posted April 17, 2006 02:26 PM            

So, exactly who the hell would want a hand wringing pantywaist as Sec Defense for the US?

Apparently, the whiny generals.

Rumsfeld Has Proved His Mettle
Geoff Metcalf
Monday, April 17, 2006

Men of strenuous minds and high ideals come forward. ... The attacks they sustain are more cruel than the collision of arms. ... Friends desert and despise them. ... They stand alone."

– Woodrow Wilson

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a strong personality, tasked (among other things greater and lesser) with managing a puzzle palace full of strong personalities and huge egos.

‘No plan survives first contact.' And hindsight is always 20/20.

Currently an excrement storm is swirling around the SecDef as a few retired general officers are grousing that their former boss should be pink-slipped.

President Bush is standing fast with his guy and says Rumsfeld has his full support and that Rummy's leadership is "exactly what is needed at this critical period."

Notwithstanding the president's support, a small collection of perfumed princes have taken umbrage with Don's management style and leadership. Hey, even before 9/11, everyone knew Don Rumsfeld could be an s.o.b. Fortune magazine had listed him as one of America's toughest bosses ... before he took over the Pentagon.

It is axiomatic that an alpha dog like Rumsfeld would p.o. other alpha dogs in uniform ... and he did/does.

Rumsfeld was a wresting champ in high school and at Princeton. He was a Navy pilot, Congress critter, U.S. ambassador to NATO, chief of staff for Gerald Ford and then Ford's secretary of defense. He was CEO of Fortune 500 companies – and always an effective, superior, tough ******* .

Prior to ascending to SecDef, his plans for morphing the Pentagon into a leaner, meaner, more efficient entity had institutional bureaucrats apoplectic.

One of his 154 "Rumsfeld's Rules" states: "Prune businesses, products, activities, people. Do it annually." (You can see the full list at www.defenselink.mil )

So a few retired generals have their panties in a bunch over what their boss did or didn't do and how he did or didn't do it ... big whoop!!

Retired two-star John Batiste said he thinks the clamor for Rumsfeld to step down is "happening for a reason." Yeah, because retired generals can say whatever they want. Batiste said, "We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, and who didn't build a strong team."

Wait one, General ... the same guy who ran Fortune 500 companies to billions, served as SecDef and a president's chief of staff and an ambassador to NATO doesn't understand leadership?

Another whiny two-star said Rumsfeld fostered an "atmosphere of arrogance." Gee, I saw the same thing at Fort Benning and Fort Bragg ... and it persists at Coronado, Quantico and other places where ‘Eagles Flock.'

One interesting sidebar Rumsfeld mentioned in the wake of the recent itching and moaning is significant on a couple of counts. He noted that there are 3,000 to 6,000 retired and active generals. The mere fact that there are so many flag officers hanging around supports my contention that there are way too many generals. Also, a statistical analysis of the number of general offices cheap-shotting the SecDef suggests that this noise is a minor minority report.

Civilian and military leaders have bumped heads before and will in the future.

Lincoln relieved General McClellan. Truman fired MacArthur. During Vietnam, generals were chronically grumpy about White House command and control of bombing missions.

Batiste referenced Gen. Eric Shinseki, who as then Army chief of staff told Congress a month before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that occupying the country could require "several hundred thousand troops," rather than the smaller force that did the job. Batiste snidely says: "And we all remember what happened to him. ... He was retired early, and the Secretary of Defense did not go to his retirement ceremony."

Hey, Shinseki was in deep kimchi before the "several hundred thousand troops" comment. He is the guy who gave the entire Army nifty black berets (previously the distinctive headgear of Army Rangers). Eric had ‘other' problems, which sealed his fate before his mouth wrote checks his body couldn't cash.

It is also no big surprise that the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Peter Pace, is the strongest defender in uniform of his boss. Hey, Rummy is his boss! "He does his homework. He works weekends, he works nights. People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld," Pace said.

Could Rumsfeld have done things differently? Sure. Should he be fired because he's a ‘hard Richard'? No!

posted April 17, 2006 03:10 PM              

......with his good buddy, Saddam.....

(what do they say about birds of a feather?)

posted April 17, 2006 03:32 PM              

A picture is worth a thousand words..

If he is a tough, mean, arrogant, confident s.o.b., that is probably a good thing

quote:

---

So, Rumsfeld is tough, abrasive, stubborn and wants to do things his own way...

