December 08, 2004
Rumsfeld should be fired.
When questioned by an Army specialist about why our troops are being observed searching through Iraqi dumps for armor for their vehicles, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said “you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want”. That is an outrageous statement under the circumstances. If Iraq had attacked American soil or one of our allies, or posed an imminent threat which Bush denies he ever claimed, then a nation must go to war with the Army it has. But, this was an entirely elective war. Pres. Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld decided on the date to invade and they chose to invade before our troops and equipment were ready.
It is clear we did not have enough troops for the job. It is clear the Bush administration failed to plan well for the insurgency, infrastructure rebuilding, and apparently had no plan in place initially to win over the hearts and minds of the people. In all, the Iraq war was very poorly timed; our troops were not adequately supplied yet. It is also obvious that someone in the Administration authoritatively decided Iraq would not be like Viet Nam and thus threw out the window all the lessons learned from Viet Nam, like how important it is to win over the hearts and minds of the people, and how overwhelming force is required in guerilla warfare to be successful.
For Rumsfeld to make such an asinine statement as he did, reflects that he still has not learned the vitally important lessons Viet Nam taught, and which Iraq should have taught. That spells extreme danger for America, when the Secretary Of Defense is not able to learn from experience; failing to learn from experience costs American soldiers lives. And this administration is responsible for quite a few. The troops loudly applauded the specialist who asked that embarrassing question, and I am very proud of our troops on this day. Rumsfeld should be fired !!!
Posted by David R. Remer at December 8, 2004 04:41 PMYeah, he certainly sounded like an ass out there. And I would trade every cabinet resignation so far for his.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 8, 2004 04:26 PMDavid,
Anyone that belives themselves incapable of making a mistake is either a liar, or a fool.
Rumsfeld, on the other hand, seems to be both
Hmmmm. Perhaps.
I’m not going to try to defend Rumsfeld, but if he doesn’t try hard to fix the
problem ASAP, then he should be fired.
But, there are so many in Congress who are much more culpable and much less accountable.
Congress has approved most of what is happening, and could have prevented it.
They may have been distracted though.
“Power is a seductive thing,” says former Minnesota Democratic Rep. Tim Penny. “It’s hard to remain a purist,” he says. “Fear is another factor”, Penny adds, noting that many members of Congress strongly believe they will jeopardize their re-election chances if they don’t bring home the bacon, a concern Penny calls “overrated.”
So why do they still do it?
The hypocrisy of Congress is mind boggling.
And, while troops go without armor and the truly needy go without,
Congress continues pork-barrel spending.
Especially when you consider some of this pork;
Your tax dollars hard at work:
(1) Congress votes itself a raise (and then made raises automatic thereafter)
(2) $57,000 for gold embossed playing cards for AirForce2
(3) $202,500 for the National Cherry Festival in Michigan (Can’t the cherry industry handle this?)
(4) $180,000 for renovations to the Mercado Shopping Center in Guadalupe, Ariz.
(5) $750,000 for the Baseball Hall of Fame
(6) $7 million for exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners (What’s this ?)
(7) $214 million for designated “emergency” spending;
(8) $150,000 to determine what the “federal interest” is for a project in Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Why is $150,000 necessary to determine if the federal government should care about a specific project?
(9) $1 million to bring professional productions of Shakespeare to U.S. military bases (I bet they’ll love that)
(10) $5 million for the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center in Columbia, S.C.$5 million for the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center in Columbia, S.C.
(11) $500,000 for buses for Anaheim Resort Transit, which serves The Walt Disney Co.
(12) The Hall of Shame Award to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) “for his 23 years of pork barreling at taxpayers’ expense.”
(13) an $8 million tax break for makers of bows and arrows.
(14) $189 million for General Motors dealers who sell Oldsmobiles
(15) $250,000 to build an amphitheater at a park in Illinois
(16) $220,000 to the Blueberry Hill Farm in Maine for renovations
(17) $175,000 to a city in Missouri for the painting of a mural on a flood wall.
(18) $200,000 to the West Oahu campus of the University of Hawaii to produce the “Primal Quest” film documentary
(19) $900,000 for renovation of the Plaza Theater in El Paso
(20) $190 million for a bridge to nowhere ( http://www.taxpayer.net/awards/goldenfleece/6-03gravina/index.htm )
(21) Pork Hall of Shame
Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.) and the groundhog Punxsutawney Phil as the December Co-Porkers of the Month for jointly defending a $100,000 federal grant for the Punxsutawney Weather Discovery Center. After CAGW singled out the project as one of the prime examples of pork in the budget-busting 2005 omnibus bill, the storm of media attention must have woken Phil from his winter slumber, because he traveled all the way from Punxsutawney to defend the project alongside Rep. Peterson and AccuWeather CEO Barry Myers at a press conference today on Capitol Hill.
President George W. Bush “To achieve these great national objectives - to win the war, protect the homeland and revitalise our economy - our budget will run a defict that will be small and short term so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a fiscally responsible manner.” — January 30, 2002
Detroit News “What sense is there in Michigan taxpayers sending so many billions of dollars to Washington if the money just gets sent back minus a big bite for bureaucratic overhead?”— March 14, 2001Posted by: Daniel at December 8, 2004 05:22 PM
I’m not going to try to defend Rumsfeld, but if he doesn’t try hard to fix the problem ASAP, then he should be fired.See, there’s the rub of it. Rumsfeld’s idea of “transformation” of the US military (which should involve newer, superior jets like the F-22, which was cancelled, a different global deployment stance, and a new focus on urban warfare and security in basic training) has mandated smaller, lighter-armed and lighter-armored forces that rely on information to armor themselves. Originally, the Pentagon wanted to take Iraq with just 30,000 troops, most of those special forces without any US-supplied mobility, much less under-armored Humvees. They’d replace this with laser-guidance systems and backpack-mounted computers with which to link to CentCom. Rumsfeld has not only done little to help, but he’s actively worked to further the problem and destroy the Powell doctrine for military engagement. He really, really needs to go, but his ideas are well in step with Bush’s, and so he’ll stay. Posted by: Nick Mason at December 8, 2004 05:38 PM
Nick,
All this tech is worthless with out a human brain to command it, Rumsfelds mistake is his relience on technology.
This quote is from President Eisenhower’s farewell address.
The entire speach can be read here.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
“Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence ? economic, political, even spiritual ? is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
What was the saying, “Those who do not remember history are bound to repeat it”?
I think Rumsfeld should have fallen on his sword a long time ago. Whether he was right or not, it would have helped and I certainly think he should have gone before Powell. Other than this, however, I got no dog in this fight.
Posted by: jack at December 8, 2004 06:26 PMThose Soldiers only have themselves to blame. They re-elected Bush and now they must pay the price for their lack of vision. They deliberately chose a Draft Dodger for crying out loud! I say they lost the right to complain when they put Dubya back in office.
Look on the bright side. In a year, they will be restarting the Draft. FRESH MEAT!!!
Aldous.
Rummy will only be fired when it is politically expedient to do so. He supports Bush’s War President vision, so he will only go when Bush begins to see his political world collapsing around him.
Come next year, after the major coup in Iraq, and the next American attack by Al Qaeda, and Bush can no longer blame Bill Clinton, we will watch as W scrambles to preserve his “legacy”
Posted by: Greg at December 8, 2004 09:02 PMRocky - So many read Washington’s Farewell Address as though it were equally applicable today as it was when it was made, when the US was a tiny, economically insigificant country cowering at Europe’s fringes. Too bad they don’t read Eisenhower’s, which (though I disagree at points) is at least more relevant to today’s environment.
Posted by: Nick Mason at December 8, 2004 09:03 PMNick,
I couldn’t agree more. It’s amazing to me that we revere our founders more than the numerous great men that came after them.
It is as if statesmanship died with Lincoln.
Eisenhower saw this country through some of the most tumultuous times this country has ever seen, yet his Presidency seems to only be a footnote in American history.
Shame on us.
Posted by: Rocky at December 8, 2004 09:24 PMSuch poisonous partisanship. Tsk tsk.
Rumsfeld could have said that you go to war with the army the Congress provides. Especially in light of the fact that Democrats have been front and center trying to gut the defense budget to fund social programs.
