Axis alliance. Our very survival was on the line and we took decisive, overwhelming action and committed all available resources to end that war, including nuclear weapons.

Not so in Iraq. We did not commit all our resources, we were not attacked at home by Iraqis, and Rummie ignored the lessons of history or never learned them in the first place. When you go to war, you go to win with everything you have if necessary to end it as quickly as possible. Dummy Rummy thought he was smarter than the CIA and DoD advisors warning him of our lack of preparation and readiness for such a huge undertaking as occupying a foreign nation after invading it, dropping bombs on its civilians and military, and destroying so much of their infrastructure with no plan other than using their oil for reconstruction and what to do with all the flowers and kisses they would shower upon us.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #146618

Randall, our very presence in Iraq is affording terrorists a training ground and recruitment zone for future attacks against us. Talk about aiding and abetting the enemy. We need to get out of Iraq as soon as practicable so we can allow time and distance to remove the big target off our soldiers backs. Spending our soldiers lives while safe back here at home comes so easy to some.

War is hell, and we will be at war in Iraq for as long as we are there or, until Iraq has the capacity to do what we apparently cannot, secure our borders.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #146622

OK - Im gonna throw in my .02 on the whole germany/japan democratic government thing.

The libs major point is that the german/japanese governments are democracies now because they were forced to completely and utterly surrender after wwii. This is true. Germany was governed by the 4 allied powers after the creation of the allied control council and the signing of the the potsdam agreement in 1945. In fact the western countries were still reforming the german mark in 1955 (this was one of the sparks that ignited the beginning of the cold war with the soviet union as you will recall). In fact, germany was still under (limited) military control up to 1990!!! (“The treaty on the final settlement with respect to germany” - sept 12th 1990)

Japan has a similar story, but the main point being, that the western (democratic) powers played a large role in reforming those countries into productive democracies. This was through direct governance, military presence, rebuilding efforts, and assimilating the peoples minds into the folds of capitalism and democracy.

you say we werent allowed to completely overtake iraq with our military? I disagree - 100%. Im not sure how that statement can be made, when the iraqi military was completely defeated and their government ousted. It was a stunning victory to say the least. Where we are failing is in our ability to be as commited in post war governance as we were in actually waging the war in iraq. I think that the United States was fearful of the world’s reaction to the US taking control of Iraq. It was the liberal cry of colonialism and exploitation of oil that prevented us from going in and taking over the country. we should do that, and we shouldn’t leave until every iraqi is holding a coke in one hand, a big mac in the other, and watching the soccer game on tv instead of going to the ballot box. If it takes 2 years or 20. we need to be committed to turning iraq into a successful democray - like japan, ROk, and germany are today. we spent upteen billions on the war, lets not squander it on a missed opportunity to make iraq the crown jewel of successful capitalism and true democratic rule in the middle east.

And stop saying germany and japan hold no parallels to iraq, cause it just aint true. I suggest you start reading YOUR history books…

Posted by: b0mbay at May 9, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #146628

I would like to point out that the Allied forces encountered significant resistance after the formal end of WWII. There were post-war insurgent attacks for at least a decade. There was less post-war resistance in Japan because of the Emperors call for the Japaneese people to lay down their arms and accept defeat. There was armed resistance in the South after the Confederate War for decades.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is always resistance from the losers after a war. It is just more noticeable in the Iraq war due to the expansion of media coverage. If we had cable news during WWII, Americans might have folded when confronted with the violence and devastation in Europe. In the assault on Iwo Jima, more Americans died in the first wave than in the two plus years of the Iraq War. Americans have lost their stomach for war and that is a shame for those nations that need protection from tyrants.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 9, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #146631

For what it’s worth: over 1,000 GIs died in Germany in the year after V-E Day.

Posted by: Tim Crow at May 9, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #146641

We will never win if we do not plan to stay in for the long haul. the points that are made about Germany being under at least partial control until the 90’s is very valid. If you look at it it will take time to unwind all the problems that are there. It took generations to make give us time to allow democracy to take hold and see it fixed. I too will feel more comfortable when I see a Coke in one hand and a Big Mac in the other. Capitalism and Democracy must go hand in hand and then true freedom of every type follows.

If we want to learn from Germany and how we did not take long term control after WWI but did after WWII think if we had after WWI maybe there would never have been WWII. If the middle east is not brought freedom it will someday cause a war that no one wants much bigger then 9/11 or any terror attack we have seen so far. Iran is sharing nuclear information with the Sudan now and who knows who else we need to make sure we have a presence of freedom there and this is our best bet.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 9, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #146645

SE,
“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.”

