Rummy's The Man

Dear Mr. President;

It’s your friend the Mighty Sicilian Eagle who has been very busy protecting your tail feathers from a cold left wing draft. I am pleased that you placed a private call this weekend to our pal Rummy backing him up. I like Rummy a lot and here’s why….

The major reason is, of course, that Rummy is the face of the War on Terror. He is the warrior. The original warrior. If he gets canned now, whoever replaces him cannot possibly wear the face of war as he does. We weaken ourselves against a foe who takes advantage of every possible nuance, perceived or imagined. He is bulletproof and many many people hear his message loud and clear.

Yes, he has made mistakes. Yes, there are a bunch of retired generals who want his hide. Yes, there are the prison Cuba and in Iraq. Yes, there are photos of moms and dads buying flack jackets for their sons and daughters because the brass at the Pentagon screwed up.

Frankly, that amounts to 7 points in the polls, minimum, and your bear the brunt of it, no question.

But you know what? Saddam hated his guts. Saddam's son's hated his guts. That scumbag Jordanian who got blown away last summer hated his guys. So do the rotting corpses of 4,000 foreign forces killed by US forces in Iraq...they hated his guts. Bin Laden and his sex partner, that Egyptian doctor, hate his guts. that Taliban Omar guy hates his guts. All the bad guys...they hate his guts.

The people who he is SUPPOSED to be killing hate his guts, Mr. President.

To me, that called doing his job.

Anyway, Cicero once said, "Let them long as they fear". While I don't normally go along with that statement all the time, (after all Cicero ended up beheaded, and had his tongue and hands nailed to the front door of the Forum), in this case it fits like a glove.

People who behead people, torture them with drills, meat-hook enemies, and do really medieval stuff are not human. They are a couple steps down the evolutionary ladder...a step or two above the monkey, but no more.

In other words, this type of enemy is an animal, an absolute animal incapable of reason or negotiation.

They must be killed one by one because if they don't, Mr. President, someday there will be hell to pay right here in America.

Thus, Rummy is my man. We stand our ground.

Who was it, Robert Louis Stephenson, I think who said: "You sometimes have to fight it out or perish. And if that be the case, why not here and now where we stand?"

We are like Custer now, Mr. President, surrounded by those who want us dead. The big difference now is that the mightiest military force in world history is at your beck and call, and they will obliterate the enemy if you allow them to do their job.

So, once we get the mid-terms out of the way (Those Democrats are something, aren't they? Foley is in alcohol rehab right now...alcohol bootlegged by Teddy Kennedy's family...I swear those Dems are always on the bottom of the pile), we can then focus on the task at hand which is killing the bad guys.

Your Friend,

The Mighty Sicilian Eagle

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at October 2, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #185780

State of denial? More like state of ignorance.

Posted by: john doe at October 2, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #185782


Sorry, but this doesn’t wash. It is appropriate you brought up General George Armstrong Custer, because I think the analogy applies. Rather than bravery, you have arrogance. Rather than military prowess, you have military foolishness and ineptitude.

From the start, when General Shinseki and General Jay Garner both said we needed significantly more troops to invade and occupy Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld ignored their counsel and has continually gotten it wrong. Now, military professionals formerly wearing stars on their collars are calling for Mr. Rumsfeld to be fired. Respectfully, I think these men like General Batiste have forgotten more about military tactics and strategy than you or I will ever know.

Mr. Rumsfeld is the oversized anchor on the Titanic. He is only making the ship sink faster.

You quoted Sun Tzu to me on one of my posts recently. I’ll return the favor as perhaps Rumsfeld and the President are just being coy…

“A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear incompetent. Though effective, appear ineffective.” - The Art of War.

Posted by: Dennis at October 2, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #185783

This is blind political loyalty in complete denial and rejection of the facts being revealed. And obviously you have a very low regard for our military commanders who have stepped up to the plate for our soldiers to condemn Rummie and his policies and notions which have needlessly killed and maimed more than every had to be.

I refer you for example to this WatchBlog article covering testimony of 3 such military commanders. This is just 3 of the latest, there have been many more along the way which you have already dismissed, obviously. These were the commanders on the Ground m while Rummy sat on his arrogant incompetent ass back in D.C.