Now is the time to start cutting some of our wasteful spending and increase the defense budget.
Posted by: ericsimonson at December 8, 2004 10:04 PMHey Eric,
The cold war is over.
If we dropped some of the wiz-bang out of the defence budget we could pay the military an actual living wage.
Aldous,
Those Soldiers only have themselves to blame. They re-elected Bush and now they must pay the price for their lack of vision. They deliberately chose a Draft Dodger for crying out loud! I say they lost the right to complain when they put Dubya back in office.
Look on the bright side. In a year, they will be restarting the Draft. FRESH MEAT!!!
The soldiers are to blame for what ?
The war in IRAQ because they voted for Bush ?
Not all troops voted for Bush.
Some voted for Bush, so they must now pay the price ?
What price must they now pay ?
Such comments reflect little respect for our
U.S. troops, the ones that have been injured,
and those that have died ?
And, Bush was never drafted, so he could not be a draft dodger ?
But, it seems plausible that his father pulled some strings to help him avoid the draft.
Clinton actually received two induction notices,
but actively worked and managed to delay and somehow avoid the draft.
Many young men were trying to avoid Vietnam.
Americans at that time were not enthusiastic about the Vietnam war.
With 1.4 million troops, 150,000 (soon) in Iraq,
250,000 (excluding IRAQ) deployed
overseas in 2003, I have diffuculty understanding why a draft is necessary.
I am not opposed to DRAFT, but I am opposed to forcible DRAFT, with threat of incarceration.
Why? How can a nation claim to promote freedom, and then forcibly strip it from its citizens ?
And if we are going to draft men, are we going
to draft women also ? What about illegal
citizens that we’ve given a driver’s licenses?
Perhaps we should draft anyone who happens to
be visiting the U.S. at that time?
The DRAFT is wrong. No one should have the
awesome power to force another to kill and die.
It should be a choice, and citizens should feel a duty to serve if necessary.
If a nation doesn’t have a sufficient number of
citizens willing to fight to defend their home,
then that nation deserves the consequences.
But, threat of being conquered does not justify DRAFT.
Government has horribly abused that power before
and shouldn’t be given another chance to do it again.
Eric, he could have said that about Congress, but, it would have been just another dodge. He, his President, and others in the cabinet made the decision as to WHEN to invade, NOT CONGRESS! We were not prepared for the job at hand, Rumsfeld full well knows that. Now, Americans know it as well, even Gen. Barry McAfree is criticizing Rumsfeld for doding the obvious seat of responsibility.
The man should be replaced. His defensive thinking does not demonstrate a capacity to learn from mistakes, and that means American soldiers are going to be maimed and die from mistakes that could have been avoided.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 8, 2004 10:34 PMAldous, the troops fault? That is the line of the Bush administration. Abu Ghraib - the troops fault that’s why they are being court martialed instead of Rumsfeld and the President both of whom stated before the war that we would not observe the Geneva Conventions.
No WMD in Iraq, yeah, that was the intel troops fault.
Stop loss backdoor draft - nah, that is just the troops complaining as some will do when times get tough, not the really good troops though.
Friendly fire death of football heroes? Yeah, that was the troops fault too.
Guantanamo Bay abuses - YEP - Troops fault.
Deaths and maiming of soldiers - yep, troops fault. Afterall, the Bush administration continues to defend all of their decisions, saying we had the right amount of troops, the right amount of equipment, etc. So, must be the troops fault, eh? I mean think about it, when Bush or Rumsfeld see a political bullet coming their way, they dodge it. If our troops can’t dodge bullets with equal agility it must be their fault.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 8, 2004 10:44 PMDavid, you forgot. Some of the things you posted were Clinton’s fault.
Posted by: Rocky at December 8, 2004 11:03 PMFrom Human Rights Watch:
U.S.: Congress Tries to Undermine War Crimes Court
Spending Provision Threatens Millions in Aid to ICC Countries
(New York, December 8, 2004) - The United States intensified its assault on international justice with Congress’ approval yesterday of the “Nethercutt Amendment,” Human Rights Watch said today. This provision, part of an overall spending bill, mandates withholding antiterrorism funds and other aid from countries that refuse to grant immunity for U.S. citizens before the International Criminal Court.
At the same time that the Bus administration is seeking to place the United States above international law, serious allegations of prisoner abuse by U.S. troops from Iraq to Guantanamo Bay continue to be made. Under these conditions, U.S. efforts to obtain immunity for its citizens have become even harder for its allies to accept, Human Rights Watch said. The International Criminal Court (ICC)-which can prosecute only the most serious crimes and only if a country is unwilling or unable to do so-could have no role in jurisdiction over these crimes by U.S. forces because of various limitations on its authority.
“While accounts of U.S. abuse of prisoners keep surfacing, the United States is ratcheting up pressure on states to place U.S. citizens beyond the reach of a court that can only be used as a last resort,” said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice program of Human Rights Watch. “As revelations of abuses continue, U.S. insistence on immunity strikes a particularly raw nerve.”
The amendment to the U.S. federal spending bill threatens to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to countries that have joined the International Criminal Court but do not sign bilateral immunity agreements. These agreements require countries to guarantee that both U.S. nationals and non-U.S. nationals working for the United States will not be handed over to the ICC. This violates states’ obligations under the ICC treaty to fully cooperate with the court.
The amendment threatens aid available under the Economic Support Fund-intended to help U.S. allies promote democracy, fight terrorism and corruption, and resolve conflict. Jordan, which has helped train Iraqi police and hosted conferences on the reconstruction of Iraq, is set to lose approximately $250 million in aid. Peru is expected to lose $8 million that would have funded democratic reforms and programs to reduce coca cultivation, drug-trafficking, and terrorism. Also at risk is the Bush administration’s own Middle East Partnership Initiative, intended to promote reform in the Arab world.
“The United States is bullying smaller, weaker countries because of an ideological obsession with an illusory threat,” said Dicker. “It is putting its ill-conceived campaign ahead of other interests the U.S. government claims are its highest priorities.”
For the past two years, the Bush administration has used another law, the American Service-members’ Protection Act, to threaten countries with a suspension of military aid if they do not sign the immunity agreements. Last year, the United States suspended military assistance to more than 20 countries over this issue, including aid designed to help several Eastern European countries deploy troops to Iraq. Despite persistent pressure, the United States has failed to crack the will of many ICC states. Rather, the United States has succeeded in isolating itself, Human Rights Watch said.
“The United States has already alienated many countries in its campaign against the ICC,” said Dicker. “At a time when it is complaining about lack of support from its allies, the United States is stomping on other states even harder to get what it wants”.
The Nethercutt amendment was first introduced into the U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill in July by U.S. Representative George Nethercutt, a Republican from Washington state. The amendment includes an exemption for countries covered under another economic assistance program known as the Millennium Challenge Account, as well as the option for the president to waive the Nethercutt Amendment’s restrictions for members of NATO and major non-NATO allies. However, these waivers are not guarantees and would still leave many countries open to pressure to violate their ICC obligations, Human Rights Watch said.
The ICC can only prosecute when national courts are unwilling or unable to try genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This year, the court began investigating crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, where mass atrocities have been committed in recent years. Based in The Hague, the court has broad international support. Currently, 97 countries have ratified the Rome Statute establishing the court, and nearly 140 have signed this treaty.
For more information on Human Rights Watch’s work on the International Criminal Court, see http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/
——
Am I hearing “bribery”, “extortion”, “threatening” ?
Are we talking of the first democracy in the world, the model of freedom and… JUSTICE ?
Rocky, NO. Clinton was not President when we invaded Iraq, and Clinton did not make the decision TO invade Iraq. Preparation for invasion is the responsibility of the Commander in Chief (and his cabinet to the extent they rely on the cabinet) who makes the decision to invade. If we weren’t prepared, and we weren’t, Bush could have and should have waited until we were. Nothing to do with Clinton. Iraq posed no imminent threat and Bush is on record as denying that it was an imminent threat. Therefore the preparations and timing of invasion was completely at Bush’s discretion and hence, entire his administration’s responsibility.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 8, 2004 11:12 PMThe troops have only themselves to blame for their heroism, their courage, their dedication to duty, not to mention god and country.
