Full Version: Rumsfeld to stay on
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6646697/
I can allready feel the waterfall of love directed at this decision so I will get straight to the question.
Is Rusmfeld “the right person at this moment in our history in fighting the war on terror to lead our armed forces”?
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
QUOTE
Describing Bush’s decision, the administration official said the president believed Rumsfeld was “the right person at this moment in our history in fighting the war on terror to lead our armed forces.”
I can allready feel the waterfall of love directed at this decision so I will get straight to the question.
Is Rusmfeld “the right person at this moment in our history in fighting the war on terror to lead our armed forces”?
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
Condoleeza Rice appears to be George W. Bush's core-person. She wanted the Secretary of Defense position bad - actually put the President on the spot about it by going public with her desires not-so-subtly. When Condi didn't get Defense, it was close to a foregone conclusion the Donald Rumsfeld would continue his role.
Rumsfeld is at least a yeoman surgeon. If I needed something icky done, I would feel reasonably confident that his scalpel would cut straight. In the present case, though, I think the operation was entirely unnecessary.
Continuing the medical theater analogy, Rumsfeld is viewed as having handed his surgery team a box of tongue-depressors, in place of scalpels. He has real & continuing problems with military command, and on down in the rank & file, too. That is always a serious consideration, but all the more because the military is operating under real adversity anyway.
"Military doesn't want to invade Iraq" (July, 2002)
Some Top Military Brass Favor Status Quo in Iraq
The main problem facing our armed forces today is declining morale. It's hard to overstate how serious the effects of poor morale can become. Leaving Rumsfeld at Defense means exacerbating this condition, probably at the critical moment.
Morale is a high-inertia game. Outrageous demands can be made on it, briefly. Prolonged erosion can be sustained, at low intensity. At our current point in the drama, morale in the services has been heavily taxed. So far, for the most part, everyone is still reading their script satisfactorily. Not happily.
From here on, adding long-term discouragement risks "consequential" morale failure. Rumsfeld can be viewed as such a discouragement.
History offers many examples of the replacement of brass and civilian leadership for no reason other than to (hopefully) mitigate morale problems. This appears to be a case in which it would have been perfectly understandable, regardless of how Rumsfeld himself is assessed.
QUOTE
Is Rumsfeld “the right person at this moment in our history in fighting the war on terror to lead our armed forces”?
Rumsfeld is at least a yeoman surgeon. If I needed something icky done, I would feel reasonably confident that his scalpel would cut straight. In the present case, though, I think the operation was entirely unnecessary.
Continuing the medical theater analogy, Rumsfeld is viewed as having handed his surgery team a box of tongue-depressors, in place of scalpels. He has real & continuing problems with military command, and on down in the rank & file, too. That is always a serious consideration, but all the more because the military is operating under real adversity anyway.
"Military doesn't want to invade Iraq" (July, 2002)
Some Top Military Brass Favor Status Quo in Iraq
The main problem facing our armed forces today is declining morale. It's hard to overstate how serious the effects of poor morale can become. Leaving Rumsfeld at Defense means exacerbating this condition, probably at the critical moment.
Morale is a high-inertia game. Outrageous demands can be made on it, briefly. Prolonged erosion can be sustained, at low intensity. At our current point in the drama, morale in the services has been heavily taxed. So far, for the most part, everyone is still reading their script satisfactorily. Not happily.
From here on, adding long-term discouragement risks "consequential" morale failure. Rumsfeld can be viewed as such a discouragement.
History offers many examples of the replacement of brass and civilian leadership for no reason other than to (hopefully) mitigate morale problems. This appears to be a case in which it would have been perfectly understandable, regardless of how Rumsfeld himself is assessed.
Is Rusmfeld “the right person at this moment in our history in fighting the war on terror to lead our armed forces”?
Not when a US Defense Secretary makes comments like these:
You cannot be strong Defense Secretary while insulting other countries and your own soldiers. In addition, his "lack of leadership" on the Abu prison scandal was just plain irresponsible (though he took reponsibilty for it). No, he is not the right person for the Defense Secretary job.
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
The problem here is that Bush values loyalty as opposed to listening to other ideas.
Just a really ignorant way of governing. However, a smart President would choose someone who respects other countries as well as his own troops. Also he must be a well-respected person himself.
My choice would be the man they let go at the State Department, COLIN POWELL.
But the President prefers yes-men so ignorance rules.
Not when a US Defense Secretary makes comments like these:
QUOTE
draftees added "no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time."
QUOTE
recalcitrant allies in what it calls Old Europe, Donald Rumsfeld's visit to Germany could hardly be considered a resounding success.
Having already ruffled feathers by lumping Germany in a group with America's long-term foes Cuba and Libya, the US Defence Secretary used a speech in Munich at the weekend to claim that those countries who refused to back the US were guilty of undermining the United Nations and setting it "on a path to ridicule." Such irresponsibility was "breathtaking", he snorted.
Having already ruffled feathers by lumping Germany in a group with America's long-term foes Cuba and Libya, the US Defence Secretary used a speech in Munich at the weekend to claim that those countries who refused to back the US were guilty of undermining the United Nations and setting it "on a path to ridicule." Such irresponsibility was "breathtaking", he snorted.
QUOTE
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld referred France and Germany as an "Axis of Weasels."
You cannot be strong Defense Secretary while insulting other countries and your own soldiers. In addition, his "lack of leadership" on the Abu prison scandal was just plain irresponsible (though he took reponsibilty for it). No, he is not the right person for the Defense Secretary job.
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
The problem here is that Bush values loyalty as opposed to listening to other ideas.
Just a really ignorant way of governing. However, a smart President would choose someone who respects other countries as well as his own troops. Also he must be a well-respected person himself.
My choice would be the man they let go at the State Department, COLIN POWELL.
But the President prefers yes-men so ignorance rules.
QUOTE(cgorham @ Dec 3 2004, 09:32 PM)
Is Rusmfeld “the right person at this moment in our history in fighting the war on terror to lead our armed forces”?
Not when a US Defense Secretary makes comments like these:
You cannot be strong Defense Secretary while insulting other countries and your own soldiers. In addition, his "lack of leadership" on the Abu prison scandal was just plain irresponsible (though he took responsibility for it). No, he is not the right person for the Defense Secretary job.
Not when a US Defense Secretary makes comments like these:
QUOTE
draftees added "no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time."
QUOTE
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld referred France and Germany as an "Axis of Weasels."
You cannot be strong Defense Secretary while insulting other countries and your own soldiers. In addition, his "lack of leadership" on the Abu prison scandal was just plain irresponsible (though he took responsibility for it). No, he is not the right person for the Defense Secretary job.
Well as to the Axis of Weasels line, I am sorry, but I found it rather funny.
When it comes to insulting your soldiers, what soldiers are you referring too. There may be one or two very old me still wandering the halls of the Pentagon where were draftees during Vietnam, but 99.9999% of the US military are volunteers. Was it an insult to those who were drafted and served honorably? It could be taken that way. However, I think he was trying to make a point about why a new draft would be a bad decision.
Bottom line, the vast majority of those pressed into service to do anything do a poorer job then the vast majority of those who volunteered for the same service. There are exceptions to this rule, but it is true for the most part.
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
QUOTE
The problem here is that Bush values loyalty as opposed to listening to other ideas. Just a really ignorant way of governing. However, a smart President would choose someone who respects other countries as well as his own troops. Also he must be a well-respected person himself.
My choice would be the man they let go at the State Department, COLIN POWELL.
But the President prefers yes-men so ignorance rules.
My choice would be the man they let go at the State Department, COLIN POWELL.
But the President prefers yes-men so ignorance rules.
I can't argue that seeking loyalty over ideas is not the best way to govern (Though it has been done by most Presidents though out history). As for President G. W. Bush, Colin Powell was not exactly a perfect pick for someone seeking loyalty above all else. I think he was a good pick, and I agree that he would be a better pick for Sec. of Defense then Rumsfeld (a "reluctant warrior" is always a better man for a job like that), but I do not see how President Bush could have picked him and not realized they would be bumping heads.
His latest pick of Bernard Kerik for Homeland Security Chief would seem to be another pick that does not follow the loyalty first concept. The man has a reputation, for being a political rogue when it comes to doing what he feels is right in the name of law and order. Though there are many who think this pick is the result of Rudolph Giuliani "cashing in some chips" he earned form the campaign, rather than the first choice of the President.
Note: WOW!! This is my 600th post (Actually about my 720th or so when you take casual conversation and comments/suggestion into account, but who's counting
). Who would have though I would ever have so much to say. 