You can’t have it both ways, S.E., both Rummy and our dozens of our military commanders and many more to come in the future, can’t both be right for their versions are contradictory in the extreme on far too many policy decisions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 2, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #185788

BTW, killing the “bad guys”? Are you advocating civil war in America now too? I mean so many Republicans view Democrats as the bad guys. Was this a Freudian slip?

Our military is not for killing the bad guys, they are for killing our enemies who seek to kill us. Might want to rethink that phrase there S.E., unless it was intended as stated.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 2, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #185792

Upon reflection Mighty Eagle, I think you have been playing us. One as erudite and worldy as you cannot possibly believe the ode to Rumsfeld that you penned. I think you were hoping to invoke bulging neck veins and raise the blood pressure of those of us suckers who believe Rumsfeld would make a believable Colonel Klink from Hogan’s Heroes. You were just playing with us right?

Posted by: Dennis at October 2, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #185797

So - Saddam hated Rumsfeld’s guts? Really?

Posted by: tony at October 2, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #185799

Bizarre coincidence: I start writing this comment and a song from techno group Boards of Canada comes on called An Eagle In Your Mind. Make of it what you will.

Anyways, I guess my response is you’re once again apologizing for the mediocrity of these so-called great men. It all seems to be encomiums for their brilliant personalities.

Brilliant personalities do not win wars. People who know what their doing, by reasons of experience, hard work at learning, or intuitive talent win wars, and they do so because something in them respects the reality, and doesn’t cocoon itself in pleasant illusions.

If Rumsfeld we truly worthy of his job, we would not still be fighting the Taliban, and the Iraq war, if it had ever started to begin with, would have been over by now.

You shall know the tree by its fruits, and those of this man’s tenure are sour and bitter indeed. Results matter more than intentions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 2, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #185803

Mighty Sicilian Eagle, I am on your side.

I doubt there is anyone that can fulfill the next 2 plus years that has convictions about winning the war.

Like you pointed out Rumsfeld has made management mistakes for a civilian Secretary of Defense. It is too late now, however in 2004 Rumsfeld should have been replaced. I can’t imagine by who that has the same sincerity, but he should have been replaced in 2004.

Now in 2006 the Bush Administration has to deal with the political realities of a lame duck President and the projected legacy that Administration leaves behind.

Yeah I know idealists say that shouldn’t matter, however every President in the 20th century leading to the present has made their legacy a point that Americans will eventually have a favorable memory.

Truman was disliked while in office, he is loved by historians now (actually that may begin to waver - that’s another story). Why else do you think Clinton gets so upset when his anti-terrorist record is spoken of? It is all about the legacy.

Posted by: Theway2k at October 2, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #185807

David, there are thousands upon thousand of active and retired military commanders out there.

And any one of them who wants to attack Rumseld will be given a giant megaphone by the media to do so. If there were 300 instead of 3, it would still be a drop in the bucket which did not represent the consensus of either the rank and file or officer corps of our armed forces.

And you and I both know that any military commander or dozen military commanders who support Rumsfeld or Bush are not going to get the front page treatment enjoyed by the critics.

Rumsfeld himself put it best:

“The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views,” he said. “But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round.”

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 2, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #185813

And you and I both know that any military commander or dozen military commanders who support Rumsfeld or Bush are not going to get the front page treatment enjoyed by the critics.

Rumsfeld himself put it best:

“The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views,” he said. “But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round.”

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 2, 2006 10:07 PM

I don’t see the generals supporting Rumsfeld crawling out of the wood work and I’m fairly certain there are avenues for them to do so. I do believe Fox, CNN and just about every popular conservative talk show would be proud to put the SecDef’s supporters on the air. I think the reality of this is they know it’s because the reality of the situation is bad, and no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it ain’t gonna be pretty.

Posted by: Dennis at October 2, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #185815

The mighty eagle flip flops.

SE posted 6/18/06 on Watchblog

“The president should call this guy and lay it out to him in no uncertain terms. He should also call the Defense Secretary and put a blow-torch to his ass too. As they say in the military, “shit rolls downhill”, and a whip has to be cracked by the president now.

