This Rumsfeld Crap

[TheAnvil 0]

I just read another article on why Rumsfeld should resign over Abu Ghraib and this armored vehicle hullaballoo. It's sickening.

The Abu Ghraib argument for Rumsfeld's resignation is moronic on all levels. Nobody fires the CEO of a company because a janitor at the branch location is a child molester. Nor does one fire the branch manager where said janitor worked. Nor would one fire a school superintendent in a school system where some scumbag teacher molested a student. Sacking Mr. Rumsfeld over the Abu Ghraib scandal would be analagous to either of the above - goat-f$%# stupid.

The armored vehicle argument is even dumber. The media - to my knowledge - hasn't reported on a damned thing with regards to acquisition process for these vehicles. Neither USD(AT&L) nor the CAE for the Army nor the program manager for these vehicles have been interviewed on the matter. The point at which the decision was made not to armor all the vehicles has not been reported. The reasoning behind the aforementioned decision has not been reported. To top it all off, Rumsfeld was selectively quoted by the major media in his response to the question that caused this uproar - most of them anyway; I think I heard his entire response of Fox (no great surprise).

What makes the armored vehicle 'scandal' even more sickening is that senators and representatives - some of whom I hold in high regard - have joined in the fray calling for Rumsfeld to be ousted. They KNOW the acquisition process. They know better.

If you don't like Mr. Rumsfeld, fine. Good for you. Attack him and his policies with logical arguments - I'm sure there are many that can be made, as with any public servant. The Abu Ghraib and armored vehicle ones being used to attack him now are meretricious to anyone with a three digit IQ.

[/rant]

I'm going on vacation. Merry Christmas everyone!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[rehmwa 2]

Sorry, per the title I thought this was about something else....

He better not be taking a crap. Our public officials must forego toilet time and commit to service 24/7. If they wish, they can explode after a couple year from holding it in.

merry christmasetc

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Nobody fires the CEO of a company because a janitor at the branch location is a child molester.

What if the CEO commissioned a report to justify why child molestation was an acceptable and legal practice? Using your analogy, that's what Rumsfeld did.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Nobody fires the CEO of a company because a janitor at the branch location is a child molester.

What if the CEO commissioned a report to justify why child molestation was an acceptable and legal practice? Using your analogy, that's what Rumsfeld did.

I'll have to call BS on that. Where did Rumsfeld advocate abuse of prisoners to the level seen in the photos? I haven't even seen a dotted line.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

Where have you been?

Look up the "Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism; Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations" memo, for starters.

Quote

The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war—designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals—evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war. Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break prisoners' resistance to interrogation.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/

[Gawain 0]

Quote

By the time Gitmo's techniques were exported to Abu Ghraib, the CIA was already fully involved. On a daily basis at Abu Ghraib, says Paul Wayne Bergrin, a lawyer for MP defendant Sgt. Javal Davis, the CIA and other intel officials "would interrogate, interview prisoners exhaustively, use the approved measures of food and sleep deprivation, solitary confinement with no light coming into cell 24 hours a day. Consequently, they set a poor example for young soldiers but it went even further than that."

I'm not saying it's all peaches and cream but the attempts to pin all this crap on one man is not beneficial.

So much about our expectations in Iraq have been "wrong". This is not necessarily due to negligence at the top. Some of this will be due to untrained soliders observing, incorrectly, techniques used by other personnel, and trying to take it to another level. I could be wrong.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,394]

>So much about our expectations in Iraq have been "wrong". This is
>not necessarily due to negligence at the top.

>Some of this will be due to untrained soliders observing,
>incorrectly, techniques used by other personnel . . .

I thought I'd seen it all. Now you are blaming our SOLDIERS for the mistakes in Iraq? I mean, I know shit rolls downhill and all, but I think it's a little extreme to claim that our soldiers:

-screwed up the assessement that Saddam had WMD programs
-thought we'd be welcomed with open arms
-expected the war to take weeks or _maybe_ months
-misunderestimated the cost of the war by an order of magnitude
-didn't plan to have armor on their vehicles
-underestimated the number of troops we'd really need

Most of the soldiers I've talked to who have returned from Iraq have a very good idea about what to expect when they (inevitably) have to return. Most of them are pretty smart that way; they've seen it firsthand. If anything, the problem has been the people at the top NOT listening to the soldiers and military leaders in the field. Often it has taken a public flogging to get the leaders in Washington to respond to what our troops are telling them; note what it took to get armor for military vehicles.

Blaming soldiers. Wow. Just - wow.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Nobody fires the CEO of a company because a janitor at the branch location is a child molester. Nor does one fire the branch manager where said janitor worked. Nor would one fire a school superintendent in a school system where some scumbag teacher molested a student.