In a coffee house that is poetry at a media briefing it is BS!! You know better, come on.

Rummys reaction to 9/11 on that day, without knowing the facts, was to bomb Iraq. His responce to the ascertion that it was Afghanistan that was the country involved in the attack was, “There are no good targets in Afghanistan.” As someone said above, nobody disputes that. That my friend is beyond bad judgement.

You can thank Clinton for the swiftness of the troops now serving. That is the military that he set up, not Rumsfeld. “But Rummy did the heavy lifting.” Are you joking? Rummy rushed his forces to war WITHOUT armored vehicles, flack vests or a post-war plan!! Thats called blind incompetence. I’d love to hear what you think Rummy restructured in the current military.

He lied about the cost, the length, and ignored contridictory evidence about WMDs. And another thing. When did the Neo-cons start caring what other countries intelligences ever said? Answer: Only when it’s convenient. Did you see 60 minutes 60 minutes 2 weeks ago? The former head of the middle east CIA intelligence office, Tyler Drumheller, brought a very credible source from the inner circle of Saddam Hussein to our intelligance agency and told them that Iraq didn’t have any WMD. This was well before the war started. It was ignored! Then Rummy, et al, continued to lie to the American people about WMDs that he was NOT SURE were there to whip up support for the war. Disgraceful!!

Do I need to go on? The man is a menace!! He should have been fired a long time ago.

Posted by: Matthew at May 9, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #146667

All
Geez,it’s a good thing I ate my Wheaties For Eagles this morning…especially after getting belted around by Novenge up above.But before I parse out (his?her?) post,let me thank all who posted here today.This is my second “official” post on Watchblog,and given the length of this thread,it looks like folks enjoyed the give and take even though I am just getting the hang of an editor.Hopefully as I get more experienced in my new capacity,I can continue to enlighten my leftie friends and give them pause to think.

Novenge
Actually,Andy Card is a friend of mine…we are both from Masssachusetts,and you couldn’t meet a better guy.I believe he was one of the longest serving chief of staffs in recent memory,and he did his job well during a terrible time in our nation’s history,so yeah,I admire the guy too.

See,these jobs pay short money.Being a lawyer and owning an import business,at the end of the day I go home,pour myself a glass of nice Sicilian wine (Cuorvo),have a nice dinner,call my kids and generally chill out.
Think Bush,Rummy,Andy Card,Condy Rice,and a million other peole in high government positions do that?The stress is beyond unbelievable.Look at photos of Clinton and now Bush at the beginning and end of their terms…both aged decades.It’s the world’s toughest and demanding job,I think.

Yeah,Cheney has shortcomings.He’s a lousy shot for one thing.But he’s not a crook.I can see the steam coming from your ears on that statement,Novenge,but really I think he is doing the best he can.I liked him in the Persian Gulf War,and I thought the Cheney/Rummy/Powell/Rice team was the best since post WWII to be honest.Frankly,I still do.

Not only has Cheney keep several hyenas from the far far left at bay with his “is he serious?” hyper-right wing comments,he has kept OBL in his cave too.No offense,but our bearded Sunni Wahhabi psycho doesn’t know whether to shit or go blind right now.Cheney is a hawk.A super hawk.A killer hawk.No,that’s not powerful enough..he’s a killer hawk with no conscience,who will destroy the enemy and give no quarter.I laugh when lefties call him a chicken hawk.Righto.Sure thing.

These are the type of guys needed when fighting scum bag terror Salafists who want to destroy our way of life,no?

So,my friend tell me:Who are the hawks on your side that you want backing you up:Kerry?Hillary?Exactly who can make the tough call during a world war?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 9, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #146669

Aldous Reminded Us:

Remember!!! The earth is 6,000 years old and Global Warming is not happening…

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of Little Minds…”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson


:oD


Posted by: Betty Burke at May 9, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #146684

SE,
Perhaps you dont know the definition of a chicken hawk. It is someone who has no qualms about starting war and sending others into battle but were afraid to fight as a soldier when they were young enough to qualify. I beleive Cheney got FIVE DEFERMENTS to get out of serving his country as a soldier. That is why he is a chicken. Now that he is old he wants to fight any country that he doesn’t like. That makes him a hawk. What don’t you understand about that?

“So,my friend tell me:Who are the hawks on your side that you want backing you up:Kerry?Hillary?Exactly who can make the tough call during a world war?”