I am the biggest supporter of the president and his policies…..most of you know that. However, his “advisers” have to step to the plate and produce for him now, and they have to be told in no uncertain terms that this time they better get results, or they will be gone”

How eagle have things gotten better?

Posted by: 037 at October 2, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #185814

In the military, you delegate authority, but not responsibility. People who serve know this. Sometimes it seems harsh, especially by civilian standards. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld is responsible for the following:
1. Failure of Air Force fighters to scramble in a timely manner on 9/11. Anyone who has ever served in the Air Force knows that was inexcusable. As Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld had the responbility for the military response. I know this one seems unfair, but when it comes to responsibility in the military, fair has nothing to do with it.
2. Diverting military resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, from the pursuit of Bin Laden & Al Qaida. This was a strategic error of huge proportions.
3. Lying- let me repeat that word- lying about the existence of WMDs in Iraq. We all know the quote. He knowlingly lied to the American people in an effort to convince us to go to war.
4. Failing to plan for a post-war Iraq. His negligence on this count buggers the imagination. He is responsible. I will never, ever understand how this could have happened. Really. I just do not understand how the US military could allow itself to follow such gross mismanagement.
5. Abu Ghraib. His policies stained our honor.

It has been a disastrous performance.

Posted by: phx8 at October 2, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #185817

A quote from the National Security Archives

Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford’s defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish “direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein,” while emphasizing “his close relationship” with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.’s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq’s oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran’s ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].

Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, “the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests.”

Posted by: 037 at October 2, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #185818


Nope. Been pretty consistent on the guy. But YES, the president, as is within his right and should crack the whip on Rummy and the crew all the time. That’s his job.


If Shinksi had his way, and more troops were on the ground (about 350,000 to 450,000 was the number as I recall), there would be a LOT MORE dead and wounded, I think. Corruption, greed,a legitimate division on federalism, and profound religious differences are fueling the conflict now. Shinski was wrong. I see the major mistake being made by Breemer when he took down the Iraqi army and poof went the mid-level officer corps.

David R. Reemer

Nope don’t think so. Loyal (is that a sin?), yes. Blind? Nope. We see the prosecution of the war differently, that’s all. Plus I said it right too about killing the bad guys, but I do object to you saying Dems are bad guys. Misguided, yes. Brainwashed, yes. But all in all, all loyal Americans…even..gulp…Ted Kennedy. However, a son of a bitch is necessary to win this thing. Can you name one tough son of a bitch on the democratic side that you would like at your back on a Saturday night at a biker bar? I can’t. Wuuses, by and large, I think. Weak.


While the Mighty Eagle does raise blood pressure occasionally, he really likes Rummy. Me and his wife, I think, but hey, I”m a loyal guy.

Stephen Daughtery

“encomiums” positively a great word. Bravo. Nominated for the word that most bloggers have to look up. Bravo.

As far as being in your mind…. :) but I do have a lovely girlfriend. :)


My intellectual friend. Your post requires thought. Not that I agrree, rather thought as to an appropriate response.

Blaming Rummy for 9/11 is akin to blaming the president for Katrina.

:) Gotcha. Seriously, I will frame a proper response to you shortly.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 2, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #185819

Dennis, we do know things, however, like the fact that those in our military supported Bush 4-1 over Jonh Kerry in 2004, which definitely tells us that there is is silent majority in the military that supports the decisions Bush makes in relation to the war, including his staff appointments.

As for Rumsfeld and the attacks against him, we’re talking about a very small handful of former officers.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 2, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #185830

Neo-Con Pilsner

Just how many former officers do we actually have?

I wonder how many former or current officers are against Rummey verses those who have spoken in favor of Rummey? Does anyone know?

Posted by: Linda H. at October 3, 2006 12:46 AM
Comment #185833

Pilsner said: “David, there are thousands upon thousand of active and retired military commanders out there.”

Yep, thousands anyway. Those who are active are prohibited by the USCMJ from speaking out against the commander in chief in a public forum unless under subpeonae or unless, they have concrete evidence that USCMJ laws were broken. (Even that is highly risky). So, don’t count on active duty or reserve officers to flock to the NYT to report their misgivings of the Commander in Chief or his appointees to which they answer. That is simple true on its face, as well as based on my 3.5 years in the Army. Folks in the services are just people afterall, with families, careers, and incomes to worry about, and even in the military, or rather, especially in the military, it takes a rare form of courage to balk the chain of command out of principle.

