The Defense Secretary We Have By William Kristol Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A33 "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a town hall meeting with soldiers at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, Dec. 8. Actually, we have a pretty terrific Army. It's performed a lot better in this war than the secretary of defense has. President Bush has nonetheless decided to stick for now with the defense secretary we have, perhaps because he doesn't want to make a change until after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term. Contrast the magnificent performance of our soldiers with the arrogant buck-passing of Rumsfeld. Begin with the rest of his answer to Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard: "Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe -- it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment. I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip." So the Army is in charge. "They" are working at it. Rumsfeld? He happens to hang out in the same building: "I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. . . . And that is what the Army has been working on." Not "that is what we have been working on." Rather, "that is what the Army has been working on." The buck stops with the Army. At least the topic of those conversations in the Pentagon isn't boring. Indeed, Rumsfeld assured the troops who have been cobbling together their own armor, "It's interesting." In fact, "if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Good point. Why have armor at all? Incidentally, can you imagine if John Kerry had made such a statement a couple of months ago? It would have been (rightly) a topic of scorn and derision among my fellow conservatives, and not just among conservatives. Perhaps Rumsfeld simply had a bad day. But then, what about his statement earlier last week, when asked about troop levels? "The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control." Really? Well, "the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that General Franks and General Abizaid wanted." Leave aside the fact that the issue is not "the number of troops we had for the invasion" but rather the number of troops we have had for postwar stabilization. Leave aside the fact that Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for that task -- and that his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available. Leave aside the fact that Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003. And leave aside the fact that if our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11. In any case, decisions on troop levels in the American system of government are not made by any general or set of generals but by the civilian leadership of the war effort. Rumsfeld acknowledged this last week, after a fashion: "I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person and I guess that's fine." Except he fails to take responsibility. All defense secretaries in wartime have, needless to say, made misjudgments. Some have stubbornly persisted in their misjudgments. But have any so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck? In Sunday's New York Times, John F. Burns quoted from the weekly letter to the families of his troops by Lt. Col. Mark A. Smith, an Indiana state trooper who now commands the 2nd Battalion, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, stationed just south of Baghdad: "Ask yourself, how in a land of extremes, during times of insanity, constantly barraged by violence, and living in conditions comparable to the stone ages, your marines can maintain their positive attitude, their high spirit, and their abundance of compassion?" Col. Smith's answer: "They defend a nation unique in all of history: One of principle, not personality; one of the rule of law, not landed gentry; one where rights matter, not privilege or religion or color or creed. . . . They are United States Marines, representing all that is best in soldierly virtues." These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have. The writer is editor of the Weekly Standard. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A132-2004Dec14?language=printer
A real sign of armaggeddon when glynch and the father of the modern neocon movement agree... I really thought Rumsfeld was a breath of fresh air when he came back on the scene, but since then he's just continually shown either a complete disregard for the responsibility of his office or a remarkable ability to say really stupid things. Either way its time to remove him.
Kristol came to my office for lunch last Friday and absolutely savaged Rumsfeld. He said that he would put his money on Rummy being gone by February. I don't agree with the guy, much less appreciate his over political sliminess, but I have to say he's one smart and well spoken fellow.
Okay, this tells me Rumsfeld is really in trouble. When a little twerp like Norm Coleman peeps up, you know it's because his big brother is standing behind him. Coleman voices concern over Rumsfeld leadership U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said Wednesday he has deep concerns about the leadership of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Coleman says Congress will investigate allegations the military has not provided adequate armor for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. "The military has come back and said they're doing everything they can. They're moving as fast as they can. I think we have to look into that and question that because our soldiers deserve nothing less. There shouldn't be any doubt that we're providing the highest level protection equipment there is. And if not, someone should be accountable," he said. Coleman says he needs more information before deciding if Rumsfeld should be held accountable for the lack of armor on military vehicles. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/headlines/#2
sorry B-Bob- before he can replace "or" with "and" he would have replace the correlative conjunction "both" with "either"
A real sign of armaggeddon when glynch and the father of the modern neocon movement agree... Maybe this will convince Max that I'm not a mindless pure liberal?
Coleman says he needs more information before deciding if Rumsfeld should be held accountable for the lack of armor on military vehicles. My guess is that Coleman really needs to watch his back, as he was clearly not paying attention while the Rove Vendetta Machine crushed all of those nonbelievers who spoke out.
As gifford pointed out Coleman is pretty much a shill for the Bush Admin. Since he switched parties and got beat by Ventura for Gov. he's bent over backwards to toe the party line. When he was running for Senate here in MN he was asked a few times if there was anything he disagreed with GW Bush and he always trumpted he opposed drilling in ANWAR. Well after a few months in office he comes around and says he supports drilling in ANWAR. If anything Rove and Cheney might be putting him up to this to prepare for the dismissal of Rumsfeld.
