McCain Blasts Rumsfeld
Abuskedti
Posts: 1,917
Somehow the Secretary of Defense is responsible..
The failure is now evident - time to diflect blame
Rumsfels does not set foreign policy - he runs the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense has done a very fine job in Iraq - the military was magnificent - and continues to be.
The failure is political and in foreign policy and deplomacy
McCain shows again why he is unworthy of office.
The failure is now evident - time to diflect blame
Rumsfels does not set foreign policy - he runs the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense has done a very fine job in Iraq - the military was magnificent - and continues to be.
The failure is political and in foreign policy and deplomacy
McCain shows again why he is unworthy of office.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Rumsfeld didn't do a great job. The military did a great job with the resources they were given. Rumsfeld ignored the generals in the beginning and completely underestimated the job to be done once our military leveled the Iraqi military. Rumsfeld and the rest of the administration politicized the conflict every step of the way.
Bush put too much focus on Rumsfeld and not enough on the Dept. of State -- diplomacy didn't happen.
Congress continues to stroke each other off, but does nothing substantive.
Rumsfeld had much more to do with the lack of success in Iraq than McCain.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I believe diplomacy to have occurred during the 15 years leading up to March 2003. Diplomacy isn't an action only begun once discussion of war begins.
Though I do agree Remsfeld was more inclined to accept the status quo rather than relying on the full capabilities of the American military. War, in my opinion, is something that needs to be waged at full capacity; full force and speed. "Necessary force" in this administrations opinion was "just enough." That's a flawed strategy. Of course, when the media enters a state of hysteria over any military deaths at all, it may cause one to become reluctant about sending overwhelming forces onto fields of conflict. Overestimation is a key objective during the war planning stages. I thought General Powell had taught us this the first time around.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
He chose to send a quick, light, agile force instead of one overwhelming in numbers. This ran contrary to the counsel of Colin Powell, who last I checked, has run a war or two. There just weren't enough troops, in the days after the invasion, to keep the peace or properly secure the borders. There still aren't enough.
We're paying the piper for that today.
for the least they could possibly do
Proof positive of this fact...Powell opted to not stay on in the second term. He knew that a bunch of blue bloods were going to get soldiers killed, and then spend years blaming eachother for it.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
congress gave authorization, it is their mess, too. they can take it back, but they don't, you can't say you are against a war while you keep voting for money to sustain it
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
As was mentioned before, Rumsfeld wanted to restructure the US military to be light and quick. The stupidity of his vision can be seen in Iraq most obviously. When Bush 41 fought Iraq the first time, the UN coalition consisted of over 800,000 troops, 500,000 of which were American. This time our coalition was less than 400,000, and now there are only 140,000 coalition troops in Iraq.
In Afghanistan, which we have never truly controlled beyond Kabul, only has about 60,000 coalition forces.
Don't tell me Rumsfeld doesn't have a huge blame now.
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
I wonder if you'd still be singing Rumsfeld's praises if your family had been tortured in Abu Ghraib, and you'd seen images of your father being made to crawl around on the prison floor like a dog, covered in shit, blood and bruises?
He's being...Abu. You share a viewpoint.:)
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
why would america's enemies be singing the praises of the american military? I swear I will see you on a el queda training video soon.
Ahh! He was being sarcastic? Sorry.
I'm not singing anyones praises... Rumsfeld should be criticized for joining Bush in misleading the public - not for the job the military did. Rumsfeld didn't make the decisions - he implemented them.
This is just another way of ducking accountability - and while we are doing that, we are not working on moving forward properly.
The Bush administration has damages our relationship with virtually every nation and created a very serious problem.
He and his continue to attempt to blame those that carried out his horrible plans.
I think Rumsfeld desrves more than just criticism.
Exactamondo baby! Exactafuckingmondo!
Where are the Robert Kennedy's of the world when you need them? Someone who made it his main aim to disrupt organized crime in America. Imagine the effect this would have today on the criminals in the White House and Halliburton?
he's dead - just like every other person who dared to fight the powers that be ...