The military does a fine job of convincing you that if they want you to have principles, they will give you the ones they want you to have as regards you duty life.

M.Gen. Batiste was up for another star on his shoulder, and turned it down instead for retirement so that he could be free to speak the truth to power, which so many of you can barely comprehend as a courageous act of sacrifice.

As an employee of the 5th largest insurance co. in America at the time, I fought the company on overtime without pay for almost a year, finally having to resort to surreptitious access to their computer printouts of employees hours. The company made my continuation there unpleasant and made it abundantly clear I had no future for promotion or transfer within that company. I won the case, the company to this day does not permit overtime without pay. I quit shortly thereafter to move on to a path with a future.

It takes a special kind of person to stick themselves out against a huge organization like that with its high priced attorneys and Ph.D’s in human resources, as a lone individual knowing they will bring the full weight of the organization down on you if you leave any opening for them to do so.

So, you might want to give some respect to our soldiers who seek to stand up against reckless and dangerous power that endangers their comrades in arms. Or, are you going to be a typical partisan and respect only those soldiers who mimic your preferences and drothers?

They risk a lot in speaking out for the goal of victory and safeguarding their comrades in arms. You risk nothing denigrating them for little more than your participation as a cheerleader for political team sport called elections. I will take their word and courage over your paltry comments, anyday.

Having been in the service, I respect our soldiers, all of them - those who believe in Bush’s and Rummy’s competence and those who don’t, alike. They have earned that respect whether I agree with them politically or not, and they deserve to be listened to and believed as sincere when they choose to speak publicly - they have earned that right.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2006 1:16 AM
Comment #185834

Don’t forget me Eagle. I hate his guts too. Do you call what I pasted below doing one’s job? I don’t.

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The State Department’s disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don’t remember the warning.

One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a “10 on a scale of 1 to 10” that “connected the dots” in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again.

Posted by: Max at October 3, 2006 1:27 AM
Comment #185836

SE, I had army buddies that were and are liberals to this day, one even a Conscientious Objector. I would rely on them to cover my back in a heartbeat if the the need were real and justified. I wouldn’t ask them to risk covering my back on something as flimsy as going into a biker bar looking for fight. Perhaps you would. That might be a difference between us.

I respect my friends and would not seek their protection for fun or sport or my own insecurities. The Coscientious Objector, one of the bravest guys I ever met in the Army. He took crap and hostilities I would not have been able to endure, and his pride and confidence were never shaken. He was amazing. He still is amazing having just returned S. Africa as a medical technician working with Aids patients. Guts, he could teach you and I a thing or two about guts.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #185843

The post, in a nutshell:

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

How very sicilian of you.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 3, 2006 2:29 AM
Comment #185848


On the Custer analogy, two words;

Little Bighorn.

Posted by: Rocky at October 3, 2006 4:50 AM
Comment #185851

Kevin 23

Ummm…That’s a Muslim saying, not a Sicilian one. The “Sicilian” method would have solved the problem five years ago.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 3, 2006 5:48 AM
Comment #185871

Ummm…That’s a Muslim saying, not a Sicilian one. The “Sicilian” method would have solved the problem five years ago.


By throwing a little tomato sauce on it?

Posted by: tree hugger at October 3, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #185872

Great post! Only bitch I have about Rummy is he should of listened to that general that retired about the size of the force needed in Iraq. We probably wouldn’t of lost so many people had we listened to him?

Posted by: Michael C Bonacci at October 3, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #185878

Is it me or did a post bitching about Ahmidajubi from SE disappear already?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 3, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #185879

Tree Hugger

Throwing a little sauce? Good one. I ‘ll tell my Sicilian friends that one next time I see them…then duck…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 3, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #185881


People who behead people, torture them with drills, meat-hook enemies, and do really medieval stuff are not human. They are a couple steps down the evolutionary ladder…a step or two above the monkey, but no more.

Call Darwin. Because he was right.
Call ID believers. Because they’re wrong.
Call medieval history experts. Because they’re not studying human history but monkeys.

And so long for human rights universallity.