Is Rusmfeld “the right person at this moment in our history in fighting the war on terror to lead our armed forces”?
It depends on what you want. If you want to continue the policy of using military power to impose your will on other people, and you don't mind incompetence, being lied to, and being further isolated from the only people on the planet who might actually give a damn about you, then yeah, he's the right man for the job.
If you want some one to actually lead in a war against terrorism, then no he isn't. Currently there is no war against terrorism, Bin Laden is not considered important and the only terrorists that seem to matter any more are the ones in Iraq. We currently face the spectre of long term bio chemical weapons systems that can target ethnic groups with a long incubation period, but what is being down about this?
Is America looking to mend the damage that has been wrought in the last few years? or are we just seeing a war to secure certain lucrative resources?
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
Oh... any one who had the qualifications and wasn't out to force American geo-political power on to the rest of the world, regardless of the consequences. Any one who understood the implications of what has taken place in Iraq and actually knew what to do about it.
Any one who understood that the cold war is over and terrorism is a poor substitute to keep it alive.
Right now we face a serious threat from terrorism, and yet what is being done about it?
War.
The same old solution that has been used thousands of times in history and never solved anything.
Thousands upon thousands of people killed and whats the outcome?
No one is brought to justice. America is a nation where incompetence and lies are rewarded with public trust. Where a man is considered a patriot if he wraps a flag about himself.
Where a man like Donald Rumsfeld is kept in office.
It depends on what you want. If you want to continue the policy of using military power to impose your will on other people, and you don't mind incompetence, being lied to, and being further isolated from the only people on the planet who might actually give a damn about you, then yeah, he's the right man for the job.
If you want some one to actually lead in a war against terrorism, then no he isn't. Currently there is no war against terrorism, Bin Laden is not considered important and the only terrorists that seem to matter any more are the ones in Iraq. We currently face the spectre of long term bio chemical weapons systems that can target ethnic groups with a long incubation period, but what is being down about this?
Is America looking to mend the damage that has been wrought in the last few years? or are we just seeing a war to secure certain lucrative resources?
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
Oh... any one who had the qualifications and wasn't out to force American geo-political power on to the rest of the world, regardless of the consequences. Any one who understood the implications of what has taken place in Iraq and actually knew what to do about it.
Any one who understood that the cold war is over and terrorism is a poor substitute to keep it alive.
Right now we face a serious threat from terrorism, and yet what is being done about it?
War.
The same old solution that has been used thousands of times in history and never solved anything.
Thousands upon thousands of people killed and whats the outcome?
No one is brought to justice. America is a nation where incompetence and lies are rewarded with public trust. Where a man is considered a patriot if he wraps a flag about himself.
Where a man like Donald Rumsfeld is kept in office.
QUOTE
His latest pick of Bernard Kerik for Homeland Security Chief would seem to be another pick that does not follow the loyalty first concept. The man has a reputation, for being a political rogue when it comes to doing what he feels is right in the name of law and order. Though there are many who think this pick is the result of Rudolph Giuliani "cashing in some chips" he earned form the campaign, rather than the first choice of the President.
I would have to agree with you on this point. Not to stray away from the topic. But in my opinion, it seems to be one of the few picks I agree with Bush, political connections aside. Getting a officer from one of the toughest cities in the country has to be a plus for the Homeland Security department. However the jury is still out on whether he can be successful. We shall see.
On another note if more controversies surround Rumsfeld in the second term, there will be more political pressure than before to dismiss him.
[quote=cgorham,Dec 4 2004, 07:56 PM]
[quote]His latest pick of Bernard Kerik for Homeland Security Chief would seem to be another pick that does not follow the loyalty first concept. The man has a reputation, for being a political rogue when it comes to doing what he feels is right in the name of law and order. Though there are many who think this pick is the result of Rudolph Giuliani "cashing in some chips" he earned form the campaign, rather than the first choice of the President.[/quote]
I have to disagree. Kerik was picked because he campaigned hardcore for Bush in NYC. He has a history of being conspisciously involved in money laundering schemes and has been a hot topic of debate from the liberal circles. He is yat another addition of a same-sided opinion. He was a prison guard. He'll run America like a prison, not a free country.
The Bush admin has used the 9/11 attack to capitalize on their ability to control the public, invade civil rights and escalate fear as a decision making factor. Keric is more of the same.
Rumsfield is a Hawk. If we want to remain perpetually at war, he's a great choice. The War on "Terror" is not a viable winnable War. It is an intangible objective that can be perpetually used to sustain Americans' fear and manipulatibility. No end in sight.
I have no idea who would be better...
Antny
[quote]His latest pick of Bernard Kerik for Homeland Security Chief would seem to be another pick that does not follow the loyalty first concept. The man has a reputation, for being a political rogue when it comes to doing what he feels is right in the name of law and order. Though there are many who think this pick is the result of Rudolph Giuliani "cashing in some chips" he earned form the campaign, rather than the first choice of the President.[/quote]
I have to disagree. Kerik was picked because he campaigned hardcore for Bush in NYC. He has a history of being conspisciously involved in money laundering schemes and has been a hot topic of debate from the liberal circles. He is yat another addition of a same-sided opinion. He was a prison guard. He'll run America like a prison, not a free country.
The Bush admin has used the 9/11 attack to capitalize on their ability to control the public, invade civil rights and escalate fear as a decision making factor. Keric is more of the same.
Rumsfield is a Hawk. If we want to remain perpetually at war, he's a great choice. The War on "Terror" is not a viable winnable War. It is an intangible objective that can be perpetually used to sustain Americans' fear and manipulatibility. No end in sight.
I have no idea who would be better...
Antny
QUOTE(Antny @ Dec 5 2004, 09:54 PM)
I have to disagree. Kerik was picked because he campaigned hardcore for Bush in NYC. He has a history of being conspisciously involved in money laundering schemes and has been a hot topic of debate from the liberal circles. He is yat another addition of a same-sided opinion. He was a prison guard. He'll run America like a prison, not a free country.
OK, if you are going to make a claim like a connection to money laundering, then you'd have to provide a source, fact, or something to back that up besides "Liberal Circles".
QUOTE
The Bush admin has used the 9/11 attack to capitalize on their ability to control the public, invade civil rights and escalate fear as a decision making factor. Keric is more of the same.
You won't get an argument from me on this other then the fact that this abuse of that tragedy is not limited to the Republicans. Check out the voting records in congress on some of these abuses.
QUOTE
Rumsfield is a Hawk. If we want to remain perpetually at war, he's a great choice. The War on "Terror" is not a viable winnable War. It is an intangible objective that can be perpetually used to sustain Americans' fear and manipulatibility. No end in sight.
I have no idea who would be better...
I have no idea who would be better...
I personally think Colin Powell or anyone with a strong military background and a "reluctant warrior" mindset would be better for the job. Rummy can be darn funny, and his candor can be refreshing, but someone with a better sense of diplomacy, or a willingness to leave diplomacy to the Department of State wouldn't hurt either.
I
I won't disagree on the fact that he was chosen because of his political connections. I have read about some of his schemes while he was in NY. But lets be real, it probably was the best choice w/Bush in charge. Loyalty means everything to him. At least at Homeland Security, he will be in the spotlight and his margin for error is thin.
I stated in my original post that I think Rumsfeld is the wrong guy leading the Defense Department. What is so tough about being a hawk?? It doesn't mean making great decisions, in fact his decision making at DOD has gotten our troops in a lot of trouble in Iraq. The insurgency, number of troops in Iraq to maintain security, finding those WMD (if they were even there
) the prision scandal...etc. I mean the list goes on and on. My suggestions, RETIRE ASAP!!
QUOTE
have to disagree. Kerik was picked because he campaigned hardcore for Bush in NYC. He has a history of being conspisciously involved in money laundering schemes and has been a hot topic of debate from the liberal circles. He is yat another addition of a same-sided opinion. He was a prison guard. He'll run America like a prison, not a free country.
The Bush admin has used the 9/11 attack to capitalize on their ability to control the public, invade civil rights and escalate fear as a decision making factor. Keric is more of the same.
The Bush admin has used the 9/11 attack to capitalize on their ability to control the public, invade civil rights and escalate fear as a decision making factor. Keric is more of the same.
I won't disagree on the fact that he was chosen because of his political connections. I have read about some of his schemes while he was in NY. But lets be real, it probably was the best choice w/Bush in charge. Loyalty means everything to him. At least at Homeland Security, he will be in the spotlight and his margin for error is thin.