---

Just like his buddy Saddam...

quote:

---

So, exactly who the hell would want a hand wringing pantywaist

---

...I wouldn't call Saddam an "pantywaist" either...

quote:

---

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a strong personality,

---

...like his buddy Saddam..

quote:

---

We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant,

---

Sounds like his buddy Saddam to me....

quote:

---

Another whiny two-star said Rumsfeld fostered an "atmosphere of arrogance."

---

Just like his buddy....

quote:

---

If he is a tough, mean, arrogant, confident s.o.b., that is probably a good thing

---

That's what Saddam thought....

posted April 17, 2006 04:40 PM            

Ever wonder why...if Rumsfeld and Saddam are a-hole buddies, what Saddam is doing on trial for his life in Iraq?

posted April 17, 2006 04:47 PM            

What a pair eh? Bill and Hill got caught and had to give the illegal contributions back but they upheld their end of the bargain anyway and gave those nuclear and missile secrets to communist China.

posted April 17, 2006 08:06 PM            

That should earn that reporter or any reporter a spot right at the top of every American's enemies list.

Monday, April 17, 2006 6:40 p.m. EDT
Donald Rumsfeld: Media Sees Military as 'Other Side'

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that journalists covering the Iraq war no longer want to be embedded with U.S. military units because they viewed American troops as "the other side."

In an interview Monday with EIB Radio host Rush Limbaugh, Rumsfeld noted that "far fewer journalists . . . have stepped up to become embedded" compared to the early days of the war.

The defense chief recalled: "I asked one reporter about that, and there was kind of the impression left that, 'Well, if you got embedded then you were really part of the problem instead of part of the solution and you were almost going over to the other side.'"

Rumsfeld then added: "I think that's an inexcusable thought, and I don't know if that's the case [with all reporters]."

The Pentagon leader said that before the press grew disenchanted with it, he considered the military's embed program to have been a significant success.
"A lot of people who are reporters and journalists were able to work with our troops and see precisely how terrific they are, the wonderful job they do, the kinds of people they are, how professional they are," he told Limbaugh. "And the rest of their lives they're going to have an impression of the American military that will be good for journalism, in my view."

Rumsfeld said he wasn't overly troubled by recent criticism by six retired generals who have called on him to resign, telling Limbaugh: "If you started chasing, running around chasing public opinion polls or a handful of people who are critics of this or critics on that, you wouldn't get anywhere in this world."

posted April 17, 2006 08:32 PM              

quote:

---

The defense chief recalled......

---

hehe yeaaaaa......i'm gonna really trust rummy's "recollection" about what some leftist reporter said, he cant even recall what he's said himself.....see living in denial

posted April 17, 2006 08:38 PM              

quote:

---

what Saddam is doing on trial for his life in Iraq?

---

...asks jwhop.....

Well, I'd say his he was no longer "useful" to his "buddy" Rummy.

There really is no "honor" among criminals, you know...

posted April 17, 2006 09:03 PM            

Rainbow

posted April 18, 2006 02:16 AM              

quote:

---

He's a lot nicer guy than I am.--jwhop

---

posted April 18, 2006 02:36 AM              

quote:

---

Rainbow

I wonder how many mass murderers, drug dealers, and general scum of the earth types Commander Corruption and Hillary have shaken hands with?

---

Oh I'd guess, prolly about even steven with the amount that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all the rest of that NWO bunch have...

posted April 18, 2006 04:00 PM            

Worse still, at least one report indicates that Gen. Zinni may have played a role in an August 1998 leak that tipped off Osama bin Laden to an impending U.S. cruise missile attack - allowing the top terrorist to escape.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 2000, a week after the Cole attack, the then-recently retired Zinni said: "I pass that buck on to nobody."

The Rumsfeld critic explained that he personally signed off on berthing the Cole in Yemen even though "their coast is a sieve for terrorists."

"The threat conditions in Aden were better than elsewhere," he insisted, citing risk assessments for Sudan and Saudi Arabia.

Gen. Zinni said that cutbacks in the size of the Navy's fleet during the Clinton years made it necessary to use regional ports for refueling, noting: "Ten years ago, we did all refueling at sea" using Navy oilers.

Still, prior to the Cole attack, there's no record that Gen. Zinni ever complained about Clinton era defense cuts.