Exuse me?? tough call during World war? News flash: there are no tough calls during a world war. Nuclear bombs and the fall out afterwards will kill us all. I do trust the dems you listed to make sure a world war never starts.

Posted by: Matthew at May 9, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #146687

>>I like Donald Rumsfeld.
Even though the logicial side of my brain screams at me that he has cost the President dearly in the polls,there is something about that junkyard dog that I love.
He’s the type of guy that you would want at your back in a barroom brawl.
Posted by Sicilian Eagle at May 8, 2006 10:27 PM

Sorry I’m so late…

How about the folks who depended on him when he deferred? Do you think their backs were protected?

Junk Yard Dog?

Let’s others fight his battles for him, and you think he’s been some sort of stubborn hero?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 9, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #146711

S.Eagle,

I hit your Eagle blog-stylings too heavy—my bad, a cheap shot (keep the blogs coming).

Who are my hawks, the generals and other high officials of the United States Armed Forces and the analysts that serve these United States of America. What I find missing is the diplomacy arm of this whole venture, our soft power that translates into allied forces across the board internationally. We are having a very hard time maintaining the good guy image we need to procure with some level of clout with both Europe and the Mideast in securing people internationally that we are indeed doing the right thing. Preemptive strikes, torture prisons, civillian street bombings and other such maneuvers are not condusive to that effect. Neither is an administration that is more set on it’s PNAC/Heritage Foundation wishlist than what is atleast from the outset expedient in more than a superficial show of “officialness”.

Cheney is what to us exactly? there is no actual record of exactly what he is due to his secrecy. But we can clearly see the President of the United States in New Orleans with a group of construction workers behind him all donning Halliburton hard hats. That says profiteer as does no bid contracts to the company of which he has millions of dollars in stock.

A killer or strategist, we don’t know that. He talks the war game but what end of the field does he play? He was a secretary of Defense, thus we assume he’s the big hawk. But there is little evidence of what he is other than VP and corporate wheel greaser.

What I think is actually scarier—George W. Bush is actually calling the shots. Not just in appointments—most of which were pretty crony-istic (though a few I like—including his most recent to the CIA and the Chief Justice). What does Dickie do—there’s speculation on all of it.

He talks like a hawk and you like that—needed in this time? probably, maybe I don’t know.

Here’s my thoughts about how to deal with the Arabs—A. first off start a REAL transition over to alternative fuel as that is pretty much their warchest. Have control of all of the Wahallah international banking—get it out of their hands pronto. Plead the case that their international banking cannot be trusted and then get into the Swiss banks and figure out who REALLY holds what. DRy up the well so they can’t draw water.

Part B. Cut off arms deals to Israel, not on ideological foundations but as a means to open up talks with Muslim nations. Talks can mean getting watchdogs in and finding out what is really going on and not just play it from the outside looking in, in alot of areas.

Part C. start making the case that Islam is a problem then move to start shutting down radical mosques slowly then on holydays such as ramadan. The US should not be playing respectful of Islam across the board entirely—play it like they do. They attack Muslims on holy days, to us that should not mean a day off anywhere, we can a play a bit unfair too.

THe real culprit of Wahabism is Saudi Arabia—the move to alternative fuels opens up a distressed dialogue that we COULD use to get those schools closed down and get control of that banking that funds Hamas and Fatah and others, that is a definite plus. Iran is the only other major funder (if there is such a word) of terror.

I agree we should dominate the region but to put all of our ducks in Iraq is a stupid chess move as it incapacitates us. I say turn Iraq into a military police action and start actually restoring things to win back some of our soft power. So we look like the restorers and the insurgeants as the enemy. They see us as people who keep them under tyrrany. Also kill Saddam as soon as feasibly possible they need to get rid of that reminder, seeing him every day speaking in his own defense and firing lawyers does nothing for the nation’s morale. WE are trying to make it not look like a kangaroo court but this elongated trial is too taxing. The photo of Saddam in his underwear that the US and Bush used was near imbicilic as we also need very much to GET RID OF THE HOMOSEXUAL INTIMIDATION TACTICS—that was the worst idea for our international image as was torture camps. WE may never rebound from that stigma, really. In other words they can always use that as a strike against us and we should have played smarter from the get-go.

The more I peruse this topic I find dozens upon dozens of things we are doing backasswards. THese are all administration policy ideas that are coming out of the Republican Party and we can’t win this unless we begin playing smarter chess given that it isn’t already too late to do so.

Hell in a handbasket is a good way of saying it and the republicans have the dumbest plays on the table I have ever seen—truly stupid.

