If Rumsfeld had done his job and listened to his advisors instead of thinking he had all the answers, we would have been out of Iraq a long time ago. Instead, he chose to be arrogant and ignorant of how bad things went awry so quickly and now it is so bad, that short of sending another hundred thousand troops there, it's only going to get worse.
1. After you listened, what would you have done - sent more troops? Didn't we win the battle portion of the war very, very easily?
2. Do you know there's no exit strategy, or is it just that it hasn't been explained to you?
3. Necessary equipment is highly debatable. Again, wasn't the battle over in just a matter of days? How would more troops or different equipment change that?
No, the battle wasn't over in a few days. The damn war is still going on. "Mission Accomplished" was just a photo-op.
Yes, if you're going to start a war, always start one with more troops than you think you'll need - many more.
And, when you start a war, you have the choice of when to start it. You have plenty of time to get your troops ready and equipped.
Me either, but I don't think that was entirely his call to make.
Well, he was part of the administration who decided to go to war on illegitimate grounds. And now he's the sacrificial lamb because of the disastrous conduct of the war, in order to try and win back some public consensus.
1. After you listened, what would you have done - sent more troops? Didn't we win the battle portion of the war very, very easily?
2. Do you know there's no exit strategy, or is it just that it hasn't been explained to you?
3. Necessary equipment is highly debatable. Again, wasn't the battle over in just a matter of days? How would more troops or different equipment change that?
Wow.
How long have we had troops over there? How many die each day? Wouldn't better equipment have helped prevent some deaths due to road side bombs, RPG's, etc?
No, the battle wasn't over in a few days. The damn war is still going on. "Mission Accomplished" was just a photo-op.
Yes, if you're going to start a war, always start one with more troops than you think you'll need - many more.
And, when you start a war, you have the choice of when to start it. You have plenty of time to get your troops ready and equipped.
He was a bad Secretary of Defense.
I hate war, but I just don't see that was has been taking place since the battles were over is a war. They call it a war, but I see it as an occupation.
I do agree that there was the choice of when to start it, but I disagree that we needed more troops or equipment.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
this is interesting.. ok so one down.. when do cheney, condi, and george go?
here's a thought, that isn't my own, but one i saw posted on a blog early this morning..
someone said that they expected joe lieberman to be appointed to the cabinet somewhere (they guessed that maybe he would replace rummy). should this happen, the CT governor could then appoint a new senator to take his place.
if this happens, it's not good news.. a. lieberman is pro-bush, pro-iraq war, pro-iran war, and b. the ct gov. is a republican, meaning a senate seat would go back to the reds.
again, that was just an idea someone posted in a blog..
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
How long have we had troops over there? How many die each day? Wouldn't better equipment have helped prevent some deaths due to road side bombs, RPG's, etc?
I'm not sure if different equipment have helped to prolong some lives or not. Are you sure?
Did Rumsfeld make the decision to invade when we did? Is he responsible for supplying the troops?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
1. After you listened, what would you have done - sent more troops? Didn't we win the battle portion of the war very, very easily?
2. Do you know there's no exit strategy, or is it just that it hasn't been explained to you?
3. Necessary equipment is highly debatable. Again, wasn't the battle over in just a matter of days? How would more troops or different equipment change that?
Recently released reports have stated that strategist believed that at least 400,000 troops would have been needed for the post war occupation and even with those numbers the possibility of sectarian violenceand even civil war would be great. That study was concluded well before our invasion. Generals from the Army War College where mentioning at least 350,000 troops for the occupation. None of these people where listened to. Yes we may have easily defeated the Iraqi military with less than 200,000 troops, but we did not have the necessary troops for an occupation. As Secretary of Defense he should have listened to his strategist and war planners all of which continuoesly stated that we needed more troops on the group for the occupation.
As far as exit strategy they have presented none and, this is an assumption, by the way eventsare unfolding in Iraq there doesn't seem to be one or the one they had is failing miserably and they are unwilling or incapable of devising a new one.
There is no debating the equipment issue. There where troops who where not provided body armor or out dated body armor. There where Humvees being used on patrols that did not have the proper armor plating to protect our troops from RPGs or IADs. I can understand if there was some type of logistical problem with getting supplies over there, but for the secretary of Defense to simply shrug it off with his comment is unacceptable. In my brother-in-laws platoon there where 10 troops who had no body armor or out dated body armor, one had a Vietnam era flack jacket for body armor. That's one third of his platoon that was not provided with the necessary equipment and their stories where not the only ones.
Lastly this is not just about the battle, in case you haven't noticed our troops are still dying over there by the bunches and the battle has been over for years. The invasion phase may have gone off smoothly, but the occupation has been short of a complete failure.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I'm not sure if different equipment have helped to prolong some lives or not. Are you sure?
Did Rumsfeld make the decision to invade when we did? Is he responsible for supplying the troops?
C'mon man, use your brain.
Rummy, Wolfowitz, and Cheney were the figureheads for this war. They decided to go in when we weren't finished in Afghanistan and hadn't captured or killed Bin Laden yet, you know, the one responsible for 9/11, NOT Iraq.
He WAS the Secretary of Defense, he is responsible for all aspects of the armed forces.
1. After you listened, what would you have done - sent more troops? Didn't we win the battle portion of the war very, very easily?
2. Do you know there's no exit strategy, or is it just that it hasn't been explained to you?
3. Necessary equipment is highly debatable. Again, wasn't the battle over in just a matter of days? How would more troops or different equipment change that?
Look, I for one support the war and always have supported the war. But Rumsfeld is the worst Defense Secretary since MacNamera. He did not use the lessons learned from the Vietnam war, that is the Powell Doctrine. You use overwhelming firepower and force to completely destroy your enemy and his will to fight.