QUOTE
Rumsfield is a Hawk. If we want to remain perpetually at war, he's a great choice. The War on "Terror" is not a viable winnable War. It is an intangible objective that can be perpetually used to sustain Americans' fear and manipulatibility. No end in sight.
I stated in my original post that I think Rumsfeld is the wrong guy leading the Defense Department. What is so tough about being a hawk?? It doesn't mean making great decisions, in fact his decision making at DOD has gotten our troops in a lot of trouble in Iraq. The insurgency, number of troops in Iraq to maintain security, finding those WMD (if they were even there
) the prision scandal...etc. I mean the list goes on and on. My suggestions, RETIRE ASAP!!
OK, if you are going to make a claim like a connection to money laundering, then you'd have to provide a source, fact, or something to back that up besides "Liberal Circles".
You're right...
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-...news-columnists
that's what I meant...
You're right...
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-...news-columnists
that's what I meant...
QUOTE(cgorham @ Dec 3 2004, 08:32 PM)
Is Rusmfeld “the right person at this moment in our history in fighting the war on terror to lead our armed forces”?
Not when a US Defense Secretary makes comments like these:
Not when a US Defense Secretary makes comments like these:
QUOTE
draftees added "no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time."
Are you saying that our all-volunteer army would be somehow better with unwilling draftees, and that you are smarter than Rumsfeld in this regard?
QUOTE(cgorham @ Dec 3 2004, 08:32 PM)
QUOTE
recalcitrant allies in what it calls Old Europe, Donald Rumsfeld's visit to Germany could hardly be considered a resounding success.
Having already ruffled feathers by lumping Germany in a group with America's long-term foes Cuba and Libya, the US Defence Secretary used a speech in Munich at the weekend to claim that those countries who refused to back the US were guilty of undermining the United Nations and setting it "on a path to ridicule." Such irresponsibility was "breathtaking", he snorted.
Having already ruffled feathers by lumping Germany in a group with America's long-term foes Cuba and Libya, the US Defence Secretary used a speech in Munich at the weekend to claim that those countries who refused to back the US were guilty of undermining the United Nations and setting it "on a path to ridicule." Such irresponsibility was "breathtaking", he snorted.
How many officials and corporations in France and Germany will be shown to have personally profited from Oil for Food before you note that Secretary Rumsfeld is dead on. France and Germany basically said that the security council would never use force to implement its resolutions, no matter how flagrantly those resolutions were flouted. Their motivations may have been financial as some were getting rich off of the sanctions regime. They are doing the same in Sudan right now (minus the riches). Rummy was right.
QUOTE(cgorham @ Dec 3 2004, 08:32 PM)
QUOTE
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld referred France and Germany as an "Axis of Weasels."
You cannot be strong Defense Secretary while insulting other countries and your own soldiers. In addition, his "lack of leadership" on the Abu prison scandal was just plain irresponsible (though he took reponsibilty for it). No, he is not the right person for the Defense Secretary job.
The "Weasels" remark is an urban myth. Never happened. Was a piece of satire from scrappleface.com that someone forwarded around the internet. As for insulting "your own soldiers" what exactly are you talking about here?
I happen to like Rumsfeld and his goal of transforming the military. I have been reading Rumsfeld's Rulesfor business advice and find it very enlightening. If he can apply a business sense to some aspects of the military (which is already happening like with the humvee armor) our forces will be much better overall.
Should Rumsfeld stay on?
Rumsfeld has given us a few clues on why he should or should not stay on as Sec. of Defense this past week.
Wednesday,Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked by a soldier why troops must scrounge for scrap metal to armor their Humvees. Rumsfeld replied that the supply lines were running full steam. Other military and civilian officials blamed a scarity of specialty steel for the drop in production.
By week's end, both assertions were proved false.
When asked about the armor for the Humvees, Rumsfeld replied
Rumsfeld replied that, "You go to war with the Army you have," not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible
Of course this was proven to be false.
WASHINGTON -- Despite Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's assertion that the military is outfitting Humvees with armor as quickly as possible, the company providing the vehicles said it has been waiting since September for approval from the Pentagon to increase monthly production by as many as 100 of the all-terrain vehicles, intended to protect against roadside bombs in Iraq.
Army officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged yesterday that they have not approved new purchase orders for armored trucks, despite the company's readiness to produce more. They said the Pentagon has been debating how many more armored Humvees are needed.
But executives at Armor Holdings in Jacksonville, Fla., as well as Army officials and members of Congress, said Rumsfeld's assertion that the protective equipment is being provided as quickly as possible is not true and added the company has been waiting for more purchase orders
Representative Marty Meehan of Lowell and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, Democratic members of the armed services committees, said yesterday they have talked repeatedly with Armor Holdings and informed the Pentagon as long ago as April that top officials were mistaken about how many Humvees with the best armor protection could be produced
So much for Rumsfelds statement : It is a matter of physics,not a matter of money.
Also his sarcastic remark of: You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can be blown upwas uncalled for and sounded like a pompous, arrogant, caught by surprise politican.
Those were such ugly words to be saying to the men and women who have been asked to fight Bushs and Rumsfelds war and not much priority been given to those who have been doing the fighting.
I happen to like Rumsfeld and his goal of transforming the military. I have been reading Rumsfeld's Rulesfor business advice and find it very enlightening. If he can apply a business sense to some aspects of the military (which is already happening like with the humvee armor) our forces will be much better overall.
Yes I read your site, Rules for business advice
How about these mentioned on your site:
Learn to say “I don't know.” If used when appropriate, it will be often.
Be precise. A lack of precision is dangerous when the margin of error is small.
Think ahead. Don't let day-to-day operations drive out planning.
Public servants are paid to serve the American people. Do it well.
Congress, the press and the bureaucracy too often focus on how much money or effort is spent, rather than whether the money or effort actually achieves the announced goal.
These are just a few of the many rules that Rumsfeld mentioned. It is too bad that he doesn't follow his own rules.
I have a better ANALOGY.
A better comparsion that matches Rumsfelds actions is that of Enron(Kenneth Lay) and World Com(Bernie Ebbers) who continued to lie about the real status of their companies until both went bankrupt.
I believe it is a insult to the American people and most of all to the people of the military to retain Rumsfeld and his pattern of continuing lying instead of being truthful.
Rumsfeld has given us a few clues on why he should or should not stay on as Sec. of Defense this past week.
Wednesday,Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked by a soldier why troops must scrounge for scrap metal to armor their Humvees. Rumsfeld replied that the supply lines were running full steam. Other military and civilian officials blamed a scarity of specialty steel for the drop in production.
By week's end, both assertions were proved false.
When asked about the armor for the Humvees, Rumsfeld replied
QUOTE
Rumsfeld replied that, "You go to war with the Army you have," not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible
Of course this was proven to be false.
QUOTE
WASHINGTON -- Despite Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's assertion that the military is outfitting Humvees with armor as quickly as possible, the company providing the vehicles said it has been waiting since September for approval from the Pentagon to increase monthly production by as many as 100 of the all-terrain vehicles, intended to protect against roadside bombs in Iraq.
Army officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged yesterday that they have not approved new purchase orders for armored trucks, despite the company's readiness to produce more. They said the Pentagon has been debating how many more armored Humvees are needed.
But executives at Armor Holdings in Jacksonville, Fla., as well as Army officials and members of Congress, said Rumsfeld's assertion that the protective equipment is being provided as quickly as possible is not true and added the company has been waiting for more purchase orders
Representative Marty Meehan of Lowell and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, Democratic members of the armed services committees, said yesterday they have talked repeatedly with Armor Holdings and informed the Pentagon as long ago as April that top officials were mistaken about how many Humvees with the best armor protection could be produced
So much for Rumsfelds statement : It is a matter of physics,not a matter of money.
Also his sarcastic remark of: You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can be blown upwas uncalled for and sounded like a pompous, arrogant, caught by surprise politican.
Those were such ugly words to be saying to the men and women who have been asked to fight Bushs and Rumsfelds war and not much priority been given to those who have been doing the fighting.
QUOTE
I happen to like Rumsfeld and his goal of transforming the military. I have been reading Rumsfeld's Rulesfor business advice and find it very enlightening. If he can apply a business sense to some aspects of the military (which is already happening like with the humvee armor) our forces will be much better overall.
Yes I read your site, Rules for business advice
How about these mentioned on your site:
Learn to say “I don't know.” If used when appropriate, it will be often.
Be precise. A lack of precision is dangerous when the margin of error is small.
Think ahead. Don't let day-to-day operations drive out planning.
Public servants are paid to serve the American people. Do it well.