Rumsfeld for President in 2008!
Posted by: ericsimonson at December 8, 2004 11:19 PMDavid, sorry that was a really bad attempt at humor.
Posted by: Rocky at December 8, 2004 11:40 PMThe nazy have only themselves to blame for their heroism, their courage, their dedication to duty, not to mention god and country.
Hitler for Emperor (He’s dead ? S..t)
Sorry for that badly cynical comment, but ericsimonson’s troll upset me.
“It’s something that the United Staes does not do” - Donald Rumsfeld, March 23, 2003.
AmigaPhil, no need to apologize. I was a little surprised by ericsimonson’s reply, myself. He usually has cogent, rational, and logical defenses of his positions. So, I too was surprised to see him take the lame blind loyalty route. But, then, what other avenue of defense does he have for wanting to continue to support Rumsfeld?
Rocky, oops, missed it. Sorry! :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 9, 2004 12:33 AMI really don’t understand the liberal fetish for Hitler. Suppressed fascism perhaps?
I’m only guessing.
I don’t see anything about this ‘news’ story except the fact that Rumsfeld answers bluntly and truthfully when asked ‘tough’ questions by servicemembers.
What is most instructive about this story and the liberal response to it is that the left has learned nothing from Vietnam. i.e. That this is not Vietnam. That in every war America is not the villain. That ‘bad wars’ don’t bring down Presidents and that the American people are not going to wake up one day and pray for… sorry wrong word… ask for the democratic party to give them a socialist utopia where there are no corporations and no profits but only kind gentle words between individuals from historically oppressed people groups living in racial and ethnic harmony in a new ‘non-competing’ economic system.
If I can’t troll here, where can I?
Posted by: ericsimonson at December 9, 2004 12:38 AMDavid,
That is an outrageous statement under the circumstances. If Iraq had attacked American soil or one of our allies, or posed an imminent threat which Bush denies he ever claimed, then a nation must go to war with the Army it has. But, this was an entirely elective war. Pres. Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld decided on the date to invade and they chose to invade before our troops and equipment were ready.
Iraq was a high priority in the invasion agenda, and because we were so sure it would be a rather easy task: 12 years of a scandalous inefficient “embargo” (strenghtening the ditactorship while weakening the whole country; many even calling that “economical sanctions” side effects a genocide) and a (more or less) exact idea of what was the military resistance the US had to face (thanks to the weapons inspectors), we got the insurrance we were ready to implement another chapter of the PNAC.
YET, with the exception of nuclear weapons (but wait, isn’t DU a nuclear weapon without a mushroom cloud ?), we used some of our most destructive weapons to achieve that goal - nothing to compare with 3 planes crash.
If we were to remove Saddam Hussein (the only argument that has survive the propaganda fiasco), we could have done it in other ways (USA used to be able to remove leaders - democratically elected or not - without crushing a whole country), first was to stop supporting his dictatorship regime when he was one of our business partner.
Now he is gone, will we ever dismantle our bases, return all the resources to the Iraqis, and leave Iraq as we are ask to ? (Could Halliburton accept that ?)
What are we doing in Iraq ? Helping people ?
If we look at the method, Bin Laden could expect us to be thankful and to welcome him with cheers and flowers for his “helping hand” on 9/11 (er, no, he has not liberated us from Bush ;-P ).
The invasion of Iraq as it was planned and conducted is nothing to be proud of, as time will tell. In the meantimes, people are still dying.
AmigaPhil,
About the International Criminal Court… Seems like we’ve had this discussion before.
Any support of this would be in violation of the constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. – Article VI, US Constitution.
Supporting the ICC would requite a constitutional amendment that would take a lot of power away from our government.
There is no way in hell we would be treated fairly before such a court, and if we brought a case up, I doubt we’d treat others fairly either.
I don’t see anything about this ‘news’ story except the fact that Rumsfeld answers bluntly and truthfully when asked ‘tough’ questions by servicemembers.
Yeah. My favorite part was where Rumsfeld was trying to convince these guys they didn’t actually need the armor,
“You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up,” he said. “And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up.”
Thanks for the blunt morale boost. Why didn’t he have some flag draped steel coffins as a backdrop for his “pep talk”, too?
Seriously, the part I found outragous was that they wheeled in fully armored Hummers and trucks for the photo-op,
Colonel Zimmerman said he appreciated the efforts by Army supply officials here, but he and his troops said they could not help fuming at the sight of the fully “up-armored” Humvees and heavy trucks put on display here for Mr. Rumsfeld’s visit.“What you see out here isn’t what we’ve got going north with us,” he said.
That’s got to be frustrating.
Eric said,
I don’t see anything about this ‘news’ story except the fact that Rumsfeld answers bluntly and truthfully when asked ‘tough’ questions by servicemembers.
Here’s a poignant example of Rummy’s direct and truthful responses.
“You can fool some of the people, err, umm all the people are fooled some…ummm
We won’t get fooled again”
Another blind response from Eric. Why bother thinking when you can wave your flag?
Posted by: Greg at December 9, 2004 08:20 AMHere’s what Rumsfeld had to say about yesterday.
I watched part of this meeting yesterday and I have to admit that some of his answers didn’t come off very well.
But saying that he should be fired for that reason is a typical example putting style over substance.
The troops were given the opportunity to raise some valid points. Past mistakes notwithstanding, my opinion of Rumsfeld on this matter will be shaped not by his verbal response, but by the actions (if any) he takes to solve these problems.
President Bush isn’t going to fire the SECDEF in the middle of a war. That should be obvious by now. So our options here are:
1. Scream “Rumsfeld should be fired!!!” from the rooftops, or
2. Calmly suggest ways to improve in the future.
I choose the latter.
In 20-some comments there are almost none from the Red team, except some snideness from Eric Simonson and some off-topic stuff from the Traveler. Interesting. Could it be, as Greg said, that Rumsfeld is just being saved as the biggest scapegoat and the Reds know and accept this? It certainly is a function of this administration to blame everything that goes wrong on someone else, and when they eventually are forced to admit that the war has gone wrong they’ll need someone to pin it on. Who better than Rummy, the cranky, defensive, mouthy civilian military leader?
What I get from this is that Rumsfeld’s comments are indefensible. You can talk about the uncertainty of war when there is no choice but to go to war, but when you have questionable intelligence about a country that was rather tangentially linked to an attack on our soil you’d better get your shit straight before you go in with guns blazing. It’s obvious by now to everyone paying attention that BushandCo didn’t do that and now they’re at a loss for snappy answers. Telling our troops, essentially, “Tough shit,” is not something that would have been said BEFORE the election.
Posted by: Alejo at December 9, 2004 09:20 AMEric, if anybody was blunt and honest, it was the soldiers, and they asked about the very things that we Liberals have been riding your ass about. Rumsfeld was handed a plan that would use more soldiers. He rejected it. Now the very soldiers fighting that war are bluntly asking him about his stop-loss policies which they have personally experienced, policies which are the only thing keeping the numbers of soldiers high in Iraq. They are asking them about rooting around in dumps for the materials to armor their vehicles, and from the mood of the crowd, according to the reports, these are not isolated quibbles or problems with these soldiers. You guys are living in la-la land about this war, and we Democrats can tell you from experience that’s not going to win a war.
So go on and be so self-satisfied about how Conservatives are more fervent defenders of this country, and in the meantime watch this war fall apart like the house of cards it is.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 9, 2004 09:37 AMAlejo
We must get to work about the same time, I always seem to post near you. LOL!
Anyways, what can the red side post about? Facts are facts.
This is much more accurate and important than the flak vest story, I hope it grows some legs.
The flak vest story was an election ploy and wasn’t presented accuratly. Everybody knows there is difference between “standard issue” and the best available.
But the armorment of vehicles is different.
Hummers aren’t battle equipped vehicles by design. But, they do have add-ons that can make it more compatible with battle conditions. Obviously, many of the vehicles are not properly equipped and there must be an investigation to find out why.
David
Thanks for posting this issue without such a dramatic left-right slant.
Our military has been systematically disected over the last 15 years. Been forced to do more with less. Now that it is obvious, maybe the people will demand action.
How was I off topic? I linked to an article about him!