In what may be an even more troubling development, a report indicates that the leading Rumsfeld critic may have inadvertently played a role in tipping off Osama bin Laden to an impending U.S. cruise missile attack two years before the Cole episode.

Two days after President Clinton ordered the attack on bin Laden's encampment in Khost Afghanistan, the Associated Press reported:

"Kuwait's Al-Watan newspaper, quoting unidentified sources in London today, reported that Pakistan leaked to bin Laden news about an impending U.S. strike. The sources said the leak was aimed at limiting casualties, so that bin Laden would have less justification for a counterattack.

"A Pakistani government source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of the U.S. Central Command, was in Peshawar the day before the attack to meet with Pakistani officials.

posted April 18, 2006 04:13 PM            

These vultures have hovered over Rumsfeld's stubbornly vibrant carcass for way too long, and they just can't let him sprint out of yet another crisis: the call for his resignation by a half dozen retired generals.

Nothing inspires liberals in the press more than the opportunity to glorify liberals in uniform. Conservative military or ex-military types are just jingoistic hacks. But those critical of the military in general or of the Iraq War qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize or Time's Man of the Year.

Just look at their endless exaltation of Congressman John Murtha once he demanded withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Every single story they ran contained the obligatory description of Murtha as a war hero and, more importantly, a longtime hawk.

They apparently believe that when military types speak out against the war it's like finding a smoking gun. What can be more effective to undermine the political enemy than defectors from within their own ranks – like John Dean with Richard Nixon? What could give their long-suffering cause more credibility than a group of retired generals against the war?

It never occurs to the media to question the inappropriateness of retired military officers publicly criticizing the U.S. civilian leadership during war. But other retired generals – John Crosby, Thomas McInerney, Buron Moore and Paul Vallely, among others – have said it is highly inappropriate. It also doesn't bother the media that the retired officers' demand for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation during wartime could undermine our war effort and troop morale. They can't stand this war anyway.

So the last things the media will want to examine are the propriety and motives of these men who have savaged Mr. Rumsfeld. But someone should.

Do retired generals Paul Eaton, Gregory Newbold, Anthony Zinni, John Batiste, John Riggs and Charles Swannack hope to start a public avalanche of criticism against Rumsfeld – as if he hasn't taken enough heat over the last four years? Do they want to start a public debate involving all 7,000 retired generals and flag officers in this country and put a big smile on Osama's face?

Shouldn't it make a difference whether some of these generals, like Zinni, have been longtime critics of Rumsfeld or opposed the war all along? Why is it news when he comes out with another in his long line of criticisms?

Would a curious, balanced press be interested in determining whether some of these six men have an ax to grind? Officer Riggs was demoted from three to two stars immediately before his retirement, and he might believe his public statement saying the Army was stretched too thin had something to do with it.

Should the media be interested in earlier press reports that Gregory Newbold was publicly chastised by Secretary Rumsfeld for announcing that "the combat power of the Taliban has been eviscerated" and that when he requested early retirement in 2002 he said he had grown tired of Rumsfeld's abrasive style? How about Newbold's endorsement of the left's line that the administration distorted intelligence in the lead-up to the war and that it alienated our allies?

In his administration-bashing piece for Time magazine Newbold even seems to adopt the liberals' familiar "chicken hawk" argument: that the opinions of those who haven't served don't count. He wrote, "My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions – or bury the results."

One of John Batiste's criticisms of Rumsfeld, according to the Washington Post, is that there weren't sufficient troops in Iraq. Should the media explore, then, why this same general, during a meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld and other top commanders in Tikrit, did not complain about insufficient troop levels when expressly invited to by Secretary Rumsfeld himself – according to an AP report dated Dec. 26, 2004?

posted April 18, 2006 04:58 PM              

....but I think he's an old b@stard!

And so is Cheney.

Despicable characters - both!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted April 18, 2006 11:12 PM            

They just don't have the leftist values of:

Lying
Adultery
Perjury
Rape
Sexual assault
Obstruction of Justice
Treason
Subornation of perjury
Bribery

posted April 18, 2006 11:15 PM            

A handful of retired general officers, all with distinguished military careers, are lashing out at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, criticizing his conduct of the war in Iraq and demanding his resignation. And the media, careful to avoid any discussion of the past or what really lies behind the controversy, are eating it up.