Congress, the press and the bureaucracy too often focus on how much money or effort is spent, rather than whether the money or effort actually achieves the announced goal.
These are just a few of the many rules that Rumsfeld mentioned. It is too bad that he doesn't follow his own rules.
I have a better ANALOGY.
A better comparsion that matches Rumsfelds actions is that of Enron(Kenneth Lay) and World Com(Bernie Ebbers) who continued to lie about the real status of their companies until both went bankrupt.
I believe it is a insult to the American people and most of all to the people of the military to retain Rumsfeld and his pattern of continuing lying instead of being truthful.
QUOTE
A better comparsion that matches Rumsfelds actions is that of Enron(Kenneth Lay) and World Com(Bernie Ebbers) who continued to lie about the real status of their companies until both went bankrupt.
popeye, I see the parallel as well. Who is better for this job? I don't know. The rationalizing away of troop concerns isn't doing any good for morale, that's for sure. Same thing happens in business, and the smart ones dump stock, get different jobs, or hunker down while heads go rolling.
The military has it's special contractural hooks in its people, as has become so well known. There's no stock to dump, so the troops have to hunker down while poo hits the fan.
Powell has been brought up as a better man for the job, but he isn't honest with things either. Rice? No way. Need a jazz player in there, not a classical mechanic. Or maybe blues?
I just don't see any way out of this while a business-oriented administration is at the helm. It'll continue to be junk delivered instead of truth. I guess this is a learning process for all, except we are talking about the safety of our troops.
Or is that an oxymoron? Sure, being in the military means being willing to risk life and limb. But even warriors need shields, not trash can covers.
Rumsfeld tries to make trash can covers seem like shields, and so it goes with business. That's not good enough for military leadership.
Rumsfeld rationalizes away the concerns of fighting men and women. Not good enough.
But who would do better? Clark? That possibility has gone the way of political marketing (more business).
Until the business side of saying bold, bright, impossible things and rationalizing away problems gets thrown out, we'll just see more of the same from some yammering business type with his or her head where, uh, well, you'd not see very much from there. A change might help in the short-term, but in the long-term, I see just an acceleration of the situations to the point of undeniable (but still spinnable) frustration.
With business, it'd be bankruptcy. With the military? I'm not even going there, it's too terrible to imagine. The stakes are much higher.
Let me correct this biased journalism.
(bolded letters to correct biased journalism source emphasis added)
There I fixed it for you.
Could you provide evidence?
QUOTE
WASHINGTON -- Despite Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's assertion that the military is outfitting Humvees with armor as quickly as possible, the company providing the vehicles said it has been waiting since September for approval from the Pentagon to increase monthly production by as many as 100 of the all-terrain vehicles, intended to protect against roadside bombs in Iraq. Army officials had previously believed the factory was working at capacity until the company told the news media Thursday, December 10th that it could make more. The Army entered negotiations with the manufaucterer Friday, December 11th to increase production.
Army officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged yesterday that they have not approved new purchase orders for armored trucks, despite the company's readiness to produce more although Armor Holdings said in a statement issued Friday that it would not be able increase its rate of production until February or March.
Army officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged yesterday that they have not approved new purchase orders for armored trucks, despite the company's readiness to produce more although Armor Holdings said in a statement issued Friday that it would not be able increase its rate of production until February or March.
(bolded letters to correct biased journalism source emphasis added)
There I fixed it for you.
QUOTE("AuthorMusician")
Powell has been brought up as a better man for the job, but he isn't honest with things either.
...
Rumsfeld rationalizes away the concerns of fighting men and women. Not good enough.
...
Rumsfeld rationalizes away the concerns of fighting men and women. Not good enough.
Could you provide evidence?
More on the armor issue Rumsfeld so cavalierly dismissed:
Is Rumsfeld fit to be Secretary of Defense? No, no, a thousand times NO, and it isn't only those on the "left" who believe it to be so.
QUOTE
According to Robert Schiller, president of Armor Holdings Inc., the Jacksonville, Fla.-based company that produces and installs armor for Humvees, the company has not been running at full production capacity.
In fact, by last Friday evening, two days after Wilson’s damning question, the company announced that it would boost production of armored Humvees to 550 a month, up from the current 450. Apparently Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey telephoned Schiller that morning to negotiate the deal. Delco Times
In fact, by last Friday evening, two days after Wilson’s damning question, the company announced that it would boost production of armored Humvees to 550 a month, up from the current 450. Apparently Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey telephoned Schiller that morning to negotiate the deal. Delco Times
QUOTE
It [military budget cash flow] becomes a problem when actual operations diverge substantially from the planning assumptions, as has happened in Iraq. It becomes a crisis when the administration delays its request for more resources because it wants to pretend during an election year that it has the budget deficit under control. American Progress
QUOTE
A local armor company [Watervliet Arsenal] said it's ready to increase production, but the Pentagon hasn't ordered any more yet. Capitol News
QUOTE
Abrams' company, Arcadia Supply Inc., helps make vehicle armor, and is turning it out as fast as the Army can place an order.
The company is just waiting for the Army to ask for more.
"We could purchase more machinery, hire more people -- very easily, we could double production," said Abrams, who is the company's vice president. Times Union
The company is just waiting for the Army to ask for more.
"We could purchase more machinery, hire more people -- very easily, we could double production," said Abrams, who is the company's vice president. Times Union
Is Rumsfeld fit to be Secretary of Defense? No, no, a thousand times NO, and it isn't only those on the "left" who believe it to be so.
QUOTE
In an interview with the Associated Press news agency, Mr McCain was asked whether he was confident in the secretary's leadership. He said he remembered responding to a similar question recently: "I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence," he said, according to the agency.
<snip>
"I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops - linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.," Mr McCain said.
"There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue." BBC
<snip>
"I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops - linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.," Mr McCain said.
"There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue." BBC
QUOTE
Rep. Charles Rangel of New York said Rumsfeld doesn't have the strategy for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq nor a clue whether efforts in Iraq have been successful or not. Fox News
Here are some more of Rumsfelds critics
Also Rumsfelds approval rating keeps falling
There are others that strongly disagree with the way Rumsfeld is conducting the War in Iraq.
In fact, it would be easier to list the ones who give Rumsfeld a vote of confidence.
QUOTE
Schwarzkopf, interviewed on MSNBC-TV’s “Hardball,” chided Rumsfeld for his reply to a soldier in Kuwait over the lack of armor on many military vehicles used in Iraq.
“I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,” Schwarzkopf said.
Schwarzkopf, a registered independent who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections, has previously criticized Rumsfeld on several occasions as arrogant and out of touch with troops on the ground.
“I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,” Schwarzkopf said.
Schwarzkopf, a registered independent who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections, has previously criticized Rumsfeld on several occasions as arrogant and out of touch with troops on the ground.
Also Rumsfelds approval rating keeps falling
QUOTE
The public pounding may have taken a toll on public confidence in Rumsfeld. A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted Thursday through Monday, found that public approval of Rumsfeld, already fairly low, had fallen to 34 percent from 39 percent in May.
QUOTE
On Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer today, Chuck Hagel stated he has completely lost confidence in Donald Rumsfeld over his remark to the soldier that "they have to fight with the army they've got."
Hagel stated that he has talked with many returning soldiers and national guardsmen who returned from the war, and they have all told him that they need body and vehicle armor to protect themselves from bullets. He also questioned the honesty of administration officials who were "going around the country reassuring the American people our troops have everything they need."
Hagel characterized Rumsfeld's performance as "incompetent" and refused to endorse him for another 4 years. "Bush has got to live with his choice for the next four years," said Hagel. Some of his remarks are paraphrased below
Hagel stated that he has talked with many returning soldiers and national guardsmen who returned from the war, and they have all told him that they need body and vehicle armor to protect themselves from bullets. He also questioned the honesty of administration officials who were "going around the country reassuring the American people our troops have everything they need."
Hagel characterized Rumsfeld's performance as "incompetent" and refused to endorse him for another 4 years. "Bush has got to live with his choice for the next four years," said Hagel. Some of his remarks are paraphrased below
There are others that strongly disagree with the way Rumsfeld is conducting the War in Iraq.
In fact, it would be easier to list the ones who give Rumsfeld a vote of confidence.
Oh, the "love" just keeps pouring over Rumsfeld - and from his own side. It just warms the cockles of my heart to see this cold-blooded reptile receive his just desserts. 
An interesting piece from a Vietnam veteran:
Accountability; now there's a concept long overdue.