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I haven’t been arguing with you for two reasons.
One is that I agree that he did a very poor job yesterday.
The other is that I’d rather focus on the future. Yes mistakes were made and yes there is blame to go around. But solving the problems is just as important, if not more important in this case, as finding the causes.
From the left comes the rallying cry of “Fire Rumsfeld and Impeach Bush!!!” What does that get us? More discord. Just like in ‘98 it’s a waste of our time.
You can rightly accuse Bush and Rumsfeld of not having a complete plan. But instead of working against them, wouldn’t it be better for everybody if you simply offered them your solution? Or don’t you have one either?
kctim,
“Our military has been systematically disected over the last 15 years. Been forced to do more with less.”
This is because of the DODs insistence on expensive technology and the fact that the boogyman of the cold war is gone.
How much body armor do you think we could buy with the money spent on just one B-2?
BTW this “dismantling” started before Clinton took office.
Posted by: Rocky at December 9, 2004 10:18 AMTraveler,
“You can rightly accuse Bush and Rumsfeld of not having a complete plan. But instead of working against them, wouldn?t it be better for everybody if you simply offered them your solution?”
I accuse Bush and Rumsfels of having no plan.
Anyone with any strateigic sense at all knows that when you go into a campaign you go in with overwhelming force. That doesn’t mean that you blow up everything in sight (shock and ahhhhh).
These guys had no plan past the run to Baghdad. They had no concept of what it was going to take to secure the country after we took it.
Here’s a simple precept that they missed. More troops means less casualties.
They still don’t get it.
Posted by: Rocky at December 9, 2004 10:30 AMRocky
I was not trying to place blame on clinton or any party. This is not totally a “party” issue.
As I said, the body armor thing was only about the election, it was not a true worry.
Troop vehicles not being properly armored is serious. It identifies a problem that must be corrected.
Place all blame on whoever you want.
I just want the problem to be addressed and corrected ASAP!
Rocky,
OK. You want more troops. How many? To which locations? You have to know these things. Bush and Rumsfeld did have a plan. It just wasn’t complete.
How much body armor do you think we could buy with the money spent on just one B-2?
Probably quite a lot. But our pilot’s lives are just as important as everyone else’s. Don’t they deserve the best equipment as well? We can’t fly B-52’s forever.
Posted by: TheTraveler at December 9, 2004 10:45 AMRocky,
A few more questions:
What services will your troops be from?
Which units?
What will they be armed with?
How will they get there?
It’s easy to say we need more troops but it’s not a plan for victory. And saying we didn’t have enough is not proof of a lack of a plan.
Again, let’s focus on what we should do, not what we have done.
Posted by: TheTraveler at December 9, 2004 11:00 AMThe Traveler —
You made your second post while I was in the process of writing mine. Guess I type too slow….
I know the argument about “If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem,” but to paraphrase George Carlin, “If you think there IS a solution you’re part of the problem!” To issue the challenge of, Could you do better than Donald Rumsfeld is ridiculous. Of course I couldn’t; I don’t have the background or the connections or the knowledge. But the fact that I don’t have the solution does not mean Rumsfeld is right or that I shouldn’t criticize him. There’s much talk from the Right about how the Left is simply a hectoring voice with no answers to problems, but thinking your answer is the only answer is at least as much of a weakness as being an incurable skeptic. The two sides DO need to work together, you’re right. However, “together” does not mean, “Help us do what we want to do because we’re telling you it’s right.” We skeptics serve a purpose too: We keep realism in the picture.
Posted by: Alejo at December 9, 2004 11:04 AMTheTraveler,
But solving the problems is just as important, if not more important in this case, as finding the causes.
I think the solution to the problem is to fire Rummy. Rummy is the problem. Remove him and things will get better. That simple.
Whether or not any of us amateur politicos have a plan for redeeming our efforts in Iraq is irrelevant and does not discount our opinions on the matter. We are neither qualified nor under consideration for such responsibilities. But there are plenty of others in the political/military community who could serve as DefSec and may very well have solutions though not spotlighted by the media. At the very least, they will be equally if not more qualified than Rummy.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 9, 2004 11:12 AMAlejo,
You’re right. But I’m not asking you (the left) to be better than Rumsfeld and I’m not asking you not to criticize. I’m asking you not to work against him and President Bush because that’s making the problem worse.
We’ve debated the causes of the Iraq war to death on this blog and just about everywhere else. Now let’s debate what to do next. We may not come up with “the solution,” but we can sure as hell try.
The Traveler —
I agree. I’m not advocating the firing of Rumsfeld because I don’t think it’s the solution either. I think Rumsfeld’s attitude is merely a reflection of the administration’s brashness and replacing him would merely mean another look-before-you-leaper. I think the reason it seems as though the Left is simply being obstructionist is because they feel that’s the only way they have of making any effect; Bush has made it clear through his pattern of cabinet dismissals that he doesn’t tolerate differing opinions, so how can Democrats think their ideas will be welcomed?
It’s a tough row to hoe, from either perspective.
Posted by: Alejo at December 9, 2004 11:36 AMTraveler,
“It’s easy to say we need more troops but it?s not a plan for victory.”
Who are we defending against an invasion from, Canada? Mexico?
We have thousands of troops deployed in areas that aren’t being threatened around the world.
Are we worried that France will invade Germany?
The bottom line is that Bush and Rumsfeld are responsable for the final decision for our troop deployment. What kind of moron puts ill-equiped, soldiers in harms way?
Was it more important to be there than to do it right?
We are not even able to keep the road to the Baghdad airport open.
” But our pilot’s lives are just as important as everyone else’s. Don’t they deserve the best equipment as well? We can’t fly B-52’s forever.”
How does this address the safety of the guys on the ground? You can’t go house to house with a B-2 bomber.
“What services will your troops be from?
Which units?
What will they be armed with?
How will they get there?”
Traveler, these are all questions that should have been asked and answered before we commited
troops to Iraq.
“And saying we didn’t have enough is not proof of a lack of a plan.”
What more proof do you need?
Joseph,
Although I don’t agree with you, I respect your opinion and understand why you feel that way.
But the war is not going to end with Rumsfeld replacement. The President still has the final say on what to do. The Congress still have final say on how much money they get.
You can focus on trying to get Rumsfeld fired, but, like when the Republicans tried that with Clinton, it almost certainly won’t happen. Better to focus entirely on achieving victory.
Alejo,
No president wants differing opinions in his administration. That would be counter-productive.
How can Democrats think their ideas will be welcomed? Convince the voters that your ideas are the best. Almost half the congress is made up of Democrats. Bush and his people won’t be around forever.
Rocky,
They did think about all these things. You have to in order to move any troops anywhere.
Your solution is more troops. And that may help. But my point is that there is a lot more to it than that.
I’m not going to argue with you about whether we should have gone to war or not, because I’m sick of doing that. It doesn’t accomplish anything. Since we’re already there, I’d rather argue about what to do now.
Traveler,
I don’t think we should be there, but we are. My point would be that now that we are there we should quit screwing around and do the job. That means Rumsfeld should get his head out of his butt and do his job. He serves the Armed Forces not the other way around.
As for the make up of the Cabinet. Bush doesn’t need sycophants. If an idea is bad he needs to have people to tell him that it is bad.
Powell seemed to be the only one of the previous Cabinet that was capable of doing that.
TheTraveler —
A cabinet of yes men is pointless. If you can’t count on your advisers to give you honest advice you may as well just bring the White House press corps upstairs and give them cabinet positions. There’s a difference between opposition and having a differing opinion.
And, if I’m understanding you correctly, that if the Democrats want to be heard they must win the presidency and a majority in congress — which means there is no “working together,” just “might makes right.” What I’m trying to say, and what I originally thought you were trying to say, is that both voices need to be heard at the same time in government for the machine to work properly. If either side wields an inordinate amount of power it’s not good for the country (or, as right now, the world).
Posted by: Alejo at December 9, 2004 12:28 PM
My point would be that now that we are there we should quit screwing around and do the job.
That’s all I’m saying.
Posted by: TheTraveler at December 9, 2004 12:31 PMTraveler,
Have you ever played Risk?
If you had you would realize having too many troops in a campaign against a country or area you were trying to take is never a bad thing.