According to the media, the primary complaint being voiced by the generals against Rumsfeld revolves around the Iraq war and his alleged shortcomings in prosecuting that conflict. With the current difficulties on the ground in Iraq – the bombings, the internecine warfare between various religious sects and the failure of the politicians to form a functioning government – the complaint seems to ring true.

This is not, however, the primary motivation of the secretary's critics. The problem lies much deeper. What is being portrayed as a revolt by some general officers against the secretary's handling of the war is in reality a revolt of the battleship generals.

Last month, retired Major General Paul Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi troops until 2004, let the cat out of the bag when he wrote in the New York Times, "Rumsfeld has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology."

And therein lies the rub. What we are witnessing is just another rerun of military officers burning with resentment over policies adopted and pursued by the military's civilian leadership, against which they are powerless to resist. At the root of the battleship generals' resentment against Rumsfeld is his ongoing reorganization and modernization of the military, with strong emphasis on technological advances.

I am indebted to retired Major General Bob Scales, the brilliant former commander of the Army War College and himself a distinguished officer, for his recollections of the great war between the battleship admirals and the carrier admirals that was waged between the two world wars and in the immediate aftermath of World War II.

Scales explained that Rumsfeld's modernization program involves what is called the Army's Future Combat System : "a collection of many smaller systems ranging from light armored vehicles to aerial drones and ground robots The entire suite of technologies is tied together with an expansive information network. While the system is complex, its purpose is fairly simple: to elevate the Army into the third dimension. Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan reinforces the truism that ground forces will never be effective against an enemy who goes to ground in distant places unless they can lighten their weapons sufficiently to reach the battlefield and stay the longer periods demanded by unconventional wars."

Wrote Scales: "During the two decades between the world wars a few far-seeing admirals recognized that command of the seas would depend on the ability to command the air above the seas." Recalling that Admirals Simms and Moffet "fought a campaign inside the navy and in the halls of Congress to built a fleet of large deck carriers capable of destroying the Japanese fleet at a distance – from the air," Scales wrote that "the 'Battleship Barons' argued that carriers and aircraft were too vulnerable and battleships too invincible to be destroyed from the air. The Japanese would be defeated by besting them with a few more knots of speed, inches of armor and longer-ranging guns."

The Army, he explained, "is substantially in the same place today. A legion of battleship generals, most of them retired officers, have come out of the woodwork to proclaim that today's fleet of massive Cold War fighting vehicles are good enough."

The battleship generals maintain, he wrote, that "what was good enough for Patton and Schwartzkopf will meet the needs of a 21st century army. The battleship generals are a dangerous lot because they are as wrong today as the battleship admirals were seven decades ago. Today's ground forces are too massive and immobile to be effective in a war against a distributed, dispersed, elusive enemy who has learned to avoid the superior killing power of American weapons by hiding in places that iron monsters cannot reach."

That's what it all comes down to. Add to that Donald Rumsfeld's aggressive manner, which rubs the wrong way some subordinates accustomed to being slavishly deferred to by their own subordinates, and you have the makings of a simmering resentment rising to the surface.

I don't know Donald Rumsfeld. Back in 1963 when I was working for the House Republican Policy Committee and by virtue of the requirements of my job was required to work closely with the majority of Republicans in the House, I don't recall having any real contact with Donald Rumsfeld, who had been elected to Congress in 1962.

My only memory of him is seeing Rep. Ed Derwinski, a great bear of a man, rubbing Rumsfeld's crew cut while in the process of taking down a peg the outspoken and cocky freshman congressman in his overeagerness in promoting his peculiar views at a conference of GOP members.

posted April 19, 2006 03:13 AM              

quote:

---

Cheney and Rumsfeld are both men of outstanding character and values Rainbow

---

This statement makes me physically ill...makes me want to run to the bathroom and barf!

Then goes on to tell me that the following...are "leftist" values...*sigh*

quote:

---

Lying
Adultery
Perjury
Rape
Sexual assault
Obstruction of Justice
Treason
Subornation of perjury
Bribery

---

I don't know about rummy (which is not to
say that rummy bears no guilt), but the sins of which cheney and bush jr. and sr. are guilty. among many others, (which cover nearly all of the above) can never be revealed to the public, for reasons of "National Security!"

.....because from what I understand.....

quote:

---

...the National Security Act as been interpreted not to guard the integrity of military secrets, but instead to protect criminal activity of the highest order.