QUOTE
William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, the house journal of the neo-conservative movement, said in an article published on Wednesday that no wartime defence secretary had ever "so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck".
<snip>
"Surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defence secretary Mr Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term," Kristol wrote.
<snip>
On Wednesday, Senator [Susan] Collins, a member of the armed services committee, said: 'I think there are increasing concerns about the secretary's leadership of the war, the repeated failures to predict the strengths of the insurgency, the lack of essential safety equipment for our troops, the reluctance to expand the number of troops." Sydney Morning Herald
<snip>
"Surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defence secretary Mr Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term," Kristol wrote.
<snip>
On Wednesday, Senator [Susan] Collins, a member of the armed services committee, said: 'I think there are increasing concerns about the secretary's leadership of the war, the repeated failures to predict the strengths of the insurgency, the lack of essential safety equipment for our troops, the reluctance to expand the number of troops." Sydney Morning Herald
An interesting piece from a Vietnam veteran:
QUOTE
I am a veteran. I was not asked to risk my life and fight for my country using second-class equipment and pieces of glued-on trash. Has this country forgotten how terrible war can be? Has our military leadership been sitting in their offices so long that they forgot what bullets and bombs can do to human flesh? Or worse, they remember and no longer care?
Perhaps worse than lack of adequate equipment is lack of adequate troops. This administration has been very loud telling anyone who will listen that we will stay the course. From the looks of things, what that means is the soldiers who happened to be enlisted at the time the war was started will be forced to continue fighting until America gets tired of the bloodshed. That's because there are no new troops to send in to relieve those doing the fighting.
We went through this in Vietnam and should have learned to ask questions and hold our leaders accountable. Get the heat off those risking their lives and start questioning the Pentagon and administration officials responsible for this nonsense.Seattle Times
Perhaps worse than lack of adequate equipment is lack of adequate troops. This administration has been very loud telling anyone who will listen that we will stay the course. From the looks of things, what that means is the soldiers who happened to be enlisted at the time the war was started will be forced to continue fighting until America gets tired of the bloodshed. That's because there are no new troops to send in to relieve those doing the fighting.
We went through this in Vietnam and should have learned to ask questions and hold our leaders accountable. Get the heat off those risking their lives and start questioning the Pentagon and administration officials responsible for this nonsense.Seattle Times
Accountability; now there's a concept long overdue.
I don't have much to add to this thread other than Rummy's continued position as Defense Secretary is surely a demoralizing force to the troops in Iraq. However, to add a little levity to the debate, I thought I'd post this link to the latest Mark Fiore cartoon.
If you would notice, I added a peice of information about Armour Holdings.
However :
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story...&tacodalogin=no
I know a person with contacts in this Armoury. If this is true I am dropping my support of Rumsfeld.
QUOTE
although Armor Holdings said in a statement issued Friday that it would not be able increase its rate of production until February or March.
However :
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story...&tacodalogin=no
QUOTE
The company is just waiting for the Army to ask for more.
"We could purchase more machinery, hire more people -- very easily, we could double production," said Abrams, who is the company's vice president.
...
"There's never anything (promised) behind that," Abrams said. That's why he can't add more people and machines to make more.
"We could purchase more machinery, hire more people -- very easily, we could double production," said Abrams, who is the company's vice president.
...
"There's never anything (promised) behind that," Abrams said. That's why he can't add more people and machines to make more.
I know a person with contacts in this Armoury. If this is true I am dropping my support of Rumsfeld.
Dogpile on Donald!
Not only have Senate Republican moderates and mavericks like John McCain, Susan Collins and Chuck Hagel taken swipes at The Donald, so has conservative stalwarts such as neo-con superstar William Kristol, General Norman Schwarzkopf and now Trent Lott as reported in today's Washington Post (registration required):
Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) joined a growing chorus of Republicans sharply criticizing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld because of the Pentagon chief's failure to call for more troops in Iraq and to properly equip troops serving there.
Speaking to a local chamber of commerce Wednesday in Mississippi, Lott said: "I am not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld. I don't think he listens to his uniformed officers." Lott said Rumsfeld should not be forced to resign immediately but "I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so."
In recent days, two conservative GOP senators, John McCain (Ariz.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.), raised public concerns about Rumsfeld's management of the war. William Kristol, a former Republican White House aide and a leading conservative commentator, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, senior commander during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, also have offered harsh indictments. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a prominent moderate, criticized the Pentagon yesterday for providing inadequate armor protection for troops in Iraq.
Republicans have been largely supportive of President Bush's Iraqi policies, despite widespread violence by insurgents and U.S. troop fatalities that are nearing 1,300. But there appears to be growing Republican concern about the conduct of the war. And Rumsfeld, who has not had warm relations with Congress in recent years, appears to have become the target of the pent-up GOP anxieties and dissatisfaction. Lawmakers who returned home after Congress adjourned last week also are hearing from constituents about the growing number of National Guard and reserve casualties.
White House officials said yesterday that Bush is unfazed by the intraparty attacks on Rumsfeld and believes the secretary is doing a "great job" running the Iraq war and overseeing the transformation of the military. Bush's top advisers said criticism of Rumsfeld has come largely from a few Republicans with reputations for challenging White House policy, even as the list of those attacking the defense secretary grew to include Lott, Collins and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank with close ties to the administration.
But Lott's comments -- which were reported by the Sun Herald of Biloxi, Miss. -- stirred attention in political circles because, unlike many other recent GOP critics of Rumsfeld, he is seen neither as a moderate or a maverick, but rather someone near the center of his party's thinking. Also, he was a Senate majority leader.
Bush is loyal to his boys to a fault, but as Rummy continues to be a source of negativity in the Administration, eventually even the President may think its time for him to go.
Not only have Senate Republican moderates and mavericks like John McCain, Susan Collins and Chuck Hagel taken swipes at The Donald, so has conservative stalwarts such as neo-con superstar William Kristol, General Norman Schwarzkopf and now Trent Lott as reported in today's Washington Post (registration required):
Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) joined a growing chorus of Republicans sharply criticizing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld because of the Pentagon chief's failure to call for more troops in Iraq and to properly equip troops serving there.
Speaking to a local chamber of commerce Wednesday in Mississippi, Lott said: "I am not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld. I don't think he listens to his uniformed officers." Lott said Rumsfeld should not be forced to resign immediately but "I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so."
In recent days, two conservative GOP senators, John McCain (Ariz.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.), raised public concerns about Rumsfeld's management of the war. William Kristol, a former Republican White House aide and a leading conservative commentator, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, senior commander during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, also have offered harsh indictments. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a prominent moderate, criticized the Pentagon yesterday for providing inadequate armor protection for troops in Iraq.
Republicans have been largely supportive of President Bush's Iraqi policies, despite widespread violence by insurgents and U.S. troop fatalities that are nearing 1,300. But there appears to be growing Republican concern about the conduct of the war. And Rumsfeld, who has not had warm relations with Congress in recent years, appears to have become the target of the pent-up GOP anxieties and dissatisfaction. Lawmakers who returned home after Congress adjourned last week also are hearing from constituents about the growing number of National Guard and reserve casualties.
White House officials said yesterday that Bush is unfazed by the intraparty attacks on Rumsfeld and believes the secretary is doing a "great job" running the Iraq war and overseeing the transformation of the military. Bush's top advisers said criticism of Rumsfeld has come largely from a few Republicans with reputations for challenging White House policy, even as the list of those attacking the defense secretary grew to include Lott, Collins and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank with close ties to the administration.
But Lott's comments -- which were reported by the Sun Herald of Biloxi, Miss. -- stirred attention in political circles because, unlike many other recent GOP critics of Rumsfeld, he is seen neither as a moderate or a maverick, but rather someone near the center of his party's thinking. Also, he was a Senate majority leader.
Bush is loyal to his boys to a fault, but as Rummy continues to be a source of negativity in the Administration, eventually even the President may think its time for him to go.
Add another one to the pile!
I've noticed a trend; while many Republicans are critical of Rumsfeld's handling of the war, they all stop short of saying he should resign or Bush should fire him. (Oddly enough, the White House came out in support of Rummy today - again.) Democrats offer the same criticism, but have no qualms about saying he should go.
QUOTE
Senator Norm Coleman says he's "deeply troubled" about whether the Pentagon has done enough to provide armored vehicles to troops in Iraq.
And the Minnesota Republican says the buck stops with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. KAAL TV
And the Minnesota Republican says the buck stops with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. KAAL TV
I've noticed a trend; while many Republicans are critical of Rumsfeld's handling of the war, they all stop short of saying he should resign or Bush should fire him. (Oddly enough, the White House came out in support of Rummy today - again.) Democrats offer the same criticism, but have no qualms about saying he should go.