In other words, this type of enemy is an animal, an absolute animal incapable of reason or negotiation.

How ironic (and wrong) to call these horrific behavior animals’s ones when, clearly, no animal species do such thing.

No animal except man.

we can then focus on the task at hand which is killing the bad guys.

Yeah-ah. Go America!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 3, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #185882


4. Failing to plan for a post-war Iraq. His negligence on this count buggers the imagination. He is responsible. I will never, ever understand how this could have happened. Really. I just do not understand how the US military could allow itself to follow such gross mismanagement.

Rummy didn’t failed to plan for a post-war Iraq. He REFUSE to have any.
And he threated to fire any US military senior officials asking or pushing one.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 3, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #185885

“Bin Laden and his sex partner, that Egyptian doctor, hate his guts.”

Was I the only one who noticed this and was a little disturbed? As far as I know, there is no evidence that Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri (I believe that is who you were referencing) were sexual partners. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, homosexual relations are just as taboo in Islamic law as they are in Christian; so why would a couple of militant fundamentalists have homosexual relations? Based on this, I can only assume you were making a cheap shot, an innapropriate, highly insulting one. Calling someone gay is not an insult, it just degrades you yourself. Regardless of party lines or political beliefs I think this statement of yours was ignorant and hateful beyond belief.

As for Rumsfeld: I agree that it is often a bad idea to change horses while in the saddle, but when the horse you’re riding is lame then, if you still plan on winning, it might be time to switch regardless of the risks. Rumsfeld has screwed up a bunch. Of course, he isn’t all bad, but in our system if you’re failing more often than succeeding at your job, you’re supposed to be replaced.

Posted by: alefnought at October 3, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #185890

“Uncle Dick, Uncle DIIICK! Come in here. I got another piece of fan mail”.

Dick Cheney: ” Is it from Barbara?”

George: “Heh heh nooo, some guy named the Sicilian Eagle.”

Dick Cheney: (speak out of side of mouth for effect)
“Sicily a, the jewel in the Moorish Crown.”

Posted by: Justin Anderson at October 3, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #185892


You just caught on to one of the numerous prejudices of the typical modern day republican and their (not-so) subtle inclusion into their rhetoric. Let’s not forget about the pulled post, while we’re at it.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 3, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #185900

I for one consider it highly plausible that Woodward got it right that Bush resisted firing Rumsfeld because to do so would essentially be a public admission that the Bush administration has failed. Rumsfeld is not where the buck stops. If Bush truly was a man of honor, he would have resigned by now.

Posted by: Trent at October 3, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #185903

Rumsfeld means well, but he didn’t just make a few minor mistakes. He allowed politics to shape military policy, instead of military conditions. Primarily, despite much debate about it, Bush and Rumsfeld refused to provide sufficient troops to get the job done correctly (i.e. trying to fight it “on-the-cheap” to reduce the negative publicity, to reduce the risk of losing public support, and misjudging that it could be done “on-the-cheap”), and minimized the focus on Afghanistan, where the Taliban and other terrorists still exist.

Those two things are significant miscalculations, among many others. There are blunders in every war, but these two blunders were pointed out early on, and Bush and Rumsfeld still resisted the validity of it for a very long time. Only now, are more troops being considered.

Hindsight is 20/20, but that’s not the case here, despite the attempts to use that excuse. Warnings and advice (in advance, and subsequent to the predicted outcomes) were ignored for political reasons.

When politicians took over, then began a long series of mistakes, blunders, bad judgments, and incompetence.

And monetary co$t can’t be used as an excuse (despite the attempts to call the Democrats obstructionists while many Democrats actually went along with the spending; not wanting to be guilty of under-funding our troops; i.e. tying the troops’ hands behind their back), since Congress has enough money to vote on all sorts of pork-barrel, corporate welfare, graft, raises and perk$ for themselves, and massive waste each year.

Bush can’t fire Rumsfeld, because that would be admitting a mistake, and not admitting a mistake is more important than anything else.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 3, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #185918


This is the funniest thing I’ve ever read from you.
You’re being sarcastic…..right?