Where are the remote cameras? Where is the face analyzing technology that police in the US use? How do we think we are going to win creating more enemies by bombing civillian tenaments and streets? The republicans must live in fantasyland if they think these are good tactics.

Posted by: Novenge at May 9, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #146719

>>At least I can say that our heroes died not in vain but rather for a noble and heroic cause.Sadly,I cannot say that about highway fatalities or homicides….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 9, 2006 04:55 PM

What is noble or heroic about this stupid, unnecessary Iraq thing?

Dying in war and dying on the highway in an accident the same??? Huh?!? Getting murdered by some home invader is the same as getting killed in a dishonorable melee? Wadju say? Apples and oranges anyone?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 9, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #146725

Eagle,

Also if you get a chance read Sun Tse’s Art of War—it should shed light on the Bush screw ups and how to use and cultivate soft power and image to ones advantage. If we get the Iraqi people’s backing that’s half the war right there especially in this scenario with terrorists. Restoration of normalcy is the key.

Posted by: Novenge at May 10, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #146735

Sicilian Eagle, your remarks about your article and the visitor response to it, reflect, in my opinion, the maturity and character of a WatchBlog writer I have come to respect highly. Your initiation into the fray was handled with the greatest of applomb. I tip my hat. Look forward to many more exchanges of views, history, and perspectives and debates in the future. WatchBlog is kept vital and extremely interesting by writers and debaters such as yourself.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #146760

David
Thank you for the kind words.All I gotta do is remember to spell check before I post and I’ll be ok I guess.

Marysdude
Hey!I was waiting for you to jump into the fray all day!But Rummy did in fact serve in the military!You have him confused with Cheney.Cheney was classified the same as Woody Allen 1-H. In case of war,he would be a hostage.
:)

Novenge
Terrific post and well thought out.I am working on a piece right now on Salafism and Islam but I want to wait a couple days before I post it because I don’t want to hog the whole side…just a rookie editor,you know!

Posted by: Sicilianeagle at May 10, 2006 7:01 AM
Comment #146764

Eagle,

I’m enjoying your posts, but this caught my eye:

“First,the “Mission Accomplished” thing is a joke…and has legs only because the politicial left and liberal press has made it so.We all know that that banner was placed there by the ship’s commander,and there isn’t any evidence that I know of that it was orchestrated by the White House.”

This is from cnn.com, 1 May 2006:

“Bush said the “Mission Accomplished” sign had been put up by the ship’s crew. But the White House later conceded that it produced and paid for the banner as part of the president’s visit.”

And:

“After the news conference, a White House spokeswoman said the Lincoln’s crew asked the White House to have the sign made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up, said the spokeswoman. She said she did not know who paid for the sign.”

And from Time Magazine, 1 Nov 2003:

“Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn’t put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles.”

So, will you retract that part of your comment?

Posted by: Arr-squared at May 10, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #146778

Arr-Squared

Welcome to the Eagle’s Nest.

I stand corrected if Bush knew about the sign and I will give him not a double-dork status for that but a quintuple-dork status instead.Happy?

Clearly that banner was a huge mistake…as well as his flight onto the ship.

I’ll tell you what:I think the weakest point with this admisistration is a complete lack of PR savy.Time and again,they have ended up with the shit end of the stick…and 99% of it self-induced.

As a Republician,I feel I am entitled to smack aroung the president when he pulls gaffs light this…however,in the scheme of things…that is the big picture..I like him.

Recall every American president in my lifetime(and I was born in 1950…I am 55 yrs old) had blundered some I think.

I just wish this guy would keep the blunders under 100 per month,that’s all.

I stand corrected.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 10, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #146840

You’re a good man, gunga din. Much obliged for the retraction.

Posted by: Arr-squared at May 10, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #146848

Sic,

It doesn’t bother you that they felt it necessary to lie for months about a banner?

This isn’t about PR, you and 30% still like them. This is about truth and reality seeming to have no place in this administration.

Posted by: Dave at May 10, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #146875

Sic Eagle, two of your statements above ring bells over here. First your stating the “banner” was a mistake. I would posit the banner was not near the mistake that Bush’s words on that ship were. He said major combat operations are over and we have been victorious. Those words were the real and HUGE mistake of thinking by our President who from the beginning failed to recognize what he had gotten us into - nation building and internal civil conflicts. For a president to not appreciate the lessons of Viet Nam, Yugoslavia, Somalia etc., that was the unforgiveable mistake. His ignorance and failure to do his homework were the mistake.