Well that all depends. If I am aware that one of my staff members is sexually harassing another employee and I do nothing.......not only will I get fired, I become civilly and criminally liable.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The Abu Ghraib argument for Rumsfeld's resignation is moronic on all levels. Nobody fires the CEO of a company because a janitor at the branch location is a child molester. Nor does one fire the branch manager where said janitor worked. Nor would one fire a school superintendent in a school system where some scumbag teacher molested a student. Sacking Mr. Rumsfeld over the Abu Ghraib scandal would be analagous to either of the above - goat-f$%# stupid.

In the US Army I was in, commanders are responsible for the actions of their subordinates. That's just the way the military works. If there were isolated incidents of abuse, it would be one thing (still not a good thing), but it wasn't isolated. Rummy failed to stop it. Or, less qualified, Rummy failed.

It's time for him to go.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

It's time for him to go.

We'll file your opinion away with the other 6+ billion others in the world.

Forty-two

[dorbie 0]

It's blood in the water.

Every little thing now is a tasty morsel because the press have become part of the story. Contrasting the claims of Bush cleansing his Cabinet with complaints of Rumsfeld staying is just delicious, there's a LOT of disappointment that he's been retained especially after Ashcroft is gone. You should realize that the press despise Rumsfeld even more than the rest of the left dislike Ashcroft because he has a direct style that exposes their tactics at press conferences.

There is a narcissism in all of this. The press see themselves bringing Rumsfeld down now. The litany of stories being written now have more to do with the fact that other press stories have been written than Rumsfeld's performance. Everything is amplified and used as a call for resignation and as an excuse to list the other partisan gripes about Rumsfeld.

I'd have more respect for the folks on the left if it weren't for the "it's time for Rumsfeld to go" nonsense from people who've ALWAYS wanted him to go. It's just hillarious. Who are you kidding?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

'd have more respect for the folks on the left if it weren't for the "it's time for Rumsfeld to go" nonsense from people who've ALWAYS wanted him to go. It's just hillarious. Who are you kidding?

You're absolutely right. It's still time for Rumsfeld to go.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

'd have more respect for the folks on the left if it weren't for the "it's time for Rumsfeld to go" nonsense from people who've ALWAYS wanted him to go. It's just hillarious. Who are you kidding?

You're absolutely right. It's still time for Rumsfeld to go.

That's better.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>So much about our expectations in Iraq have been "wrong". This is
>not necessarily due to negligence at the top.

>Some of this will be due to untrained soliders observing,
>incorrectly, techniques used by other personnel . . .

I thought I'd seen it all. Now you are blaming our SOLDIERS for the mistakes in Iraq? I mean, I know shit rolls downhill and all, but I think it's a little extreme to claim that our soldiers:

-screwed up the assessement that Saddam had WMD programs
-thought we'd be welcomed with open arms
-expected the war to take weeks or _maybe_ months
-misunderestimated the cost of the war by an order of magnitude
-didn't plan to have armor on their vehicles
-underestimated the number of troops we'd really need

Most of the soldiers I've talked to who have returned from Iraq have a very good idea about what to expect when they (inevitably) have to return. Most of them are pretty smart that way; they've seen it firsthand. If anything, the problem has been the people at the top NOT listening to the soldiers and military leaders in the field. Often it has taken a public flogging to get the leaders in Washington to respond to what our troops are telling them; note what it took to get armor for military vehicles.

Blaming soldiers. Wow. Just - wow.

Wow...indeed! You read a little deeper into that than I intended...and I'm a soldier who will be over there sometime after mid-point next year.

I was speaking specifically to, and offering a hypothesis only on how some of that sh*t got out of hand at that prison. Jesus, Bill, you took my sh*t so far out of context you'd need a telescope to see it. These soldiers themselves have been on the record stating they lacked direction from various levels of command. Rumsfeld didn't say, "Build a naked body pyramid and take a picture with a girl splayed on top of it."

SO, I will remind the world once again about your bullet points here:

Quote

-screwed up the assessement that Saddam had WMD programs

No we didn't. It is universally agreed to this day that he had programs. It was universally agreed (as late as December 2002) by most of the civilized world that he possessed mass quantities of WMD. Every piece of intel pointed that.

Quote

-thought we'd be welcomed with open arms

I'll grant you this, but this is part of the expectations which we had, but were wrong, which I mentioned in my previous post. I'm not saying it's alright, but I am pointing out that every single piece of education I've received to this point has the preceding caveat: Plans to not execute to plan, especially military plans.