I understand that this may seem simplistic. Look at the first gulf war. We were there with a lot more troops, stuff, etc., than we needed. We didn’t hear the troops bitching about lack of equipment in that conflict.
Were we trying to do this on on the cheap?
If we have to pay these guys anyway, why aren’t we there with overwhelming force now?
And, if I’m understanding you correctly, that if the Democrats want to be heard they must win the presidency and a majority in congress.
I guess I did imply that, but it’s not what I am saying. You have enough people in power already to have your voice heard. You just have to be convincing. Which means, instead of complaining about the President’s plan, offer them a better one.
As for the cabinet, I’m not sure why you are all against them when they haven’t even started yet. Some of them haven’t even been involved in politics before.
If you have the attitude that all Bush appointees are in some way dishonest, than isn’t calling for Rumsfeld’s replacement a waste of time? Some of you want people in the cabinet that would openly oppose the President? That would be silly. Nothing would get accomplished.
Which brings us back to being convincing. Why waste the time and energy in something like calling for the removal of officials when you don’t believe it would help the situation? And offering no real solutions, besides? What does that tell the voters? It tells them that you would rather have political power than victory. And this may not be the case, but that is the image that’s being projected.
Alejo said, “There’s a difference between opposition and having a differing opinion.” The Democrats in Congress need to realize that. Stop opposing and start convincing.
Calling the voters stupid ignorant, homophobic, etc., as quite a few on the left are doing, isn’t going to get them to listen to their ideas, either.
Sory if I got a bit off topic…
Rocky,
I have to admit I suck at Risk. ;-)
And I’m not saying more troops are a bad thing.
But the war is not going to end with Rumsfeld replacement.
Never said it would. It certainly would eliminate an incompetent, divisive, and pigheaded character, though. And we Dems wouldn’t have anything left to complain about. ;)
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 9, 2004 01:37 PMJoseph —
It certainly would eliminate an incompetent, divisive, and pigheaded character, though.
Only one of them….
Posted by: Alejo at December 9, 2004 01:44 PMIt certainly would eliminate an incompetent, divisive, and pigheaded character, though. And we Dems wouldn’t have anything left to complain about.
Don’t worry, President Bush will just appoint another yes man for you to complain about. We conservitives are all incompetent, divisive, and pigheaded, after all. ;-)
Posted by: TheTraveler at December 9, 2004 01:51 PMUm, I hope you realize I was joking…
Posted by: TheTraveler at December 9, 2004 02:07 PMDavid,
I agree - RUMSFELD SHOULD BE FIRED.
In fact, I thought that he should have stepped down after the Abu Graib scandal broke - during the time that Dubya declared he was doing “a superb job”.
Anyone who is saying it isn’t fair to fire Rummy, but thinks instead that we should wait and see what he does probably doesn’t realize that we’ve known about the lack of armor on the humvees since LAST SPRING - and very little has been done to rectify the situation in all that time.
The soldier standing up and asking the question only brought the topic up for our renewed attention - and the cheers of his comrades backed up what anyone with a brain in their head already knows - Rummy really SUCKS at his job, and should have been fired AGES AGO.
Only because he’s a Republican.
Other than Davids original post, everyone else just wants him gone because he is Republican.
Most of you don’t even give a crap about the troops, just as long as you can blame more stuff on the evil Republicans.
I guarantee everybody bitching about Rumsfeld would be making every excuse to save him if he were a liberal.
kctim:
“Most of you don’t even give a crap about the troops,”
How the hell would you know how anybody feels about our troops? Do you somehow think that just because someone is a Liberal that means they don’t know anyone who is in Iraq right now? If so, you’d be wrong.
“just as long as you can blame more stuff on the evil Republicans.”
So any complaining about an unnecessary war that was poorly planned and completely underfunded just seems like mere partisanship to you?
ON THE CONSTITUTION:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. - Article VI, US Constitution.
That makes, e.g., the U.N. Charter - ratified by the United States - the “supreme law of the land”. The U.N. Charter requires international disputes or situations that might lead to a breach of peace to be resolved by peaceful means. (Article 1 and Chapter VI) In other words, a nation may not wage war based on the claim that it seeks to prevent war. A nation may use force unilaterally in self defense only “if an armed attack occurs” against it. (Article 51) …
As for the ICC, nothing forbid the United States to ratify the Rome Statute.
ON PLANS FOR WAR ON IRAQ:
“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” - “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, PNAC, September 200, p.26.
ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES AS A MILITARY CHIEF:
In 1946, the Japaneese general Tomoyuki Yamashita was tried before the Tokyo Trial (cf Nuremberg) for the atrocities committed by soldiers under his command in Philippines. He was widely known to have been brutal, he was hanged not because he was found guilty of having ordered the atrocities, but for “failing to discharge is duty as commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes”.
ericsimonson,
> I really don’t understand the liberal fetish for Hitler. Suppressed fascism perhaps? I’m only guessing.
WW2 is THE war studied at school. Two words resound since then: “Never again”.
The Traveller,
You can’t go forward safely without learning from your mistakes. You have to look at the past if you want to build a better future.
Why so few REDS responding in this thread?
Because it would be useless to try and discuss anything with a bunch of BLUES who claim they have the answers and would have done it all right in the first place.
After reading through most of these posts there is nothing but a blame game going on by people who simply hate Bush and Rumsfeld and would do almost anything (probably even sacrifice their own gramma) to get a democrat in the presidents office.
Someone up there said that those opposing Bush and Rummy would be fighting to the death to defend a dem if it were the other way around.
That is the problem.
Blues defend blues and bash reds.
Doesn’t matter what it is or if someone of there own party just did the same terrible thing.
I haven’t read anything from a red defending Rummy or Bush to that extent.
Some want to talk about being realistic.
Try that for realistic.
Right and wrong should ALWAYS come before BLUE or RED.
Seems like the REDS are more advanced in this area.
Merry CHRISTmas.
I was a Red once.
You know why there are Reds and Blues ?
BLUES live in highly populated areas mostly.
They look to government to do something for them.
REDS are in more rural areas, and they like to
view themselves as more self sufficient, and
they prefer less government and intervention.
Mostly, they want to be left alone.
Reds, Blues, Qualudes, Indies, 3rdParties,
What we really need is the “Vote ‘em Out” party.
Really! This is the only simple thing that
will ever work, doesn’t cost anything,
And don’t vote for any D’s or R’s.
redsgone,
“Because it would be useless to try and discuss anything with a bunch of BLUES who claim they have the answers and would have done it all right in the first place.”
How dare you assume that everyone here sees the world in blue and red.
Right is right and wrong is wrong?
Bush and Rumsfeld are wrong in the way they have played God with the men and women of our military.
AmigaPhil
You can’t go forward safely without learning from your mistakes. You have to look at the past if you want to build a better future.
I totally agree. But you can’t spend so much time focused on the past that the future is ignored. The important thing is winning the war and getting out of Iraq.
Like I said earlier, I have no intention of arguing the causes or legality of the war. We’ve all written extensively about that in other threads. No one is going to change anyone’s mind about it at this late date.
As for the ICC, look through the list of nations you linked to and try to tell us that some of them are not biased against America.
…and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States…
The key words there are “under the authority of the United States.” The Senate will never ratify this no matter which party is in control (it takes a 2/3 majority). Not only would our country not be treated fairly, it would leave our government open to blackmail. Even in on the slim chance it did get ratified, any treaty that took power away from the constitutional government would be before the Supreme Court so fast it would make your head spin.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Article III, Section 1
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority. - Article III, Section 2
That’s another, and even bigger, reason that the ICC is unconstitutional.
Do you really expect the congress AND the courts to rule away their own power?
Posted by: TheTraveler at December 9, 2004 07:19 PMredsgone:
“Why so few REDS responding in this thread?”
I’ll take a stab at it…
Because he’s been nothing but a failure as the Secretary of Defense, but is still as arrogant and obnoxious as ever?
“Because it would be useless to try and discuss anything with a bunch of BLUES”
Then why bother posting to Watchblog at all?
“who claim they have the answers and would have done it all right in the first place.”
I have a feeling that most of us wouldn’t have thought of going there on such flimsy evidence in the first place.