To answer the original question as to whom should replace Rumsfeld, Bush could demonstrate his non-partisan sentiments by tapping someone like recently retired Senate Democrat John Breaux or Sam Nunn.
It's really sweet actually to watch all these Republicans tripping over themselves to say Rumsfeld is doing a lousy job now that the election is over.
Real towers of integrity here. Not.
It's really sweet actually to watch all these Republicans tripping over themselves to say Rumsfeld is doing a lousy job now that the election is over.
Real towers of integrity here. Not.
Is Rusmfeld “the right person at this moment in our history in fighting the war on terror to lead our armed forces”?
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
He is the right man at the right time. The “old” military hat served us in WWII and Korea needed to move on and be replaced by the more modern “network centric” fast moving Army we are developing today. That is not to say that Iraq was a total success.
The “policing” function needs to be developed if we ever hope to do this kind of conflict right. Rumsfeld may not be the most personal and likeable SECDEF but he has been one of the best.
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
He is the right man at the right time. The “old” military hat served us in WWII and Korea needed to move on and be replaced by the more modern “network centric” fast moving Army we are developing today. That is not to say that Iraq was a total success.
The “policing” function needs to be developed if we ever hope to do this kind of conflict right. Rumsfeld may not be the most personal and likeable SECDEF but he has been one of the best.
Just another instance of Rumsfeld's cluelessness:
But, even with all Rumsfeld’s missteps, mistakes and flat-out disastrous bungling:
Wow, I want whatever it is they’re smoking in the White House – it certainly blurs reality well.
As for Rumsfeld being an "excellent Secretary of Defense"...he may have been at one time, but he is most certainly not anymore. One only has to look at the situation in Iraq after nearly 3 years to see that. He's a dinosaur fighting the kind of war he's used to, which is not the war he is in.
As for a replacement? John McCain.
QUOTE
Several families of troops killed in Iraq told the newspaper the notes they received had not been signed by hand, and said they were angry that Rumsfeld was not paying attention to their loss.
"To me it's an insult, not only as someone who lost a loved one but also as someone who served in Iraq," Army Spc. Ivan Medina told Stripes.
"This doesn't show our families the respect they deserve," said Medina, whose twin brother, Irving, was killed in a roadside bombing in Iraq this summer. CBC
"To me it's an insult, not only as someone who lost a loved one but also as someone who served in Iraq," Army Spc. Ivan Medina told Stripes.
"This doesn't show our families the respect they deserve," said Medina, whose twin brother, Irving, was killed in a roadside bombing in Iraq this summer. CBC
But, even with all Rumsfeld’s missteps, mistakes and flat-out disastrous bungling:
QUOTE
"Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a spectacular job," White House chief of staff Andrew Card told ABC's "This Week." (ibid)
Wow, I want whatever it is they’re smoking in the White House – it certainly blurs reality well.
As for Rumsfeld being an "excellent Secretary of Defense"...he may have been at one time, but he is most certainly not anymore. One only has to look at the situation in Iraq after nearly 3 years to see that. He's a dinosaur fighting the kind of war he's used to, which is not the war he is in.
As for a replacement? John McCain.
Here is an update on "armorgate" for those interested. It seems like the guardsman who asked the question may not have been aware that indeed his unit was going to deploy with pretty much 100% armored equipment. 278th was the unit in question. I have bolded some points for emphasis.
I would be very interested in hearing more about this, hopefully from the mainstream press. If this is true, they should be all over this.
Dec. 15 interview - Major General Stephen Speakes, U.S. Army G-8, Force Development
As for the journalist that prompted the question to Rumsfeld, I'd like to point out a line in his triumphant email home that was not noted in any of the media coverage. He expressed concern because HE was going to be in an un-armored truck. I'm sure that he was worried about "the troops" but note what he actually said. I'm sure he meant "found" not "foud." Again, my emphasis added. While I'm sure he had noble intent, there was an element of self-preservation to say the least. I know I'd be scared to death.
I would be very interested in hearing more about this, hopefully from the mainstream press. If this is true, they should be all over this.
Dec. 15 interview - Major General Stephen Speakes, U.S. Army G-8, Force Development
QUOTE
Q On the 278th, can you repeat this? At the time the question was asked, the planted question, the unit had 784 of its 804 vehicles armored?
GEN. SPEAKES: Here is the overall solution that you see. And what we’ve had to do is—the theater had to take care of 830 total vehicles. So this shows you the calculus that was used. Up north in Iraq, they drew 119 up-armored humvees from what we call stay-behind equipment. That is equipment from a force that was already up there. We went ahead and applied 38 add-on armor kits to piece of equipment they deployed over on a ship. They also had down in Kuwait 214 stay- behind equipment pieces that were add-on armor kits. And then over here they had 459 pieces of equipment that were given level-three protection. And so when you put all this together, that comes up with 830.
Q At the time of the question—summarize this, now—that unit that the kid was complaining about was mostly armored?
GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. In other words, we completed all the armoring within 24 hours of the time the question was asked.
Q So it’s possible that—from these numbers—it’s possible that he had a vehicle that had not been armored that was slated to be armored or that had not been armored that was not supposed to be armored, that would be carried on a heavy truck?
GEN. SPEAKES: Both were very possible. And very frankly, if you live out at one of those camps, the level of chaos and confusion as you’re going through the final stages of getting a unit ready to go north—to me the fact that every soldier in that unit didn’t have a picture of this is not surprising. This operation took place over about four different locations, widely separated in various locations across Kuwait. And then, of course, he may not have even understood that a part of the solution was waiting for them up in Iraq because the stay-behind equipment that was up in Iraq that had already been add-on armored was never seen by the soldier until he or she got up north and actually drew it in Iraq.
<snip>
Q If he hadn’t asked that question, would the up-armoring have been accomplished within 24 hours?
GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. This was already an existing program. Remember that when I began this presentation we talked about General Schoomaker in his testimony in front of the HASC in November—made it real clear. He said all vehicles operating north of the berm will be up-armored, and what that meant in common-sense language is you don’t leave Kuwait without either an up-armor or an add-on armor solution. And we understood that, and most importantly the theater did. And so we were in constant dialogue, ensuring that we provided everything that was required to make this happen. And this didn’t happen just for the 278th. In other words, the 256th, which was the Army Guard brigade directly in front of it, had the same identical solution; and although different numbers of vehicles, approximately the same solution in terms of percentage of fill.
GEN. SPEAKES: Here is the overall solution that you see. And what we’ve had to do is—the theater had to take care of 830 total vehicles. So this shows you the calculus that was used. Up north in Iraq, they drew 119 up-armored humvees from what we call stay-behind equipment. That is equipment from a force that was already up there. We went ahead and applied 38 add-on armor kits to piece of equipment they deployed over on a ship. They also had down in Kuwait 214 stay- behind equipment pieces that were add-on armor kits. And then over here they had 459 pieces of equipment that were given level-three protection. And so when you put all this together, that comes up with 830.
Q At the time of the question—summarize this, now—that unit that the kid was complaining about was mostly armored?
GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. In other words, we completed all the armoring within 24 hours of the time the question was asked.
Q So it’s possible that—from these numbers—it’s possible that he had a vehicle that had not been armored that was slated to be armored or that had not been armored that was not supposed to be armored, that would be carried on a heavy truck?
GEN. SPEAKES: Both were very possible. And very frankly, if you live out at one of those camps, the level of chaos and confusion as you’re going through the final stages of getting a unit ready to go north—to me the fact that every soldier in that unit didn’t have a picture of this is not surprising. This operation took place over about four different locations, widely separated in various locations across Kuwait. And then, of course, he may not have even understood that a part of the solution was waiting for them up in Iraq because the stay-behind equipment that was up in Iraq that had already been add-on armored was never seen by the soldier until he or she got up north and actually drew it in Iraq.
<snip>
Q If he hadn’t asked that question, would the up-armoring have been accomplished within 24 hours?
GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. This was already an existing program. Remember that when I began this presentation we talked about General Schoomaker in his testimony in front of the HASC in November—made it real clear. He said all vehicles operating north of the berm will be up-armored, and what that meant in common-sense language is you don’t leave Kuwait without either an up-armor or an add-on armor solution. And we understood that, and most importantly the theater did. And so we were in constant dialogue, ensuring that we provided everything that was required to make this happen. And this didn’t happen just for the 278th. In other words, the 256th, which was the Army Guard brigade directly in front of it, had the same identical solution; and although different numbers of vehicles, approximately the same solution in terms of percentage of fill.