Quote

-expected the war to take weeks or _maybe_ months

That's BS. From the beginning, it has been said that our commitment would be years and that the overall war on terror will be even longer than that. If you can find a quote to the contrary, let me know. In fact, our estimations were that the US and coalition would suffer in upwards of 3,000+ casualties during an Iraqi invasion before we even reached Baghdad and the major push during the invasion would last over 6 months by itself.

Quote

-misunderestimated the cost of the war by an order of magnitude

I've figures around the area of a couple-of-hundred-billion. That's all I know about that.

Quote

-didn't plan to have armor on their vehicles

Well, based on the publications I've read, about 85% of the HMMWVs are armored, and were armored overall. It's the 2 1/2 ton and 5 ton trucks that were not armored.

Quote

-underestimated the number of troops we'd really need

I'm not a military strategist. Still, I've seen no consensus on how many it should have taken.

Quote

Blaming soldiers. Wow. Just - wow.

I'll refrain from the ultra-colorful-comment I wish I could write here to you for thinking such a thing. I'll simply state, shame on you - not even your style.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote
-expected the war to take weeks or _maybe_ months
That's BS. From the beginning, it has been said that our commitment would be years and that the overall war on terror will be even longer than that. If you can find a quote to the contrary, let me know. In fact, our estimations were that the US and coalition would suffer in upwards of 3,000+ casualties during an Iraqi invasion before we even reached Baghdad and the major push during the invasion would last over 6 months by itself.

Quote
-misunderestimated the cost of the war by an order of magnitude
I've figures around the area of a couple-of-hundred-billion. That's all I know about that.

I just recently heard on NPR an old statement from Rumsfeld estimating less than $100B at the high side, and months, certainly "not years" just in the past couple weeks.

Quote

I'm not a military strategist. Still, I've seen no consensus on how many it should have taken.

The administration had been advised that it would take many more troops in order to be successful, and maintain security of the region.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,394]

>and offering a hypothesis only on how some of that sh*t got out
>of hand at that prison.

In that case, I apologize for talking about you blaming other problems on US soldiers, but I still believe you're placing blame where it may not belong - and I think blaming soldiers for their leader's errors is still not right, even in the more narrow context of prison torture. If they are following their guidelines for treatment of prisoners, it's not 'just a few bad apples' - and turning some US troops into scapegoats won't solve the problem.

--------------------------------

WASHINGTON (CNN) 6/21/04-- The Pentagon has declassified and will release as soon
as Tuesday memos signed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that critics
argue authorized torture of detainees at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba.
. . .
Among the memos, Pentagon officials said, is a directive signed by Rumsfeld
in October 2002 authorizing a technique called "water boarding," in which a
prisoner is strapped down, immersed in water, and made to feel as if he is
going to drown.


ACLU Press Release
NEW YORK 12/20/04-- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Also released by the ACLU today are a slew of other records including a December 2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the Defense Department as "torture" and a June 2004 "Urgent Report" to the Director of the FBI that raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up.

--------------------------------------------

>It is universally agreed to this day that he had programs.

Agreed. But we did not invade because he HAD programs. We invaded to eliminate the grave and gathering threat posed by his CURRENT WMD programs. You can't rewrite Bush's speeches from 2003. It was his mistake; admit and move on.

>That's BS. From the beginning, it has been said that our
>commitment would be years

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." - Rumsfeld, Feb 7 2003.

"What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s" - Myers, Mar 4 2003

"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." - Cheney, Mar 16, 2003

So you'd have to take your argument up with them.

>I've figures around the area of a couple-of-hundred-billion. That's
>all I know about that.

The administration gave a White House analyst the boot in 2002 when he said it might cost over $100 billion.

>Well, based on the publications I've read, about 85% of the HMMWVs are armored . . .

I'll buy that; I've heard 75-80% but I'll give you the 10%. Nevertheless, until people made a stink, no action was taken. Indeed, we heard excuses about how it couldn't go any faster. Then there was a stink, and rapid action was taken. Manufacturers who had been turned down when they offered to produce more suddenly saw orders. And that's great; it's an example of the system working. It's just unfortunate that our troops had to create a public stink to jolt Rumsfeld et al into action.

Incidents like this make me hope that there are more US soldiers brave enough to speak out against their leaders when they see such a problem. It could save a lot of soldiers.

>Still, I've seen no consensus on how many it should have taken.

I have seen no consensus on the number. I have seen near-universal consensus that it should have been far more than we supplied - but that would have made the war a harder sell. And in early 2003, the top priority in the white house was selling the war.