“After reading through most of these posts there is nothing but a blame game going on by people who simply hate Bush and Rumsfeld”
Yes, for their incompetence and for their chronic tendency to LIE to the American people.
“and would do almost anything (probably even sacrifice their own gramma)”
Like they’re sacrificing the lives and limbs of our soldiers?
“to get a democrat in the presidents office.”
I’d really like to see a Green Party candidate there myself. But for that to happen, the electoral college has probably got to go.
“Someone up there said that those opposing Bush and Rummy would be fighting to the death to defend a dem if it were the other way around.”
For an unnecessary war that was poorly planned and underfunded? NO WAY, buddy.
“bash reds.”
There is so much to bash, that sometimes it becomes a problem just knowing where to begin…
“Doesn’t matter what it is or if someone of there own party just did the same terrible thing.”
But I don’t believe the Democrats wouldn’t have started the Iraq War with such flimsy evidence, nor do I believe they would have lied about that ridiculous evidence before the UN or to the American people, or changed the reasons as many times as Dubya and Co. have done. And then on top of that, I don’t think _anyone_ could have planned or executed a war as poorly as these clowns have.
“I haven’t read anything from a red defending Rummy or Bush to that extent.”
Thats funny, during the time I’ve been reading Watchblog, I’ve seen numerous displays by extreme Dubya and Co. Apologists. If you want to see some “red defending”, stick around - no doubt you’ll be pleased.
“Some want to talk about being realistic.
Try that for realistic.”
To actually be realistic about this war takes a lot of time. Since our media isn’t reporting very much to us, one needs to spend quite a bit of time reading foreign newspapers and websites each day to understand what is actually going on there.
“Right and wrong should ALWAYS come before BLUE or RED.”
But right and wrong is a matter of opinion. So is Blue and Red for that matter.
“Seems like the REDS are more advanced in this area.”
At being right? I thoroughly disagree. They’ve been nothing but wrong about this war.
“Merry CHRISTmas.”
So sincere. I’m sure Jesus would approve.
Hey Daniel, how come virtualy all the links you post go to the same place?
Posted by: Rocky at December 9, 2004 09:28 PMI think Republicans are unused to seeing a place where Democrats are allowed to stick up for themselves. That’s what disturbs them about Watchblog- no obnoxious TV host to cut off the strong-willed liberals he assures the viewers don’t exist.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 9, 2004 09:55 PMAmigaphil,
That makes, e.g., the U.N. Charter - ratified by the United States - the “supreme law of the land”.
Phil, this is another example of why John Kerry lost the election. The UN charter now supercedes the constitution? Whew. I better get my membership in the International Workers Party if I want to be represented in the world of the future.
WW2 is THE war studied at school. Two words resound since then: “Never again”.
Ah. You must mean, “Never fight dictators like Hitler again.” Because that’s the position your side took in removing Saddam Hussein who actually was a fascist.
Stephen,
Rumsfeld was handed a plan that would use more soldiers. He rejected it. Now the very soldiers fighting that war are bluntly asking him about his stop-loss policies which they have personally experienced,
Rumsfeld chose a winning plan no matter how you look at it. All the doom and gloom about Vietnam and quagmire and how much better someone like John Kerry might have run such a war is fantastic (as in unbelievable). Not only should Rumsfeld not be fired but he deserves a promotion! Except that there really isn’t a any higher position he is more suited to than Sec of Defence.
In fact, Rumsfeld may be the greatest Sec of Def we’ve ever had. Just contrast this administration’s handling of Iraq with Vietnam. In Vietnam we started out with advisors and gradually increased the troop levels until we had thousands of troops. In Vietnam, (this is primarily a democrat run war you’ll remember- not ‘Nixon’s war’), Johnson was plotting bombing targets on maps in the white house with absolutely no strategic value whatsoever, and never had winning as an objective! In Iraq we started out with 100,000 plus combat troops, which was more than enough to defeat the Republican Guard.
Turns out this brave question was in fact planted by a reporter. Essentially staged.
I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.So during the Q&A session, one of my guys was the second person called on. When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees, the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question. Then Rumsfeld answered something about it being “not a lack of desire or money but a logistics/physics problem.” He said he recently saw about 8 of the special up-armored Humvees guarding Washington, DC, and he promised that they would no longer be used for that and that he would send them over here. Then he asked a three star general standing behind him, the commander of all ground forces here, to also answer the question. The general said it was a problem he is working on.
The great part was that after the event was over the throng of national media following Rumsfeld- The New York Times, AP, all the major networks — swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with. Out of the 1,000 or so troops at the event there were only a handful of guys from my unit b/c the rest were too busy prepping for our trip north. The national media asked if they were the guys with the armor problem and then stuck cameras in their faces. The NY Times reporter asked me to email him the stories I had already done on it, but I said he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines. I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I foud out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press. I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be to late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after.
Making news. Not reporting it. Yes, fire Rumsfeld indeed. Do you think this reporter might be ‘blue’ at all? And might not share the same opinion as y’all blues here?
I’ve been afraid to say exactly what poster Aldous has expressed, now on two different occasions - that the soldiers have no one but themselves to blame.
Yes, they have performed their duties, fought, suffered, died and have been injured (many while way past their required tour of duty), all in the perceived notion that the Iraq Invasion was in defense of our country. I respect them and owe them a great debt of gratitude, although I have never served this country.
However, it is an irrefutable fact that the military overwhelmingly voted for Bush - and therefore, the status quo. That means, everything Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have done for them and to them!
I’m coming to Aldous’s defense, because personally I believe, if widespread evidence of voter suppression in the state of Ohio is to be accepted, then those who opted for four more years of this administration (and Donald Rumsfeld) should ‘just get over it’, and deal with it!
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at December 9, 2004 10:59 PMericsimonson, spin all you want - the applause that rose up from the group of soldiers in that facility after the tough questions were asked was not staged. And according to Republicans, about 3/4 of the folks in the military voted for Bush, that puts most of those applauding the questions put to Rumsfeld in the Republican camp. Doesn’t matter who or why the question was asked, a very large number of troops their awaiting duty in Iraq had the same concerns and bolstered the confidence of those asking the questions with resounding applause. The troops are not pleased with how they are being handled, and Rumsfeld is in charge of handling the military. The logic is inescapeable.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 9, 2004 11:02 PMHey Eric,
“In Iraq we started out with 100,000 plus combat troops, which was more than enough to defeat the Republican Guard.”
And we still are chasing insurgents all over the place.
And we still haven’t found Bin Laden.
And we are still looking for Al Capones vault.
Posted by: Rocky at December 10, 2004 12:24 AMEric,
Oh, I forgot, that was Geraldo.
Eric if 100k troops were enough to take control of Iraq why did Cheney et al. send so many just to kick Saddam out of Kuwait?
Could it have been that the coalition of the willing was significantly larger?
Technology is great, for about the first week. Then the boots have to hit the ground. I’m not saying that America’s troops haven’t done a great job.
Considering what they were given to work with they have done a magnificent Job.
The soldier was prompted, so what. Lets put you over there, in that situation.
Are you going to say ah shucks I’m just glad to be here?
Eric-
First-Treaties constitute a basis for law, probably so long as the constitution doesn’t get in the way.
Second- No, the idea is that we’re not going to get into another world war because the next one will be nuclear and that will strip the paint off our house and leave us with permanent orange afros.
Third- Get real. Fighting fascists is a party tradition. Supporting them is your party’s. I mean, that video of Saddam meeting with our current defense secretary didn’t come out of thin air. You guys supported him EVEN while he was gassing Iranians and Kurds. It’s only when he didn’t stay in his nice little box that he became your mortal enemy. Same with Noriega, same with all the others.
Our side was, we take out Saddam, when it defends our country’s interests to do so, not the Neocon’s academic theory on viral democracy, especially when we we have the threat of a second 9/11 hanging over our heads. I mean, priorities: Saddam’s going nowhere unless we say so, But Osama is out there, still plotting, now directing his people from a safe haven. If I had the choice Eric, I would rather have Osama in Jail, and Saddam free and under the sanctions, because then America would be much safer. I know you don’t believe that, but of course, if the evidence doesn’t say what’s convenient to you, it doesn’t say anything at all.