The second statement that rings bells, is when you say: “I think the weakest point with this admisistration is a complete lack of PR savy.”

This implies to me that his policies and actions were fine, he just didn’t spin them right. I would counter that if his policies and actions had been appropriate and responsible, Public Relations would not be necessary.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #146877

Sic Eagle: P.S. - my apology for the “you are an asset to WB” followed so quickly by, “but, your comments require rebuttal” :-). It’s just the nature of WatchBlog.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #146922

The more the left and the MSM b*tches and moans and insults Rummy, the more I like him.

Posted by: Slick at May 10, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #146956

David

No arguement here.Bush was beyond stupid on that ship…but I also blame his advisors too to be honest.In this day and age of statisticial this and statistical that and demographic this and dempgraphic that,I cannot believe the dumb advice he got about that ship thing.

On the PR thing,”they don’t buy the steak,they buy the sizzle”….Marketing 101.Had his advisers handled the “selling” of the war better,that is bringing it home to the American people in a way that fulfilled a certain comfort level,I think he would have been far better off.

Example:FRD has his Fireside Chats…Bush could have done something personal to connect himself to the American people.Instead he insulated himself with cockiness.

Recall David,I am saying this as a Bush supporter….the alternative of flip-flop Kerry was grossly inadequate though.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 10, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #146957

Rumsfeld is getting much of his support because people like his personality. Bullshit. His personality is his greatest liability. He’s picked the wrong time to go for smaller more mobile forces- in an occupation, you’re supposed to be bigger, more stationary. Otherwise it’s wild-goose-chase whack-a-mole time.

Worse, he’s also indulging his bureaucratic control freakiness, persuading or letting Bush dump the reconstruction and political control duties on an army not trained for that mission, instead of handing things over to the more competent State Department.

You folks like them not taking no for an answer, but unfortunately for them and us, sometimes no is the correct answer.

While having fast, mobile forces with high-tech equipment is nice, they’re not suited for every job, and they shouldn’t be forced to be that way either. We need to be aware of the situation and deal with it as it is, with the appropriate force, rather than get mired in doctrine.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #146995

>>Rummy did in fact serve in the military!You have him confused with Cheney.Cheney was classified the same as Woody Allen 1-H. In case of war,he would be a hostage.
:)
Posted by: Sicilianeagle at May 10, 2006 07:01 AM

When and where?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 10, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #147036

SE,

“On the PR thing,”they don’t buy the steak,they buy the sizzle”….Marketing 101.Had his advisers handled the “selling” of the war better,that is bringing it home to the American people in a way that fulfilled a certain comfort level,I think he would have been far better off.

I see, the reason America is finally waking up and giving the Prez the poll numbers he deserves, is not about Bushs incompetent leadership and short-sighted policies, it’s just the way he is presenting them. By that rationale if Hillary comes out with a dazzling looking campaign you would back her. No? But what if she fulfilled a certain comfort level for you?

If you are fooled by PR continue to watch FOX and don’t bother fact checking Limbaugh. Then during the commercials you go out and buy whatever is new and shinny on TV.

Something to consider: Watch what they DO not what they say.

Posted by: Matthew at May 10, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #147049

…espially with this new immigration distraction being thrown about.

Posted by: RGF at May 10, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #147062

Well said, Matthew. Hey, whatever happened to KCTim, he’s a veteran with an agenda. Come on Tim, chime in won’tcha? I thought sure those few comments above about Clinton starting the slimmed down war machine we have today would pull your chain, but nothing.

Posted by: ray at May 10, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #147092

se,

You wouldn’t come up with it, so here it is…WOW! I’m impressed and proud of this ‘junk yard puppy’…

>>Military service:
Rumsfeld served in the United States Navy from 1954 to 1957 as a Naval aviator and flight instructor
. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments
as a drilling reservist
until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975.

Posted by: Marysdude at May 10, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #147195

Marysdude,

As a liberal vet, I deplore your last post. Like or dislike Sec. Rumsfeld’s politics, he served his country with honor during a very tumultuous time.

He was a pilot and a flight instructor, and pretty much all officers wind up doing some staff duty over the course of their careers.

He did 3 years on active duty and 18 in the reserves - you should respect that.

Posted by: Arr-squared at May 11, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #147434

I don’t care if he was the Pope at one point in his life.

His response to the looting of the National Museum Of Iraq makes him Dishonourable in the extreme.

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 11, 2006 10:53 PM
Post a comment