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

If you don't like Mr. Rumsfeld, fine. Good for you. Attack him and his policies with logical arguments - I'm sure there are many that can be made, as with any public servant. The Abu Ghraib and armored vehicle ones being used to attack him now are meretricious to anyone with a three digit IQ.

Mr. Rumsfeld is a stooge for the pro-Israeli neo-conservative hawks such as Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, and Feith. Rumsfeld's war is not overseas, it is within the pentagon where he has made puppets of admirals and generals.

[tkhayes 125]

No the CEO does not get fired if the janitor is a child molestor, but he DOES get his ass sued off if he knew all along that it was going on.

And the company stock prices plummet because of the lawsuit. And then, and usually about then, the shareholders decide to get rid of his ass because the CEO was not looking after the companies best interests.

Thanks for drawing the parallels, they worked well

TK

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

-underestimated the number of troops we'd really need

I'm not a military strategist. Still, I've seen no consensus on how many it should have taken.

there is this man named Shinseki... perhaps you've heard of him? perhaps you've also heard what the arrogant civilian twit and his staff said about his estimates and evaluations BEFORE the invasion??

maybe you should go look... start take careful note of the dates....

or maybe this one... if you like consolidated analysis..

how about [url "http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/14/int20.htm">this one..


but oh yea... Rumsfeld knows what he's talking about.....

you may trust your military leadership... but the civilians that are giving them their marching orders need a reality check...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[TheAnvil 0]

Learn something about how DoD operates and get back to us.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[ninjaswooper 0]

Quote

. You should realize that the press despise Rumsfeld even more than the rest of the left dislike Ashcroft because he has a direct style that exposes their tactics at press conferences.

Direct style? Direct style of what, avoiding any and all accountability for his actions and those of his subordinates? Direct style of avoiding questions by embarking upon meandering and vague answers devoid of any meaning and usually ending by posing the question back to the originator?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

. You should realize that the press despise Rumsfeld even more than the rest of the left dislike Ashcroft because he has a direct style that exposes their tactics at press conferences.

Direct style? Direct style of what, avoiding any and all accountability for his actions and those of his subordinates? Direct style of avoiding questions by embarking upon meandering and vague answers devoid of any meaning and usually ending by posing the question back to the originator?

I don't expect him to be infallible but he's a darned sight better than those criticising him who quickly forget their pre-war horror stories where they predicted every possible boogey man, many of which were planned for misdirecting resources as they didn't materialize (the massive refugee crisis that never happened for example). Nobody has a crystal ball and opinions in an organization like the Pentagon are diverse.

Some of us like Rumsfeld's style, often these questions are inane or transparent political exercises. He treats the press and their often politically motivated questions appropriately and sometimes it's a joy to watch Rumsfeld state the obvious candidly. I'm perplexed by accusations of evasiveness when it comes to Rumsfeld especially when compared to your typical D.C. fare, he's one of the most direct people in a press conference. He doesn't play the press game on their terms with the answer they often want to hear. I get the impression with other officials in all sorts of administrations including this one that there's an insincere veneer over everything. That the answers are part of the political game and with Rumsfeld I get that a lot less, he's brutally direct at times and it's refreshing, and of course it drives his opponents nuts. Just because you don't like the answer because he hasn't couched it in terms palettable to your opposing view doesn't mean he has been evasive.

[dorbie 0]

A fun read:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/tblankley.htm

This op-ed on Rumsfeld will go stale in about a week as Blankley's column is updated.

[Zenister 0]

i so i guess ignoring and undermining the now painfully proven accurate assesments and evaluations by senior military officials (who unlike him have no 'political horse' in the race) in favor of an ignorant civilian's judgment (his own) is a good thing??

much like Bush he only hears what fits inline with his preconceptions...

he has been incompetent from the beginning... it just taken the needlessly expended lives of our soldiers to get the point across.....and he still wont acknowledge his mistakes.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

i so i guess ignoring and undermining the now painfully proven accurate assesments and evaluations by senior military officials (who unlike him have no 'political horse' in the race) in favor of an ignorant civilian's judgment (his own) is a good thing??

much like Bush he only hears what fits inline with his preconceptions...

he has been incompetent from the beginning... it just taken the needlessly expended lives of our soldiers to get the point across.....and he still wont acknowledge his mistakes.

Which one's? There are many senior military officials and many of them on the eve of invasion told Bush they had everything they needed to do the job.

Besides all this, those who are the most vocal critics of Rumsfeld around here aren't saying we can win with more troops etc. they're saying it's unwinnable and we should never have invaded. I'm not prepared to look at their arguments independently, they form part of a political whole that has nothing to do with a sincere attempt to evaluate Rumsfeld's performance. This is a manufactured political witch hunt.