Rumsfeld did not choose a winning plan. How do I know that? We haven’t won yet. Winning in an occupation requires more than a successful invasion. It requires successful gaining of control over government on all levels, followed by a period where we fix whatever it is that was bugging us, then we get out, and if our newer, friendlier government works, then you can say we won. Winning the invasion isn’t enough.
Johnson did interfere, but he ultimately went with the Joint Chief’s bombing strategy. But that whole strategy was doomed to failure and the Pentagon knew it. They wargamed it out. What they found, ahead of time, was that for every escalation in the bombing, North Vietnam could escalate on the ground with it’s guerilla warfare in the south, and the set piece battles in the north, and that would require escalation on our part for the ground war. They would have the initiative on that, and we would be forced to respond.
Which we ultimately were. We couldn’t bomb them back to the stone age, because they were practically there already. They didn’t have the industrial base to destroy, and they had plenty of ability to reinforce their forces despite the strong casualties.
As for Iraq, we never really faced them. They melted away, deserted for the most part. The only reason we could race to Baghdad in a little over a month, was that the soldiers weren’t willing to stand in our way.
And no, we didn’t start out with 100,000 plus, we started out, I believe, with about 85,000 to 95,000 soldiers on the ground. Remember? The Rolling start? The other soldiers and the backdoor draftees came later.
And yes, the question was planted by a reporter. And asked by a willing soldier. And cheered by sympathetic soldiers, who as far as I know, were not told to cheer by the reporter. And besides, the question was true: soldiers are having to scrounge for material to armor their vehicles more than a year after we got to Iraq. In fact I wrote an essay on this called Eating Our Young.
And you know what? This crap is still going on. Our defense budgets are still being loaded with pork so that somebody can keep a parade ground fresh on an abandoned base. So I don’t want to here it from you Republicans. The question may have been staged, but the soldier was willing and his comrades cheered the point spontaneously, in fact cheered it so loud Rumsfeld had to ask him to repeat the question. The question wasn’t spontaneous, but it was a question that needed asking.
That what you don’t see. You sit nice and cozy in some house, in some nice secure place, and from your perspective, the wrong here was against Rumsfeld for daring to embarass him by throwing the results of his policy back in his face. But for a soldier riding his way along the roads in Iraq, the embarassment of the Secretary of defense that sent him to fight this war in unarmored vehicles is probably the least of his concerns. He wants the armor.
You can debate about the spontaneity of the question, but I can always point you to the spontaneity of the response of that questioner’s fellow soldiers. So write your hagiographies of your dear, saintly secretary of defense, because it’s obvious that your sympathies lie with him, and not the soldiers he’s putting through the meat grinder.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 10, 2004 08:32 AMAhh, the Drudge Report. Thanks Eric, I’ll start using The Onion to back up my posts now,
WASHINGTON, DC - President Bush signed an ambitious Social Security plan into law Monday that will allow citizens to bet a third of their payroll taxes on their favorite sports teams.“…Some naysayers think the average citizen doesn’t know how to handle his own money. When spring training starts next year, it’s up to you to prove them wrong.”
“It’s your money,” Bush added. “You earned it. You should be able to bet it on whatever team you want.”
:/
I think Republicans are unused to seeing a place where Democrats are allowed to stick up for themselves.
I do love this site. You check out some of the others, blue or red, and it’s just one big thread of incestuous amplification, suitable only for those who can’t handle confrontation. Grrr!
As for Rumsfeld, the guy has some serious blind spots. In concept, I like the way he’s going with military capabilities: light, fast, backed up by major airpower.
Unfortunately, the qualities for winning the war aren’t applicable to winning the peace.
I liked Kerry’s plan for adding another two divisions - one combat and the other civil affairs for nation building - and doubling our special ops forces.
It’s been four years - coming up on two since the Iraq invasion - if Rumsfled isn’t applying lessons learned by now, it’s time to chuck him.
Of course, Bush doesn’t grade his cronies on performance, just loyalty and the ability not to embarrass him.
How the hell would you know how anybody feels about our troops?
- From their actions. Those who support this war only do because they support Bush. Those who don’t support the war, only do so because Bush is not a liberal.
Do you somehow think that just because someone is a liberal that means they don’t know anyone who is in Iraq right now?
- Nope. Never implied it either.
So any complaining about an unnecessary war that was poorly planned and completely underfunded just seems like mere partisanship to you?
- Poorly planned? That is my error, sorry. I was not aware that everyone on here was present at the planning meetings and knows what the plan really is.
I am against this war and complain about it all the time. But my motive is not because Bush is president.
If it was gore and the same scenario was playing out, the left would be defending him at all costs just as they did with clinton and the right would be totally against this war and on another witchhunt.
I have seen nothing on here to suggest different.
David’s post addressed a serious problem and he offered his solution, fire Rumsfeld. I agree and can respect that.
Everyone else wants Rumsfeld fired or admired because of political affiliation.
These are the same people who defended reno or hated her. Yes, there is common ground between the twos actions.
Because of party is not a solution.
Posted by: kctim at December 10, 2004 09:18 AMI don’t see the “gotcha” on the reporter coaching the soldier to ask a pertinent question. While it takes away the impression that the soldier was ballsy and thoughtful on his own, the response of the crowd was sufficient to show the question needed to be asked. What I think is more significant is how often our own government officials refuse to field questions from the press. Rumsfeld and Bush get the same expression on their faces, the same defensive, whiny tone in their voices, whenever they’re asked challenging questions. Our leaders should not be afraid of criticism if they’re so sure they’re right. It’s way too easy to convince yourself you’re right if you make sure those who think you are wrong can never get close enough for you to hear what they say.
Posted by: Alejo at December 10, 2004 09:18 AMkctim —
I think you’re too quick to pigeonhole people and judge their motives. While there are people out there who are partisan to the core, my experience on WatchBlog is that most people have their own reasons and motivations that are unique to them and party affiliations are more of a rough fit than a default.
Personally, I detest Rumsfeld because I think he’s an arrogant prick and a bully, and it wouldn’t matter if he were Blue, Red, or Green, he’d still rub me the wrong way.
Posted by: Alejo at December 10, 2004 09:52 AMAlejo wrote:
“I don’t see the “gotcha” on the reporter coaching the soldier to ask a pertinent question. While it takes away the impression that the soldier was ballsy and thoughtful on his own, the response of the crowd was sufficient to show the question needed to be asked.”
Exactly. And since at least last April we have all known that these troops have been riding around in vehicles which make it easy for them to be maimed or killed by the numerous explosive devices the “insurgents” are making on the fly - and often detonating with cell phones. Rumsfeld has had plenty of time to deal with this situation and so has the president, who didn’t budget _one dime_ for armoring those humvees in 2004.
“What I think is more significant is how often our own government officials refuse to field questions from the press.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. The fact that this embedded reporter from a small freepress newspaper knew the questions had to come from the soldiers in order to be addressed in anyway at all, speaks volumes about how the administration has been stonewalling everyone in the media.
“Rumsfeld and Bush get the same expression on their faces, the same defensive, whiny tone in their voices, whenever they’re asked challenging questions.”
I’m always especially embarrassed when they do this with the foreign press.
“Our leaders should not be afraid of criticism if they’re so sure they’re right. It’s way too easy to convince yourself you’re right if you make sure those who think you are wrong can never get close enough for you to hear what they say.”
I don’t think we’ve ever had an administration so intent on avoiding criticism, or who demanded such blind loyalty. I also don’t think we’ve ever had an administration who didn’t even bother to hide their obvious contempt for We the People and our concerns. John Dean’s booktitle said it all - “Worse Than Watergate”. These guys make Nixon’s arrogance, obsessive secrecy and lack of conscience look benevolent by comparison, in my opinion.
Alejo, you also wrote:
“kctim —
I think you’re too quick to pigeonhole people and judge their motives.”
I agree with him, Tim. When it comes to something like the Secretary of Defense ignoring the welfare and safety of our men and women in uniform, I believe that party affiliation becomes almost insignificant.