As for the journalist that prompted the question to Rumsfeld, I'd like to point out a line in his triumphant email home that was not noted in any of the media coverage. He expressed concern because HE was going to be in an un-armored truck. I'm sure that he was worried about "the troops" but note what he actually said. I'm sure he meant "found" not "foud." Again, my emphasis added. While I'm sure he had noble intent, there was an element of self-preservation to say the least. I know I'd be scared to death.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
Is Rusmfeld “the right person at this moment in our history in fighting the war on terror to lead our armed forces”?
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
No, he is not the right person at this time in our history. While he does understand the nature of the threat and the importance of fighting terrorism, his proposed methods of fighting it have been proven to be inept. He presumed that the "shock and awe" bombings were going to destroy any remnant of opposition, and that just 75,000 troops woul be enough to pacify Iraq. he was wrong on both accounts, the number of troops in Iraq now reflects the wishes and realities of the war as the generals see it and predicted it, not as Rumsfeld has.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 21 2004, 08:32 AM)
QUOTE
Is Rusmfeld “the right person at this moment in our history in fighting the war on terror to lead our armed forces”?
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
If not, who do you believe would have been a good replacement?
No, he is not the right person at this time in our history. While he does understand the nature of the threat and the importance of fighting terrorism, his proposed methods of fighting it have been proven to be inept. He presumed that the "shock and awe" bombings were going to destroy any remnant of opposition, and that just 75,000 troops woul be enough to pacify Iraq. he was wrong on both accounts, the number of troops in Iraq now reflects the wishes and realities of the war as the generals see it and predicted it, not as Rumsfeld has.
Would it be fair to say that Rumsfeld made plans for less US troops for a couple of reasons:
1 - Total active duty military is just over 1 million, down from 1.7 million in 1990, and much less than 1/2 of what it was in the 60's. source. Given that we "go to war with the army we have" he likely made plans for less troops than would have been used vs. if there were another million troops somewhere. You can't cut troops throughout the 90's and then cry out 'where are the troops' in 2001.
2 - The initial plan was to have troops come down from Turkey, which would crush the Iraqis / insurgents / terrorists as they were flushed north by troops moving in from Kuwait. Turkey balked at the last minute. I remember this vividly from the news. Our troops were hanging in Turkey while the politicians negotiated, not sure if they would move out or not and then they had to go back down to the Med, costing tons of time and money. I'm Rumsfeld would have preferred this plan to the one he was stuck with, but it couldn't be done. And bad guys escaped, some into Syria and Iran, and some of those are probably bombing us now.
It is difficult to say if Rumsfeld should stay on without knowing who his replacement would be. If his replacement would be weaker on the war front, then Rumsfeld should stay. Our hesitation in using "shock and awe" at this stage is killing our troops. We are basically sitting twiddling our thumbs.
If, on the other hand, Rumsfeld's replacement would be in favor of using shock and awe at this stage, then I say: kick Rummy to the curb.
If, on the other hand, Rumsfeld's replacement would be in favor of using shock and awe at this stage, then I say: kick Rummy to the curb.
With all the hullabaloo circulating about Secretary Rumsfeld and the horde wanting his head on a stake, I find it disconcerting that many absolutely fail to understand his job and how it effects our Armed Forces overall.
First, so that you know from where I come, just let me say I was assigned to group that doesn’t exist as a 1st. Lt Squad Commander of 25 men. I received 1 Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars with “V”, and two Purple Hearts (refused my third as I didn’t want to leave my men).
Second, let be digress a little:
Under the Clinton Administration, our military forces and end strength were unconscionable decimated, and at the same time our troops were being deployed all over the globe with less and less.
http://allard.senate.gov/issues/item.cfm?id=464&rands_type=7
Has Our Military Been Downsized Too Much?
By Senator Wayne Allard, April 28, 1999
While our military has been used more and more, they have been asked to do so with less and less. Look at the numbers: Since 1989, the U.S. armed forces have been reduced from 2.2 million to 1.4 million, a 40% reduction.
The Navy has seen a 38% decrease in its number of ships, the Army is minus 8 divisions or down 45% combat strength and a 36% reduction in total personnel, the Air Force's fighter wings are down 45%, and the Marines have been downsized by 12%. Overall, the defense budget has been reduced from $292.2 billion in 1993 to $277.5 billion in 1999. While this downsizing has been occurring, the pace of operations for our military has seen an increase of over 300%.
http://www.clw.org/milspend/dodbud97.html
FISCAL 1997 MILITARY BUDGET AT A GLANCE
5. FORCE LEVELS IN FY 1997 BUDGET
10 Active Army divisions (down from 18 in 1990)
42 Army Reserve component brigades (down from 57 in 1990)
3 Active & 1 Reserve Marine Corps divisions
11 Deployed aircraft carriers & 1 trainer/reserve (down from 15 and 1 in 1990)
357 Battle force ships (down from 546 in 1990)
10 Active and 1 reserve Navy carrier air wings (down from 13 and 2 in 1990)
3 Active and 1 reserve Marine Corps air wings
13 Active & 7 reserve Air force fighter wings (down from 24 and 12 in 1990)
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wndarchive/19536.html
MARCH 29, 1999
The excrement of propaganda
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
From 1946 to 1991 the United States of America deployed military troops to eight foreign campaigns. From 1992 to the present (The Clinton reign), the United States of America has deployed military troops to 33 foreign places.
• 709,000 regular (active duty) service personnel
• 293,000 reserve troops
• Eight standing army divisions
• 20 air force and navy air wings with
• 2,000 combat aircraft
• 232 strategic bombers
• 13 strategic ballistic missile submarines with
• 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles
• 500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads
• Four aircraft carriers
• 121 surface combat ships and submarines, plus all the support bases, shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force.
All of the above are GONE ... history ... they have been attired by the Bill Clinton "Reduction in Force" from the military of the United States of America. A foreign enemy did not destroy those significant assets. They were not combat losses. Those military assets have been eliminated by civilian political policy wonks.
On top of this, Clinton had the opportunity to have Bin Laden on a silver platter, but backed off wimp that he is.
Now, President Bush takes office, and Rumsfeld is appointed Secretary of Defense.
IMHO, Rumsfeld’s job is second only to that of President Bush’s in difficulty and must contend with those in Congress who like to bust-b**ls. Secretary Rumsfeld had to take charge of a military force that was sorely wanting in personnel, weapons systems, support structure, etc., and start transforming it into a 21st century fighting force second to none.
So, true to his nature, he grabbed the bull by the horns and short-hairs and went to work. Any of you who have served in the military or who are very familiar with its internal workings knows full well the “my turf mindset” of the general / admiral staff, as well as their personal “political” ties. To get many of them to change is like attempting to move a ten-ton mountain of dirt with a plastic sand shovel, and remember they were not really functioning as a “joint-operations” military.
Then 9/11 and subsequently Afghanistan – where for the first time under General Tommy Franks the different branches began to work cohesively and cooperatively as “one”. Next Iraq which proved the theory of fast mobile attack joint-operations, but has and is and will be a problem for some time to come.
How do you fully equip the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Reserves and National Guard units to the proper levels to conduct operations in dealing with “total urban” warfare????? Also, consider that our troops are also attempting to win the hearts of the people. It isn’t easy especially with the politicians, so-called “servants of the people” holding the purse strings and stuffing their individual “pork-barrels”, instead of saying America, the whole country comes first, and we don’t need a “rain-forest” project in Iowa.
The cost of new technologically advanced weapons systems are not cheap, so decisions must be made on how to best equip all branches so that they get what they really “need”, not necessarily what they want – all at the same time as transforming our Armed Forces into a joint-operations mindset.
As with any organization, when the upper-management is changed, so are many policies and procedures as well. And man oh man do feathers get ruffled if not stomped on. Yes there has been dissention in the ranks, to be expected. Yes, our troops need better equipment, however, it might be prudent to remember what President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld inherited from the previous administration – one hell-of-a-MESS.
As far as other countries are concerned, IMHO, you’re with us or against us. I’m curious just how bent out of shape they are when they come, hat in hand to the US asking for money, humanitarian assistance, and for us to clean up their mess, hmmmmmmm.
Now, I would be interested in really hearing what you “absolutely-know” has to be done – no well ifs, no ands and no buts, maybes etc. How should have Secretary Rumsfeld dealt with everything on his plate in order to placate everyone.