---

posted April 19, 2006 12:37 PM              

by Matthew Rothschild

April 18, 2006

It’s not Donald Rumsfeld’s colossal arrogance or his glaring misjudgments we should be focusing on. It’s his potential crimes.

The mainstream media in the U.S. is giving enormous attention to the retired generals who are demanding Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation because of his autocratic style and his bungling in Iraq.

But the mainstream media is barely discussing Rumsfeld’s alleged culpability in the abusive treatment of detainees, up to and including torture.

“The question at this point is not whether Secretary Rumsfeld should resign, it’s whether he should be indicted,” says Joanne Mariner of Human Rights Watch, who directs its terrorism and counterterrorism program.

She was reacting to a report from Salon.com that Rumsfeld was personally involved in monitoring the interrogation at Guantanamo of the so-called 20th hijacker, Muhammad al-Qahtani.

For six weeks at the end of 2002 and the start of 2003, U.S. interrogators worked al-Qahtani over.

Among other things, they forced him to “stand naked in front of a female interrogator,” and they forced him to “wear women’s underwear and to perform ‘dog tricks’ on a leash,” according to salon.com.

Human Rights Watch disagrees. It says that Rumsfeld "could be criminally liable under federal or military criminal law for torture, assaults, and sexual abuse" for the treatment of al-Qahtani.

On top of that, they brought in a snarling dog.

All of these acts “were specifically intended to cause severe physical pain and suffering and severe mental pain and suffering,” says Mariner of Human Rights Watch “That’s the legal definition of torture.”

Much of al-Qahtani’s interrogation occurred while a December 2, 2002, Rumsfeld directive was in effect. (He rescinded it, under pressure from the Navy, six weeks later.) That memo authorized sixteen controversial interrogation techniques, including the use of nudity, removal of religious items, sensory deprivation, blaring music, stress positions, and dogs.

Rumsfeld was “personally involved” in the interrogation, according to Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt, who investigated the incident and whose testimony is available at salon.com. Rumsfeld was in weekly contact with Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was commander of Guantánamo, about the case

According to Schmidt, Rumsfeld approved a “special interrogation plan” for al-Qahtani. Rumsfeld said “this is approved to be used in special circumstances which I will approve, and it’s for Mister Khatani, number one.” Schmidt said, “The Secretary of Defense is personally involved in the interrogation . . . and the Secretary of Defense is personally being briefed on this.”

Schmidt’s August 24, 2005, testimony to the Department of the Army Inspector General is revealing.

He mentions the “short shackling” of detainees, inappropriate strip searches, sexual humiliation, the use of cold temperatures in cells that threatened to cause hypothermia, and the use of snarling dogs in detainees’ faces, including al-Qahtani's.

“Here’s this guy manacled, chained down, dogs brought in, put [into] his face, told to growl, show teeth, and that kind of stuff,” Schmidt testified. “If you had a camera and snapped that picture, you’d been back to Abu Ghraib.”

Later in his testimony, in regards to the use of blaring music, Schmidt said, “There was no boundary, and there was no limit on all these little creative” techniques.

Schmidt’s testimony also shows how President Bush himself contributed to the problem at Guantanamo.

Schmidt makes clear that Bush’s order of February 7, 2002, to not grant Al Qaeda detainees the protections of the Geneva Conventions created confusion. Bush ordered the military to treat detainees “humanely,” Schmidt said, but “there is no definition of what is ‘humane treatment.’ . . . There is humane treatment and nobody knows what that is, but there is a general fuzzy line.”

This fuzzy line contributed to lax procedure, he said. “On the interrogations side, it was a little bit—and I don’t want to say it is out of control, but it was California Avocado Freestyle kind of a thing.” Later in his testimony, he said, “It was just a free for all.”

Schmidt interviewed Rumsfeld twice. At one point, Schmidt asked him if he had approved techniques verbally prior to the December 2 order. “I had this discussion with the Secretary of Defense, and he wasn’t happy, OK? And he could not remember—strike that about not being happy. He went around the table to all the people that he could recollect that were in the room for the period. And say did I approve that before I actually signed it? And they all went we don’t remember.”

Rumsfeld also tried to shrug off the consequences of his order.