Using your logic I will attempt to defend Elmer Fudds’hunting prowess, because he is always seen with a gun. He makes alot of mistakes but the fact that he keeps trying diminishes those mistakes.
How many times does he have to have an obvious rabbit in drag trick him into shooting himself in the ass?
Rumsfeld is an idiot.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 3, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #185924


Nahh…I hate the guy, and his sex partner too. Take it any way you want. As an attorney, I am ofetn asked if I would defend Bin Laden if he wer ever caught. The answer is yes…just so I can get close enough to him to strangle him. See? I want to marginalize the guy, riducule him, and haven’t the slighest bit..not even one sintilla..of being PC with him. I( din’t call hi gay either…you did..if I called him gay, then I would be insulting the gay comunity. Substitute a dog in the place of the Egyptian…same effect.

Phillipe Hudon

According to Konrad Lorenz’s book “On Aggression”…man and rats are the only two species that kill for reasons other than hunger.


Thanks, but really, I mean it. I love the idiot then. Testicular fortitude…it’s all about testicular fortidude..and that is what Rummy has.
Name one Dem with that quality…one…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 3, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #185929

“…it’s all about testicular fortitude..and that is what Rummy has.”

Eagle, does that mean he thinks with his privates instead of his generals?

It would appear so. Hence, the mess he’s gotten us into and can’t get us out of.

I’m okay that you like him personally, but how can you possibly defend him professionally?


Posted by: mister maggo at October 3, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #185945

Name one: How ‘bout these guys?

Charles Brown - California 4th District - 26-year career in USAF; jet and helicopter pilot; recently retired as Lt. Colonel

Patrick Murphy - Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District

Bryan Lentz - Pennslyvania’s 7th Congressional District

David Harris - Texas 6th Congressional District

David Ashe - Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District

Andrew Duck - Maryland 6th Congressional District
Website at

Eric Massa - New York’s 29th District

Tim Dunn - North Carolina’s 8th Congressional District

I’ll skip the obvious repug punching bags you guys love to slime.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 3, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #185952

Gee SE, I usually like your post even though I don’t agree with the majority of them, but this one must have come out of nowhere.
Going back to George Custer(you know Custer had a chance to take Gatlin Guns with him and he said they would slow him down)arrgoant commander who lead the 7th Cav to their death, but wait Rummey and Bush are doing the same now with american service members.

Add me to the list that hates Rummey, and I had to work under him when he was SecofDef the first time and he was just as arrgonant

Posted by: KT at October 3, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #185953

I appreciate your comments…always do. I feel that Rummy has become the flash point to the mid-terms and needed a little bucking up, that’s all.

Custer was a piece of work, wasn’t he? One of the more colorful historical figures of the post Civil War period.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 3, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #185955

I thought that Sicilys principal claims to fame were the Mafiosa and the primitive concept of vendetta, even through the generations.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 3, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #185958

Testicular Fortitude????
You mean his balls have
“Power to resist attack; strength; firmness”????
since when does the ablities of one’s genitals to resist attack qualify one to lead (direct from the rear??) our nation’s finest??

However Having “Balls” and having ones brains reside there are two different things
Rummy only has brains in his testicular fortitude.
He’s an idiot and I’m glad you have a fondness for the intellectually challenged.

Rummy will be right — and by God he will show “them” he’s right — even if it takes every ounce of our son’s and daughter’s (not his of course)blood.

(Intestinal fortitude is normally the phrased used to hint that a person has “guts” i.e courage — however what some perceive as “guts” is actually stupidity, stubborness or a combination thereof — a mule can stare down the barrel of a rifle and not flinch — “guts” or ignorance??)

However you wish to define it — Rummy does not possess courage, guts, intestinal fortitude, nor “balls”.
When a person is in a position of power, and uses and abuses that position, it takes neither courage, nor guts, nor any other commendable attribute to strong arm your opinion position thru your underlings.
The Generals that are now publically calling for Rummy’s resignation, and are revealing the “inconvenient truth” are the ones with courage, they are standing up to a force much greater than themselves and are risking substantial sacrifice in order to do so — Rummy is not risking anything by his behaviour — in his position it would be the courageous thing to do to publically admit his mistakes and shortcomings and to admit that a change in course is called for in order to succeed.
But he is too cowardly and fearful to do that.
Rummy does not even have the courage to admit that the originally planning and troop sizes were all his doing — He lays the “credit” to the Generals — saying that they were the ones to plan and determine the size of the force needed.
Coward coward coward
fearfull, lying, slinking dog - This whole adminstration is FILLED with these lowlife people — so it is no suprize that he follows that mold.