Posted by: Adrienne at December 10, 2004 12:45 PMkctim,
In some ways what Rumsfeld said about going to war with what you have was correct. But, because this was an elective war the rush to start it left us unprepared to fight it in the way we could have. That has nothing to do with partisanship. He simply didn’t do his job.
Posted by: Rocky
Hey Daniel, how come virtualy all the links you post go to the same place?
It’s part of the propaganda phase.
I sent it to all the Senators, some Representatives, Bush, Cheney, News stations,
independent and 3rd party organizations, web-sites, blogs, etc.
Hold on a second…..there’s some guys wearing black suits & sun glasses at my door.
Be right back.
Posted by: Daniel at December 10, 2004 03:04 PMDaniel,
Are we talking Tommy lee Jones and Will Smith?
Posted by: Rocky at December 10, 2004 03:19 PMOK, I’m back. It was just a warrant for my arrest for attempting
to overthrough the government.
Posted by: Rocky
Hey Daniel, how come virtualy all the links you post go to the same place?
Actually, because it it refers to the root problem and solution.
It seems futile to argue so many unnecessary problems whose solutions
should be simple, and the cause of the problems always lead back to the
same single cause, that is never resolved.
It’s like treating a patient’s hang-nail when the patient is in cardiac arrest.
I’m wondering if enough voters will ever unite to do such a simple thing.
_________________
On this Rumsfeld issue, I’m not convinced he should be fired, unless he
doesn’t do something ASAP to fix the HUMVEE armor shortage.
There’s a company in Carrolton, Tx. (just a few miles from me) that just claimed
they are ready to have some of the parts ready in only a few weeks.
Rumsfeld is just one person, and I don’t think they’ll make him the scapegoat on this issue.
Besides, there are so many other people in
government that are much more
neglegent, lazy, greedy, and mismanaging things.
Posted by Rocky:
Daniel, Are we talking Tommy lee Jones and Will Smith?
That’s Funny. However, I don’t remember a thing.
: )
Alejo, Adrienne and Rocky
Party affiliation is insignificant when dealing with this subject.
I am just saying, from what I have read on here, nobody has given me any evidence that they would not be supporting Rumsfeld if he was a liberal.
The party no matter what.
The left proved it with dipshit clinton and the right is proving it with Bush.
Adrienne
This story may be of some interest to you.
If you are already aware of this, I apologize.
http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/945375.htm
Now, how can you consider me a red? LOL!!!
Posted by: kctim at December 10, 2004 05:22 PMkctim,
From our jousts in the past it was evident that you weren’t red, hopefully they didn’t make you think I was blue.
I wouldn’t have mattered if Rumsfeld was a blue. He is to arogant and inept to keep the job he has. I have tried to make that clear in my posts.
A blue idiot is still an idiot.
As far as Clinton, he was a scumbag, but, he did do some very worth while things for this country. If he could have kept it in his pants I think he would have been one of the better Presidents that we have had. Does that make me blue?
I hope not.
kctim:
“I am just saying, from what I have read on here, nobody has given me any evidence that they would not be supporting Rumsfeld if he was a liberal.”
You’ll simply have to take me at my word when I say that I honestly think that ANYONE who has done as bad a job with the war in Iraq would have me saying exactly the same thing - namely, FIRE THE LOSER. Look at what he has done: major “shock and awe” and then rotten planning after that, ignoring the advice of his own generals, the Abu Graib scandal, a year to deal with uparmoring those humvees, or at the very least getting our troops some sort of scrambling devices that might keep the IED’s from going off - all these things were in Rummy’s power to deal with, but he’s done a very poor job at all of it, which is why I feel that he should have been canned a long time ago.
“The party no matter what.”
As I’ve told you I’m not a registered Democrat, I’m a Green who votes Democratic only for the president. I’m not emotionally invested in that party - only in my liberal beliefs.
“The left proved it with dipshit clinton and the right is proving it with Bush.”
If Clinton had been half as bad as Dubya, I’d have hated his guts. But he wasn’t completely stupid with all of his policies - only with some of them.
“Adrienne
This story may be of some interest to you.
If you are already aware of this, I apologize.”
Thanks, I have read about that, but I’m a little sceptical (I find it weird that the first three pages of his recent affidavit are in a different font than the last page, y’know?) What do you think of the story? I think it will be very interesting if proven true. However, since it deals with the 2000 election it probably won’t have any affect on the recounts and investigations that are going on now. If that guy Curtis is able to make his case believably, it may go towards proving the unsavory fact that people besides Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush were in on plotting to steal elections in Florida in 2000 - and it might just make people look a lot harder at what happened in the state in our past election.
“Now, how can you consider me a red? LOL!!!”
Well Tim, to be perfectly honest, some of your posts come off a little harsh in way I’ve come to associate with rightwing intolerance and hardheartedness. If I offend you with that and am completely off base, please forgive.
Posted by: Adrienne at December 10, 2004 07:18 PMAdrienne
“What do you think of the story?”
- To be honest, I believe the power of the people to vote who they want into office is in serious trouble. I do not like the e-voting with no paper trail method and I think it will only lead to further complications and discention.
I also do not get offended by anything people post on here. I state my beliefs and try to respect others beliefs, as most on here do.
Harsh? Intolerant? Hardheartedness? Yea, I get that alot from those on the right also. But, as long as the tree huggers and militias will still sit and have a beer with me, all is well. LOL
kctim:
“To be honest, I believe the power of the people to vote who they want into office is in serious trouble. I do not like the e-voting with no paper trail method and I think it will only lead to further complications and discention.”
I agree. And I don’t think the government is going to do anything about it, unless we keep loudly complaining and demanding election reform from our representatives.
“I also do not get offended by anything people post on here.”
Me either. Outraged sometimes, but not offended.
“I state my beliefs and try to respect others beliefs, as most on here do.”
I state mine too, and _try_ to respect others - although sometimes I must admit I fail at the respect part. When I do fail, its usually because they’re making their case based on factors other than sound reason.
“Harsh? Intolerant? Hardheartedness?”
Well, you did seem to think that bloodshed was necessary for change to occur in this country. That seems pretty harsh to me - I’m more the type to think that passive resistance on the one hand or monkey wrenching on the other (extreme) hand is the preferable way to meet that goal.
“But, as long as the tree huggers and militias will still sit and have a beer with me, all is well. LOL”
As long as its a fine American micro-brew, you can count me in. I don’t give money to those beer companies that give campaign money to the Rightwingers - besides, they make piss poor beer by comparison! ;^)
Posted by: Adrienne at December 13, 2004 01:19 PMBloodshed may be necessary for change to occur in this country.
However, there is a peaceful approach.
All the voters have to do is this ONE simple thing.
This one thing could actually work, and would make the politicians pay attention
to the voters, instead of the elite and wealthy special interest groups.
It’s very inexpensive.
It provides the peaceful FORCE required to make government reform.
This is the one simple thing politicians are hoping voters will never figure out.
Why should this be considered ?
Because, it matters less WHO you vote for, than whether they
will be RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE after being elected to office.
After the politicians get the message, it’s likely many problems will
start getting resolved, Congress will stop plundering Social Security,
stop the waste, pork-barrel spending, and corruption (such as $57,000 gold
embosed playing cards for AirForce2 paid for by tax payers).
The problem is a corrupt government and the voters that empower them.
Now that the government is corrupt, voters must unite to force government to be
transparent, responsible, and accountable.
You know what just occurred to me? Despite all the discontent over how poorly the administration is supporting the troops in Iraq, no one is marching in the streets to bring them home.
AP, until the soldiers themselves and their families take the issue to the press relentlessly, there won’t be any marches. Right now, the issue is a political one, not an empathetic one. If the American people are introduced to pleas from soldiers and families on a regular basis, then there will be a motivating empathy factor for their plight. They are afterall volunteers, most of whom support Bush and Rumsfeld according to very limited and inadequate polls.
There is no empathy factor at this point back here at home.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 15, 2004 07:16 AMSorry, David. I was actually thinking that fact kind of belies the conservative caricature of the anti-Bush crowd as defeatists.
I mean, if the half of America that didn’t vote for Bush thought we couldn’t, or shouldn’t, try to do some post-invasion good over there (while making damned sure our troops get the best of everything they need), then I’m sure we actually would be taking to the streets to bring them home.