“He was going, ‘My God, you know, did I authorize putting a bra and underwear on this guy’s head . . . and make him dance with another man?’ ”

Maj. Gen. Miller, who was later sent by Rumsfeld to “Gitmoize” Abu Ghraib, does not come off well in this testimony. Schmidt interviewed Miller twice. The first time, Miller said that he was on top of the al-Qahtani interrogation. “We are watching this. This is a very important thing. This is his most important thing he’s doing,” Miller said, according to Schmidt. “The special interrogation plan is proceeding. We are watching it meticulously.”

But the second time Schmidt took testimony from Miller, the commander denied knowing about some of the specific techniques, like “gender coercion” or the use of “menstrual blood” on the detainees, or the use of snarling dogs.

Schmidt said Miller did not commit a criminal offense but failed to properly supervise or monitor the interrogation.

Schmidt also said the techniques on al-Qahtani were “abusive and degrading,” but were not “inhumane,” and “I absolutely ruled out torture.”

Human Rights Watch disagrees. It says that Rumsfeld “could be criminally liable under federal or military criminal law for torture, assaults, and sexual abuse” for the treatment of al-Qahtani.

This is not the first time Human Rights Watch has asserted the need to indict the Secretary of Defense. In a report it released last year, “Getting Away with Torture? Command Responsibility for the U.S. Abuse of Detainees ,” it urged the prosecution of Rumsfeld under the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Anti-Torture Act of 1996. Under these statutes, it is illegal to commit a “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment,” as well as torture and murder.

“Secretary Rumsfeld may bear legal liability for war crimes and torture by U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo under the doctrine of ‘command responsibility’—the legal principle that holds a superior responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates when he knew or should have known that they were being committed but fails to stop them,” the report said.

But it also said “Rumsfeld could potentially bear direct criminal responsibility, as opposed to command responsibility.” It cited his approval of “specific interrogation plans” for two high-value detainees in Guantanamo, one of whom was al-Qahtani.He’s in jeopardy for one final reason.

“Secretary Rumsfeld has publicly admitted that . . . he ordered an Iraqi national held in Camp Cropper, a high security detention center in Iraq, to be kept off the prison’s rolls and not presented to the International Committee of the Red Cross,” the report noted. The Geneva Conventions require countries to grant the Red Cross access to all detainees.

Not listening to his generals may be the least of Donald Rumsfeld’s worries.

Answering to a prosecutor may be a lot more serious.

Donald Rumsfeld, indicted?

That’s what accountability would look like.

posted April 19, 2006 07:56 PM            

All the lefts initiatives against Bush have failed. Getting Rumsfeld and Cheney isn't happening either.

Their best effort to protect their communist buddy, Saddam Hussein failed too.

Boo-hoo-hoos all around.

posted April 19, 2006 10:48 PM              

"So, Rumsfeld is tough, abrasive, stubborn and wants to do things his own way...a right bast*st eh?
So, exactly who the hell would want a hand wringing pantywaist as Sec Defense for the US?"

Aren't you exaggerating, Jwhop? Are you saying that any Sec. of Defense who actually works with his generals and takes their advice into consideration is a "hand wringing pantywaist?"

If so then the answer is yes. Would rather have one of those then a guy like Rumsfeld who never saw combat and yet thinks he knows everything at the helm.

If Rumsfeld is so tough lets see him go fight the war in Iraq single handedly. He is a chicken hawk. That's all he is.

posted April 24, 2006 12:22 PM            

quote:

---

quote:...the National Security Act as been interpreted not to guard the integrity of military secrets, but instead to protect criminal activity of the highest order.
From TRANCE Formation of America ....Rainbow.

---

posted April 24, 2006 12:29 PM            

quote:

---

Complaining about whiny b@stards then quoting Wilson ... I really don't know whether to laugh or cry....TINK

---

posted April 24, 2006 12:31 PM            

Donald Rumsfeld, the Bush administration's point man on Iraq and main target of the critics of the Iraq war, may feel that the whole world has turned against him. But the secretary of Defense still has plenty of loyal defenders, including Midge Decter. The neoconservative author and lecturer is a friend of his who was given unprecedented access to Rumsfeld in the run-up to the Iraq war for her authorized biography, Rumsfeld: A Personal Portrait. I talked with Decter by telephone on Wednesday from her home in New York City:

Q: What do you think Donald Rumsfeld really thinks about these retired generals who are calling for him to resign?