By the way, I still love the Right Wing head in sand position of you Bush Administration defenders (cheerleaders??)
Over the entire 5 years of the administration these guys have been caught — ON TAPE — LYING
In fact I watch Meet the Press, just so I can watch Rummy deny having said something, only to be shown a video tape of him having said the exact thing he denies saying — and AFTER viewing the video, he continues to DENY having said that!!!
You echo the talking points — seemingly totally unaware (or unconcerned??) that today’s “line” totally contradicts yesterday’s “line of the day” — and do it without cracking a smile!!
(And you get totally indignant over Clinton????)

Posted by: Russ at October 3, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #185960


You make it seem like Rummy’s the one with the balls. All I’ve been hearing in all the reports and books coming out lately is that Rumsfeld can’t make up his mind about anything. He’s being called incompetent by those under him, to the sides of him, diagonal, and every which way but above. Its true what they say: great leadership starts at the top. We don’t have it.

If Rummy had any balls at all he would have had Bin Laden, he would have attacked the funeral procession, put more soldiers in Afganistan and Iraq, etc. etc. etc.

No more wishful thinking about giant Rummy Balls…the B.S. detector is off the charts.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 3, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #185988


The proverb is not sicilian…fair enough. But if you are now resorting to logic that originated with the very people Rummy is so consistently befuttled by to explain that his failures (especially in misunderstanding the arab mind) are really a benefit to America, then I think you’ve already lost the battle of rhetoric.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 3, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #186010

Kevin 23

Whoa…hold on…YOU brtought up the quote..I corrected you..PLUS no one ever loses…we see things differently that’s all.


Looit…Rummy has turned the Pentagon upside down…transforming it (or trying to anyway) from one of the world’s biggest most expensive boondoggles to a pretty efficient place.

Fisrt he had to clean house with a lot of cold war era generals who fought him tooth and nail on transforming the military into a lighter, more mobile fighting force. As a result, he stepped on toes…and cut careers short. Now, they are taking pot shots at him. That’s how it goes.

Paul in Euroland

Trying to draw me out? Antoine Scalia is a Sicilian, as were three popes. Palermo was the cultural capital of all of Europe under the Normans. The unification of Italy began when Girabaldi and his band of 1000 started from Marsala, in southweatern Sicily.Some of the greatest advancements in the arts, medicine,philosophymathematics and the sciences were made by Sicilians. Archimedes was Sicilian, for Pete’s sake,I could go on and on, but you get the point.

Plus, the real Mafia….there and here…are the politicans…never forget that.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 3, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #186027
transforming it (or trying to anyway) from one of the world’s biggest most expensive boondoggles to a pretty efficient place
Bullshit on an amazing scale. Once again you ignore inconvenient facts, like the fact that 10 of 11 Iraq vets running for national office this cycle are running as DEMOCRATS. Yet to you, none of then have any “balls”. You also credit Rummytard with refocusing the pentagon into an efficient place. You mean a place that lost about $10000000000 in unaccounted for Iraq funds.

You clearly know nothing of history when you ignore the refocus efforts on post-cold-war realities by Bush I and Clinton. You clearly have no respect for military experience when you summarilty discount actual generals to support the architect of a complete tactical and strategic failure. To hell with real soldiers, eh?

Desperate times for GOP Cheerleaders, is it not?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 3, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #186032

d.a.n said: “Rumsfeld means well, but he didn’t just make a few minor mistakes. He allowed politics to shape military policy, instead of military conditions.”

That is by far the most succinct and true statement about Rumsfeld I have ever read. Well done, Dan.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #186051

Hmmm. The enemy hates Rumsfeld. That means we should keep him. Good rationale. Saddam hated bin Laden too. Perhaps bin Laden should be secretary of defense. Let’s find out who bin Laden hates the most. They could be our next President.

The fact is, not only do our enemies hate Rumsfeld, but so does the majority of the American people. So do many of our retired and active officers. The guy is pretty much universally hated. Sounds like grounds for a promotion to me.