At this time, I feel he should as President Bush confirmed, continue as Secretary of
First, so that you know from where I come, just let me say I was assigned to group that doesn’t exist as a 1st. Lt Squad Commander of 25 men. I received 1 Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars with “V”, and two Purple Hearts (refused my third as I didn’t want to leave my men).
Second, let be digress a little:
Under the Clinton Administration, our military forces and end strength were unconscionable decimated, and at the same time our troops were being deployed all over the globe with less and less.
http://allard.senate.gov/issues/item.cfm?id=464&rands_type=7
Has Our Military Been Downsized Too Much?
By Senator Wayne Allard, April 28, 1999
While our military has been used more and more, they have been asked to do so with less and less. Look at the numbers: Since 1989, the U.S. armed forces have been reduced from 2.2 million to 1.4 million, a 40% reduction.
The Navy has seen a 38% decrease in its number of ships, the Army is minus 8 divisions or down 45% combat strength and a 36% reduction in total personnel, the Air Force's fighter wings are down 45%, and the Marines have been downsized by 12%. Overall, the defense budget has been reduced from $292.2 billion in 1993 to $277.5 billion in 1999. While this downsizing has been occurring, the pace of operations for our military has seen an increase of over 300%.
http://www.clw.org/milspend/dodbud97.html
FISCAL 1997 MILITARY BUDGET AT A GLANCE
5. FORCE LEVELS IN FY 1997 BUDGET
10 Active Army divisions (down from 18 in 1990)
42 Army Reserve component brigades (down from 57 in 1990)
3 Active & 1 Reserve Marine Corps divisions
11 Deployed aircraft carriers & 1 trainer/reserve (down from 15 and 1 in 1990)
357 Battle force ships (down from 546 in 1990)
10 Active and 1 reserve Navy carrier air wings (down from 13 and 2 in 1990)
3 Active and 1 reserve Marine Corps air wings
13 Active & 7 reserve Air force fighter wings (down from 24 and 12 in 1990)
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wndarchive/19536.html
MARCH 29, 1999
The excrement of propaganda
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
From 1946 to 1991 the United States of America deployed military troops to eight foreign campaigns. From 1992 to the present (The Clinton reign), the United States of America has deployed military troops to 33 foreign places.
• 709,000 regular (active duty) service personnel
• 293,000 reserve troops
• Eight standing army divisions
• 20 air force and navy air wings with
• 2,000 combat aircraft
• 232 strategic bombers
• 13 strategic ballistic missile submarines with
• 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles
• 500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads
• Four aircraft carriers
• 121 surface combat ships and submarines, plus all the support bases, shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force.
All of the above are GONE ... history ... they have been attired by the Bill Clinton "Reduction in Force" from the military of the United States of America. A foreign enemy did not destroy those significant assets. They were not combat losses. Those military assets have been eliminated by civilian political policy wonks.
On top of this, Clinton had the opportunity to have Bin Laden on a silver platter, but backed off wimp that he is.
Now, President Bush takes office, and Rumsfeld is appointed Secretary of Defense.
IMHO, Rumsfeld’s job is second only to that of President Bush’s in difficulty and must contend with those in Congress who like to bust-b**ls. Secretary Rumsfeld had to take charge of a military force that was sorely wanting in personnel, weapons systems, support structure, etc., and start transforming it into a 21st century fighting force second to none.
So, true to his nature, he grabbed the bull by the horns and short-hairs and went to work. Any of you who have served in the military or who are very familiar with its internal workings knows full well the “my turf mindset” of the general / admiral staff, as well as their personal “political” ties. To get many of them to change is like attempting to move a ten-ton mountain of dirt with a plastic sand shovel, and remember they were not really functioning as a “joint-operations” military.
Then 9/11 and subsequently Afghanistan – where for the first time under General Tommy Franks the different branches began to work cohesively and cooperatively as “one”. Next Iraq which proved the theory of fast mobile attack joint-operations, but has and is and will be a problem for some time to come.
How do you fully equip the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Reserves and National Guard units to the proper levels to conduct operations in dealing with “total urban” warfare????? Also, consider that our troops are also attempting to win the hearts of the people. It isn’t easy especially with the politicians, so-called “servants of the people” holding the purse strings and stuffing their individual “pork-barrels”, instead of saying America, the whole country comes first, and we don’t need a “rain-forest” project in Iowa.
The cost of new technologically advanced weapons systems are not cheap, so decisions must be made on how to best equip all branches so that they get what they really “need”, not necessarily what they want – all at the same time as transforming our Armed Forces into a joint-operations mindset.
As with any organization, when the upper-management is changed, so are many policies and procedures as well. And man oh man do feathers get ruffled if not stomped on. Yes there has been dissention in the ranks, to be expected. Yes, our troops need better equipment, however, it might be prudent to remember what President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld inherited from the previous administration – one hell-of-a-MESS.
As far as other countries are concerned, IMHO, you’re with us or against us. I’m curious just how bent out of shape they are when they come, hat in hand to the US asking for money, humanitarian assistance, and for us to clean up their mess, hmmmmmmm.
Now, I would be interested in really hearing what you “absolutely-know” has to be done – no well ifs, no ands and no buts, maybes etc. How should have Secretary Rumsfeld dealt with everything on his plate in order to placate everyone.
At this time, I feel he should as President Bush confirmed, continue as Secretary of
Regardless of Rumsfields faults, to repalce him now would signal to the world a weakness in regards to the war on terror, in Iraq and elsewhere. Rummy may not be well loved or even liked, but that is not a SECDEF's #1 goal.
Rumsfield has moved our military into more mobile, responsive forces, while moving away from the traditional defense bastions of Germany and Eastern Europe. He understands our new enemy and the importance of standing firm.
NOW, you know who needs to go? Wolfowitz.
Rumsfield has moved our military into more mobile, responsive forces, while moving away from the traditional defense bastions of Germany and Eastern Europe. He understands our new enemy and the importance of standing firm.
NOW, you know who needs to go? Wolfowitz.
ThirdParty:
"NOW, you know who needs to go? Wolfowitz."
Possibly, however, he's been in the background for so long, I would conclude that many have forgotten he exists.
Now, if you said:
Terry McAuliff,
John Kerry
Ted Kennedy
Nancy Pelosi
Hillary Clinton
Charles Schumer
Anthony Weiner
Now you're talking
"NOW, you know who needs to go? Wolfowitz."
Possibly, however, he's been in the background for so long, I would conclude that many have forgotten he exists.
Now, if you said:
Terry McAuliff,
John Kerry
Ted Kennedy
Nancy Pelosi
Hillary Clinton
Charles Schumer
Anthony Weiner
Now you're talking
Blackops, please refrain from one-liners and otherwise unconstructive posts. For clarification please check out the Rules and Survival Guide.
Pardon my mistake 
in the future, I'll attempt to ensure my replies are proper.
IMHO, the above statement made by my esteemed fellow member hits the nail on the head.
The constant bickering between our political parties, the attempts to cause divides in the political process are of extreme interest to those countries who seem to hate us as well as our enemies. They would like nothing better than to see us destroyed from within, thus making their desires and plans that much easier to achieve.
Transforming our Armed Forces to a position of being able to jointly confront our enemies is almost an impossible dream. Especially when Congress holds the purse strings and has problems getting their act together. Personally, I feel that if those who comprise the general staff are unable to properly contribute to its success, well, let them retire and become these arm-chair network military advisors we see on television. Else, consider America comes first, and get to work in a cooperative and productive manner.
in the future, I'll attempt to ensure my replies are proper.QUOTE
ThirdParty
Regardless of Rumsfields faults, to repalce him now would signal to the world a weakness in regards to the war on terror, in Iraq and elsewhere. Rummy may not be well loved or even liked, but that is not a SECDEF's #1 goal.
Regardless of Rumsfields faults, to repalce him now would signal to the world a weakness in regards to the war on terror, in Iraq and elsewhere. Rummy may not be well loved or even liked, but that is not a SECDEF's #1 goal.
IMHO, the above statement made by my esteemed fellow member hits the nail on the head.
The constant bickering between our political parties, the attempts to cause divides in the political process are of extreme interest to those countries who seem to hate us as well as our enemies. They would like nothing better than to see us destroyed from within, thus making their desires and plans that much easier to achieve.
Transforming our Armed Forces to a position of being able to jointly confront our enemies is almost an impossible dream. Especially when Congress holds the purse strings and has problems getting their act together. Personally, I feel that if those who comprise the general staff are unable to properly contribute to its success, well, let them retire and become these arm-chair network military advisors we see on television. Else, consider America comes first, and get to work in a cooperative and productive manner.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.