A: I doubt that he is surprised by their views. Some of these generals were opposed to the war all along. Some have been his enemies for internal Pentagon reasons. So I doubt he’s surprised, except he may think it is almost unprecedented for them to behave this way -- as I do. I don’t remember when there was such a phenomenon. But I doubt that he fell over in a dead faint of shock from this.

Q: Did it surprise him?

A: Only in the sense that it’s not done what they’ve done. It’s not fitting. It’s not proper. But that they are there -- and that they are brooding and that they are hostile to him -- I’m sure came as not a bit of surprise. Days, weeks, months after he first got to the Pentagon, the army was already very hostile to him because they had expected big things of him. He had been there before. He had been there in the Ford administration. Not very long, but he had been there. They thought, “Oh, boy, this is our guy who is coming in. He’ll do wonders for our budget, and we’ll have everything we want.”

He came in and almost overnight disabused them of this. They were not going to get a budget increase. In fact, what they were going to have to do was go through a whole period of re-evaluation of everything that was going on -- all the policies, all the organization. Because he came in with the approval or maybe at even the request of the president -- I don’t know; I wasn’t in on their conversation -- to do something about bringing the military into the 21st century.

He got up their noses as soon as he got to the Pentagon. On the other hand, I think it is very important to say that there are undoubtedly more officers serving in the armed forces, particularly more junior ones, who think he’s great.

Q: It’s more of the old guard at the Army, as opposed to the up-and-coming junior officers?

A: There are some who are not old guard but it has to be pointed out that some of the generals who have organized themselves in this little cabal were opposed to this war in Iraq, period. A couple of others were not but thought it wasn’t being conducted properly. Now, I’m not a military expert and I’m not going to tell you whether it was conducted properly or not. I do have the sense that no wars are conducted properly. There is no such thing. It’s very easy to second-guess after mistakes have been made.

Q: The "media Rumsfeld" we have learned to love and hate -- the words "imperious," "hard-headed," "self-assured" come to mind.

A: Well, he certainly is tough. He is a very, very, very experienced man. He’s done all kinds of different things, including running two successful corporations. He started out as a young congressmen elected four times and so on. He’s had a wide range of experience and he knows what he thinks.

He’s very, very respectful of intelligence -- I don’t mean CIA intelligence. I mean brains. And he's also respectful of straightforwardness. When he got to the Pentagon, he turned out to be a very tough boss, and a lot of people were scared to death of him -- and showed it. That did not endear them to him, let’s put it that way. Also, he is a man who doesn’t suffer fools gladly. If you want to earn his respect, if you disagree with him, you offer a sound argument and disagreement. If you wish to earn his contempt, you'll start sweating and feeling nervous and run away.

Q: Has Mr. Rumsfeld learned any big, important lessons from what has happened in Iraq compared to what the plans were?

A: Of course! He’s a very, very, very intelligent man -- and a very honorable man. I’m sure he’s learned and I don’t know if those lessons apply to the next place we end up in, either, because everything is a special set of circumstances. What is new here is the conduct of the opponents of the war.

Q: Do you have any sense that he has changed his mind as to what constitutes success in Iraq?

A: No. Success in Iraq is to establish a relatively decent representative government there. It hasn’t happened yet but it hasn’t not happened yet, either. It’s taken time and the place is a mess because there is an insurgency.

Let me tell you something: The Israelis probably know better than anybody else how to fight terrorism, because they have had so much experience and because they have good intelligence. And they can’t fight it totally successfully. We’re now just beginning to learn how to fight it and there is no way to fight it successfully. It’s nasty stuff.

One of the worst things people did was make this scandal about Abu Ghraib. Not because Abu Ghraib was nice. It was stupid and ridiculous, but…The most important thing in fighting terrorism is intelligence. You have to get information from people. And the only way to get information about terrorism is to get a terrorist and get him to start to talk to you. Now don’t tell me you can do that by being nice to him, if you know what I mean.

Q: War is a dirty rotten business -- which is why we shouldn’t go into them so often.

A: It is, but the question is, are we up to it or aren’t we? I don’t know the answer to that question, and perhaps I think probably by now Don Rumsfeld thinks he may not know the answer to that question. But one thing he knows George Bush is: George Bush is one tough man and one brave man.

Q: Do you think Mr. Rumsfeld will be forced to resign?

posted April 24, 2006 12:42 PM            

“There are a lot of people out there that do not like Donald Rumsfeld.” So spoke former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who ran the Pentagon under Presidents Nixon and Ford. This analysis does not get catalogued as “breaking news.” As Schlesinger noted, a lot of what we’re hearing is a “recycling of complaints” going back to the beginning of the administration, or earlier.