Posted by: Stan at October 3, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #186078


I did bring up the quote, but you applied it and I found it ironic…that’s all. I gotta say, man, you’re trusting nature and way of overgeneralizing until you find some truth that works for you is really dunbfounding. I actually enjoy your emotion on subjects, and I’d be the first to admit that of all the posters on WB, I’d prefer to have you in a foxhole. BUT…defending Rumsfeld is paramount to jumping out of that foxhole at a critical time and charging a wall of machine gun fire with only the American Flag in your hands.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 3, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #186095


According to Konrad Lorenz’s book “On Aggression”…man and rats are the only two species that kill for reasons other than hunger.

You’re right. Man and rats. How telling, isn’t it?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 4, 2006 3:52 AM
Comment #186102

Konrad Lorenz has virtually NO respect in the psychology community. He was a hack from start to finish with his theories of human behavior based on innate aggression and perversion as a natural state.

Besides, we now know chimps, elephants, and many other animals kill for reasons having nothing to do with hunger. I read about a pit bull that killed its own kind for sport! Male Elephants rampage villages due to homornal changes and lack of space.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 4, 2006 6:59 AM
Comment #186107

Dave1-20-09 and Stan

So, how do you account for 34 million pre-Iraq invasion when you are paying for hard intel like special ops did? You ask for a receipt? No. You give it out…bribe. Then because you don’t have receipte, the whole 34 million gets thrown in the “unaccounted” pile by some bean counter.

Is Iraq corrupt? You betcha. Totally. Corruption and bribery go hand in hand with that way of life over there.

I don’t discount active gerenals or inactive generals either. I know scores of returning vets. Almost to a man they support the president and the mission. What was the percentage of military support for the president in the last election…something like 85% right? Give me a break.


I like Lorenz. He influenced Becker who created the whole “Deviant Behavior” model used to this day in Sociology, so maybe he not such a big crack pot after all.Surely you agree that something in “man” makes him kill for no reason. Tell me what it is.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 4, 2006 8:00 AM
Comment #186130

David, SE,

Still, no animal species do torture but man.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 4, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #186136

Phillippe Houdoin

Believe me, torture is not an Arab invention. European culture was defined by torture for thousands of years. The Romans crucified and beheaded. The English drew and quartered…you get the picture.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 4, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #186157

Now SE, those that you know that served in Iraq might support bush, but I know 2 that would like to see him impeached and rummney fired. One is my son who was in Iraq twice, another is one I work with. My son was in at the start and says all we did was stir up a hornets nest (actually he says it in more vulgar terms about iraq, bush,dummy, and the us army).
Who would I believe…certainly not bush or dummey

Posted by: KT at October 4, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #186168


I took my children to the local Fair this summer.
My 10 year old son says to me as we were walking around. “Hey dad, look at the size of the balls on that elephant.” I laughed and tried to change the subject before my 6 year old daughter felt compelled to chime in, but I was too late. She said “Billy from my class calls them nuts.” After 2 minutes of listening to my children go on about balls and nuts I finally said “alright enough, let’s discuss another topic.” We giggled and eventually changed the subject.
My point is that that elephant would probably not make a good government official and only children and extremely immature people would focus so much emphasis on testicular fortitude, cahones, balls and or as Billy calls em, “nuts.”
You cannot dismiss incompetence, cultural ignorance and an abnormal hatred for reality and call is “ballsy.”
See Elmer Fudd

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 4, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #186473

So Sic,

34 million. What about the remaining 9966000000? Besides the fact that those 34mil are “accounted for” funds, your trying to sound like Rummy and answering questions by redirecting with your own questions doesn’t work. Good try though; to redirect “$10 billion unaccounted for” with “Is Iraq corrupt? You betcha” then lie about Bushie support with pulled-out-of-your-or-Lumbaughs-ass numbers.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 5, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #186561

Ah..; its befitting such a war-sodden man that he can’t be held down as long as he has his bottle of ‘Jack D.’ in his hands…

Posted by: Zena at October 5, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #186606

Oh, I forgot to remind you of the fact that 10 of 11 Iraq vets running for congress are running as Democrats. So I guess your “scores” of vets means you just don’t know Democrats.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 6, 2006 12:11 AM
Post a comment