The White House thinks Rummy is peachy keen. I like the part about "transforming our military to meet the threats of the 21st century" which means no nation building. It is nobody's fault that they guessed wrong. Republicans Hesitant to Push Rumsfeld Out Dec 19, 9:24 PM (ET) By GENARO C. ARMAS WASHINGTON (AP) - Acknowledging mistakes in Iraq by the Bush administration, leading Republicans expressed reluctance Sunday that the White House replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has lost the confidence of some GOP lawmakers over the conduct of the war. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said a change at the top of the Pentagon would be too disruptive, given the elections scheduled in Iraq for Jan. 30. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., also said the administration was dealing with the missteps that have occurred in the aftermath of the U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "We should not at this point in time entertain any idea of changing those responsibilities in the Pentagon," Warner told NBC's "Meet the Press." Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added, "We really can't go through that ordeal" now of finding a successor. Rumsfeld "should be held accountable, and he should stay in office," said Lugar, R-Ind. But Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, said he had no confidence in Rumsfeld. Hagel, R-Neb., did not say Rumsfeld should step down. "I find it astounding. ... Things are worse than they've ever been" in Iraq, Hagel told CBS'"Face the Nation." Hagel said it was up to Bush whether to replace Rumsfeld. More than 1,300 American troops have died since the war began in March 2003. On Sunday, car bombs rocked Iraq's two holiest Shiite cities, killing 62 people and wounding more than 120. In Baghdad, the capital, dozens of gunmen killed three Iraqi election officials during an ambush on a car in the middle of morning traffic. U.S. troops in Kuwait have complained to Rumsfeld about long deployments and a lack of armored vehicles and other equipment. Rumsfeld, who agreed to Bush's request this month to stay in the Cabinet during the president's second term, won a vote of confidence from the White House on Sunday. "Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a spectacular job," the president's chief of staff, Andrew Card, told ABC's "This Week." "The president has provided good direction for our military, and Secretary Rumsfeld is transforming our military to meet the threats of the 21st century," Card said. While security remains a problem in Iraq, Card said the growing economy and the establishment of the educational and electrical systems in the country were positive developments, Card said. "There are no guarantees, but we'll work hard to provide security," for the elections, Card said. "It'll be a wonderful success story." Critics have raised questions again about whether enough U.S. troops are in Iraq to bring security. Iraq's interim president, Ghazi al-Yawar, said last week the U.S.-led coalition made a mistake by dismantling Iraqi security forces after last year's invasion. Iraqi leaders have also said that former army officers and police officers with clean records should be reinstated to help organize the Iraqi military. On Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he supported that idea, and the United States also must reach out to Arab countries to help convince Iraq's Muslims of the Sunni sect to participate in the election despite the increased violence. The Bush administration's biggest mistake in Iraq was the rapid disbanding of military forces "and not trying to maintain some of it in place to have continuity and to rapidly put together a security force," Warner said. Rumsfeld's performance has also come under criticism even from congressional Republicans, including GOP Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and John McCain of Arizona. Lott said last week that Rumsfeld did not listen to uniformed officers and that Bush should make a change at the Pentagon in the next year or so. Warner said Sunday that Bush should stay the course, especially with the Iraqi vote next month. "We are going to have a tough period after that election, and we should press our confidence in the commander in chief and his principal subordinates," Warner said. Card said Rumsfeld has a good relationship with Congress and "knows the budgets that are needed to fight the war." At the same time, Rumsfeld also must oversee the transformation of the military "to meet the threats of the 21st century, and that transformation is controversial," Card said. "I'm sure that some of the people that are stuck in the past don't want to see the military transformed."
This guy is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the Bush Administration: Lawmakers Chide Rumsfeld for Auto-Signed Sympathy Letters Sun Dec 19, 2004 02:46 PM ET By Jackie Frank WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not personally sign his name on letters of condolence to families of troops killed in Iraq but instead had it done by a machine, an action lawmakers said on Sunday showed insensitivity and was inappropriate for leadership during war. Rumsfeld acknowledged that he had not signed the letters to family members of more than 1,000 U.S. troops killed in action and in a statement said he would now sign them in his own hand. "This issue of the secretary of Defense not personally signing the letters is just astounding to me and it does reflect how out of touch they are and how dismissive they are," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "I have no confidence in Rumsfeld," Hagel added. Rumsfeld has been under strong fire from Democrats and some Republicans recently for appearing to brush off concerns of soldiers about the lack of protective equipment in Iraq. But President Bush's Chief of Staff Andrew Card emphasized White House support for Rumsfeld on Sunday. He "is doing a spectacular job, and the president has great confidence in him," Card told ABC's "This Week" program. Hagel noted that the families of the troops killed in Iraq have received letters signed by Bush. "My goodness, that is the least we can expect the secretary of Defense ... If the president can find the time to do that why can't the secretary of Defense?" said Hagel, who has been a sharp critic of the way Bush has handled the Iraq war. Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island said family members of those killed, "would like to think that at least for a moment the secretary thought about individually this young man or this young woman." "Again it shows a lack of leadership style appropriate for the military ... This goes to his capability to continue to serve." However, Republican Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said that while "this is another area in which the secretary is being insensitive," the action did not "go to his leadership." AUTOPEN RETIRED "I wrote and approved the now more than 1,000 letters sent to family members and next of kin of each of the servicemen and women killed in military action," Rumsfeld said in a statement on Sunday." "While I have not individually signed each one, in the interest of ensuring expeditious contact with grieving family members, I have directed that in the future I sign each letter." Rumsfeld got himself into trouble earlier this month by appearing to brush off a soldier headed to Iraq who complained that military vehicles did not have sufficient armor and troops were having to piece together scraps of metal for extra protections. Some prominent Republicans including Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott have questioned his performance, leading the White House to come to his defense on Friday with a statement that he was "doing a great job." Among the critics, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar expressed concern on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that removing him from office could threaten national security. "He should be held accountable and he should stay in office," the Indiana Republican senator said. "The fact is a change of leadership in the Pentagon at this point might be as disruptive as trying to get someone in Homeland Defense," he added. Military families told the Stars and Stripes newspaper, which first carried the story, that the machine-signed letters reflected a lack of respect for the losses the families had suffered. "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 whose brother Irving was killed in Iraq this summer, told the newspaper. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....ACRBAELCFFA?type=politicsNews&storyID=7133077 Keep D&D Civil!!
My main issue with the Bush admin is the people surrounding him. I hope a suitable replacement can be found for Rumsfield.
