McCain Blasts Rumsfeld

Abuskedti

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.

jlew24asu

do you ever have anything positive to say. fuck. but if you are serious about the military doing a magnificent job, I would agree

jeffbr

There's actually plenty of blame to go around. From past and current administrations to congress.

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.

sponger

"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."

ThumbingMyWay32

jeffbr wrote:

There's actually plenty of blame to go around. From past and current administrations to congress.

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.

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.

slightofjeff

It can be argued that Rumsfeld is the No. 1 reason Iraq is so f'ed up.

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.

enharmonic

slightofjeff wrote:

It can be argued that Rumsfeld is the No. 1 reason Iraq is so f'ed up.

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.

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

...here I thought Rumsfeld tried the new McCain spicy chili fries and shit himself...

El_Kabong

this can no longer be blamed on just one person, one administration....fuck, how am i sticking up for rumsfeld?? but it's real easy to pin the blame on the guy who isn't in the spotlight anymore and stepped down, how convenient

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

Trau

But Rumsfeld IS largely to blame here. He and his Deputy SecDef Paul Wolfowitz were responsible for marginalizing and firing members of the military who didn't tell them what they wanted to hear. I remember seeing a hearing on C-SPAN when then-Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki told Wolfowitz that they would need around 500,000 troops to handle the post-invasion situation; Wolfowitz called this a ridiculous estimate.

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.

Byrnzie

Abuskedti wrote:

The Department of Defense has done a very fine job in Iraq - the military was magnificent - and continues to be.

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?

gue_barium

Byrnzie wrote:

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.:)

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

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?

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.

Byrnzie

gue_barium wrote:

He's being...Abu. You share a viewpoint.:)

Ahh! He was being sarcastic? Sorry. It went over my head that time.

Abuskedti

Byrnzie wrote:

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?

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.

polaris

if u set up a country to run as a corporation - these are the kinds of crooks you get to want to lead it ... is there any candidate out there with any sense of integrity?

Byrnzie

Abuskedti wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

polaris wrote:

if u set up a country to run as a corporation - these are the kinds of crooks you get to want to lead it ... is there any candidate out there with any sense of integrity?

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?

polaris

Byrnzie wrote:

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 ...