Why do you support Rumsfeld?

[alphatarget1]

Let's see,

Rumsfeld is an idiot. I'm gonna quote myself from a post of mine.

"He tried to downsize our military for the "modern battlefield". He's an idiot. The fact is that you need ground troops to control people and nothing will change that. We're not going to be fighting large scale wars with another country/region that needs the mobility rumsfeld craves for. We're going to be fighting insurgents with RPGs and AKs. Did the bush administration focus on terrorism? Well, at least not for rumsfeld.

We clearly do not have enough troops there. We had no exit plan and we have people on both sides dying in significant numbers every single day. Rumsfeld's pentagon failed, Bush failed. Do you get a second chance in your own job if you screw up majorly? No. so why should rumsfeld get a 2nd chance? Firing rumsfeld is NOT a political decision, but rather on his stupidity and incompetence of being the secretary of defense."

 

[tallest1]

I'm not sure what you're going at but it isn't like Rumsfeld was the single person behind this war. While there have been some big snaffus under his watch as of recent, firing him accomplishes little to nothing. I'd write more but its late at night. In short, its kinda shallow to scapegoat Rumsfeld for everything thats gone wrong. If you can back up your claim with some facts, links, something, I'll consider you not to be a troll. *yawn*

 

[viivo]

The Bush administration has too much invested in Rummy - firing him now would make the divisions more public, much worse than any book from a former _x_ could ever do. With Bush backing him it keeps the blind in front of Fox news, and makes the Dems calling for his resignation look like foaming-at-the-mouth child molesters.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Can anyone get "up to speed" quick enough to effectively take his place?

 

[alphatarget1]

let's see what rumsfeld has done...

calling our allies "old europe". what does that accomplish? absolutely nothing, and he pissed off a lot of our allies.

We clearly do not have enough troops in Iraq right now to get things under control. It has been a year now. It's pisspoor planning by the Bush administration of postwar reconstruction. Don't give me that "good things are happening" bullsh!t. of course we'd win a conventional war against a small nation. Did this administration really plan things on what to do AFTER the invasion? We still have troops dying all the time, not to mention iraqi civilians.

Face it, rumsfeld failed, bush failed. They should accept their responsibilities for their failures.

 

[viivo]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
They should accept their responsibilities for their failures.

There have been no failures. Bush said it himself - so it must be true - that he has made no mistakes during his presidency. And if Hannity believes it, gosh darnit, I believe it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Can anyone get "up to speed" quick enough to effectively take his place?

I can't see why not. There must be dozens of bright people with extensive knowledge of defense matters in DC at any given time. This sort of transition has to happen everytime there is an election. Frankly it seems likely to me that Paul Wolfowitz would be the interim SecDef, but would have a hard time getting confirmed at this point. I'd have to think the Bush administration would try to choose someone who embraces the Rumsfeld philosophy on "anticipatory self-defense," meaning that things would probably still proceed along the same lines they already have.

Here is a fascinating article on the perspectives of everyday Iraqis, who, according to the article, couldn't care less about whether Rumsfeld is removed.

 

[Zipp]

I support Rummy cause he's a hard ass and he pisses off all the pansy liberals.:laugh:

 

[xype]

Originally posted by: Zipp
I support Rummy cause he's a hard ass and he pisses off all the pansy liberals.:laugh:

I guess the boys and gals dying in Iraq are really happy about people like you.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
We clearly do not have enough troops there.

How are you so sure? Are you a military genious? Have you ever fought a war, have you even ever played RTS games that simulate command of troops in combat? I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

We had no exit plan and we have people on both sides dying in significant numbers every single day.

Significant numbers? Talk to the Russians who during WWII lost an average of THOUSANDS every day It has been over a year and we've yet to lose 1000 total...

Rumsfeld's pentagon failed, Bush failed. Do you get a second chance in your own job if you screw up majorly? No. so why should rumsfeld get a 2nd chance? Firing rumsfeld is NOT a political decision, but rather on his stupidity and incompetence of being the secretary of defense.

I don't think you can fail before the grade has been given...

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
We clearly do not have enough troops there.

How are you so sure? Are you a military genious? Have you ever fought a war, have you even ever played RTS games that simulate command of troops in combat? I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Is there one?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
We clearly do not have enough troops there.

How are you so sure? Are you a military genious? Have you ever fought a war, have you even ever played RTS games that simulate command of troops in combat? I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Had Rummy before the Neocons Excellent Adventure into Iraq?

We had no exit plan and we have people on both sides dying in significant numbers every single day.

Significant numbers? Talk to the Russians who during WWII lost an average of THOUSANDS every day Apples and Oranges, the Russians were defending against an invader with a powerful army, we are not!

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Can anyone get "up to speed" quick enough to effectively take his place?

I can't see why not. There must be dozens of bright people with extensive knowledge of defense matters in DC at any given time. This sort of transition has to happen everytime there is an election. Frankly it seems likely to me that Paul Wolfowitz would be the interim SecDef, but would have a hard time getting confirmed at this point. I'd have to think the Bush administration would try to choose someone who embraces the Rumsfeld philosophy on "anticipatory self-defense," meaning that things would probably still proceed along the same lines they already have.

Here is a fascinating article on the perspectives of everyday Iraqis, who, according to the article, couldn't care less about whether Rumsfeld is removed.

During the change over due to an election there are really two main options:
Bush stays and his man is in the position so a graceful changeover would be likely (if one is needed at all). Or another Republican is put in place and the changeover is graceful.
Or a democrat is put in place and gets no guidence from Rumsfeld.

With an interim person in there, probably no guidence from Rumsfeld would be the likely situation. Sure there are plenty of staff members tracking this and that, but there are important pieces missing. I think they would mostly relate to putting all of those pieces of information together. How do they relate? Getting pieces of information from various organizations doesn't do a whole lot of good if you can't put the puzzle together.

Rumsfeld has had "all of the information" and has had the time to put it all together. Plus, there are undoubtedly personal relationships involved here. Politicians have friends, they always do. Putting someone else in charge might change those minor "alliances" enough to cause yet another disaster.

I personally would like to see Rumsfeld recieve the punishment he deserves for the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandals, but I'm just not sure if it would be the best answer...

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Let's see,

Rumsfeld is an idiot.

Best argument 3V4R!!!!!!11111111

 

[Klixxer]

They can't fire him, what if he were to start talking to the press?

 

[dmcowen674]

I was looking forward to a CAD & Co response to this.

Could it be they are they are NOT whole heartedly behind and supporting the Fearless Liar and his cabinet any longer??? :Q

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Can anyone get "up to speed" quick enough to effectively take his place?

Considering he is an idiot I do not think this would be hard. There are a lot of people who are well versed enough in US national security to take over his position.

 

[MAW1082]

Because he knows that:

"There are known knowns, that is to say things we know we know
then there are known unknowns, that is to say things we know we don't know
and finally there are unknown unknowns, that is to say things we don't know we don't know."

Pretty much the most hilarious thought I've ever heard put directly into words.