The media is whipping up a new frenzy in its antiwar, anti-Bush crusade by making use former disgruntled military officers who freely criticize the secretary now that they are retired. Some are fresh faces like Marine three-star Gregory Newbold, now with the Potomac Institute. Others, like Marine four-star Anthony Zinni have been critics for years. Some are what we in the ranks called political generals such as Colin Powell, Al Haig, Wesley Clark, and Barry McAffery. Others are fighting generals like Jack Vessey, Jack Singlaub, Peter Pace, Richard Meyers, and Tommy Franks. They are usually not as well known. They serve under elected civilian leadership honorably and quietly, then depart.

What are the complaints that we’re hearing from the vocal ones? According to Army General John Batiste, Rumsfeld was a leader “who was abusive, who was arrogant, and who didn’t build a strong team.” Is it just my imagination or does this whine sound eerily like yesterday’s sports figures who are now stuck on the sidelines, angry and hurt that they are no longer in the spotlight? But maybe that’s too harsh.

Among the military you will find leftists, conservatives, and independents - and they are free to express their partisan opinions after they leave active service. Since they are for the most part patriotic, religious, logical, and goal oriented they tend to be conservatives. But the military – just like America - comes in all political shades.

Further, men in uniform are not persecuted for expressing harsh, dissenting opinions while in the service. Name another country that allows high ranking military people to dissent without slamming them into prison or standing them before a firing squad. In Saddam’s Iraq generals feared to open their mouths to discount even some of his wildest adventures. The dictator regularly purged his closest advisors.

Nor are retired generals and other military men necessarily held to account for miscalculations or crass stupidity. Zinni, for example, consistently has predicted the most horrific American casualty rates in both Afghanistan and Iraq, to the tune of “tens of thousands of body bags.” Not only did those casualties not occur on the field but even our enemies did not suffer anywhere close to casualty rates seen in previous wars thanks to improved weaponry and a focus on killing enemy equipment rather than soldiers. Former General Wesley Clark blathers about “absence of leadership” – a not-so-subtle shot at President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld – ignoring the fact that he was commander while the Balkans slid into the morass of internecine warfare, mass killings, and rising Islamofascism all on his inept, politicized watch.

But outspoken retired general officers are one thing. One has to ask, why were they not this vocal while wearing the uniform? It is difficult to ascribe shyness to careerism. After all, generals ought to be the most fearless of all the officer corps - their careers are made. For a general officer to serve silently when given the frequent opportunity - indeed encouragement - to express his opinion and for him (or her) to fail to do so at that opportunity then complain publicly about it later is moral cowardice.

Retired three-star Air Force general Thomas McInerney notes that he was in meetings with many of today’s complainers in the run-up to the war. “They had plenty of opportunity to speak their minds, and in fact were encouraged to do so. Why were they silent then and vocal now?”

“You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense,” Batiste said. Yes, but to McInerney’s point: was he that outspoken when he wore stars? If not, then questions must be raised. Certainly no one can fault Batiste’s personal courage and ethos. One former battalion commander said of Batiste, “I knew him well. He is a soldier. A professional in every sense.” That is undoubtedly true, but why speak out publicly now when the war is still hot, soldiers are engaged in the field, and the public is being misled by the media about the war.

Could some of these officers have personal motivations? It is possible. What seems to be emerging is a political class of general officer, perhaps with an eye toward appointed office if the Democrats win in 2008, or a fat book contract in the interim as a Bush-Rumsfeld bashing guy in uniform. If this proves in fact to be the case, then their stance does not reflect high moral standards but rank opportunism.

There is little doubt that these men will be lionized by a media and Left obsessed with destroying Bush and Rumsfeld even at the expense of a rational, sensible foreign policy and even if it means losing in the war for the free world. Not all of them certainly; some speak with professionalism and sincerity. But these are smart men. They have to realize that the war is tenuous now, not from American military abilities or successes, but because of the unceasing avalanche of bad news and politicization of the outcome by the media and the opposition. In other words, the media and the Left are sapping America's will to fight and win.

Most of these officers are honorable and praiseworthy. Some are clearly opportunistic, jeopardizing the outcome of a war to score points against a boss they disliked.