We did not do that when we invaded Iraq. Sure, it was easy to topple the government, but there were not enough troops to secure the capital or the borders - which created the ensuring past three years of chaos. This was a mistake - a BIG mistake. He should be held accountable for those mistakes.
This is the best political news I have heard perhaps all year long!
Recently released reports have stated that strategist believed that at least 400,000 troops would have been needed for the post war occupation and even with those numbers the possibility of sectarian violenceand even civil war would be great. That study was concluded well before our invasion. Generals from the Army War College where mentioning at least 350,000 troops for the occupation. None of these people where listened to. Yes we may have easily defeated the Iraqi military with less than 200,000 troops, but we did not have the necessary troops for an occupation. As Secretary of Defense he should have listened to his strategist and war planners all of which continuoesly stated that we needed more troops on the group for the occupation.
As far as exit strategy they have presented none and, this is an assumption, by the way eventsare unfolding in Iraq there doesn't seem to be one or the one they had is failing miserably and they are unwilling or incapable of devising a new one.
There is no debating the equipment issue. There where troops who where not provided body armor or out dated body armor. There where Humvees being used on patrols that did not have the proper armor plating to protect our troops from RPGs or IADs. I can understand if there was some type of logistical problem with getting supplies over there, but for the secretary of Defense to simply shrug it off with his comment is unacceptable. In my brother-in-laws platoon there where 10 troops who had no body armor or out dated body armor, one had a Vietnam era flack jacket for body armor. That's one third of his platoon that was not provided with the necessary equipment and their stories where not the only ones.
Lastly this is not just about the battle, in case you haven't noticed our troops are still dying over there by the bunches and the battle has been over for years. The invasion phase may have gone off smoothly, but the occupation has been short of a complete failure.
I'm not sure if different equipment have helped to prolong some lives or not. Are you sure?
Did Rumsfeld make the decision to invade when we did? Is he responsible for supplying the troops?
He is the one to be held accountable. Thats his job. He is the CEO of the military basically, isnt he? Him and the P and VP. They all need to be held accountable for waging a shitty offense. Agree with the war or not isnt even the issue here. Its how it was handled. Now these people need to be held accounted for, rumsfeld is a start and a good sign. People who disagree with how it was handled, which seems to be 95% of the population now, are happy to see someone in that position, him especially, gone.
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is stepping down and former CIA Director Robert Gates will take over at the Pentagon and in prosecuting the war in Iraq
I wonder if he would have resigned had the republicans won congress?
Not likely. I am betting the reason he is stepping down is because the Dems won and he is trying to dodge the investigation probes that would be comming his way. He is running scared. He is a man with lots of things to hide and the Dems winning risked him being fully exposed. Run Rummy, run as fast as you can you prick.
Intelligence is the key and she was locked out
Let's Just Pop a Few Yards of Bubble Wrap and Call It a Day!
Not likely. I am betting the reason he is stepping down is because the Dems won and he is trying to dodge the investigation probes that would be comming his way. He is running scared. He is a man with lots of things to hide and the Dems winning risked him being fully exposed. Run Rummy, run as fast as you can you prick.
But...that...almost sounds...like...cutting and running...!?!?!?!
Comments
Great!
Me either, but I don't think that was entirely his call to make.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
First PJ Show: March 20, 1994 | Ann Arbor | Crisler Arena
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Yes, if you're going to start a war, always start one with more troops than you think you'll need - many more.
And, when you start a war, you have the choice of when to start it. You have plenty of time to get your troops ready and equipped.
He was a bad Secretary of Defense.
Well, he was part of the administration who decided to go to war on illegitimate grounds. And now he's the sacrificial lamb because of the disastrous conduct of the war, in order to try and win back some public consensus.
Wow.
How long have we had troops over there? How many die each day? Wouldn't better equipment have helped prevent some deaths due to road side bombs, RPG's, etc?
I hate war, but I just don't see that was has been taking place since the battles were over is a war. They call it a war, but I see it as an occupation.
I do agree that there was the choice of when to start it, but I disagree that we needed more troops or equipment.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
here's a thought, that isn't my own, but one i saw posted on a blog early this morning..
someone said that they expected joe lieberman to be appointed to the cabinet somewhere (they guessed that maybe he would replace rummy). should this happen, the CT governor could then appoint a new senator to take his place.
if this happens, it's not good news.. a. lieberman is pro-bush, pro-iraq war, pro-iran war, and b. the ct gov. is a republican, meaning a senate seat would go back to the reds.
again, that was just an idea someone posted in a blog..
www.amnesty.org.uk
I'm not sure if different equipment have helped to prolong some lives or not. Are you sure?
Did Rumsfeld make the decision to invade when we did? Is he responsible for supplying the troops?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
what a dumbass! lamo.
did he have his head stuck in the ground or what?
Recently released reports have stated that strategist believed that at least 400,000 troops would have been needed for the post war occupation and even with those numbers the possibility of sectarian violenceand even civil war would be great. That study was concluded well before our invasion. Generals from the Army War College where mentioning at least 350,000 troops for the occupation. None of these people where listened to. Yes we may have easily defeated the Iraqi military with less than 200,000 troops, but we did not have the necessary troops for an occupation. As Secretary of Defense he should have listened to his strategist and war planners all of which continuoesly stated that we needed more troops on the group for the occupation.
As far as exit strategy they have presented none and, this is an assumption, by the way eventsare unfolding in Iraq there doesn't seem to be one or the one they had is failing miserably and they are unwilling or incapable of devising a new one.
There is no debating the equipment issue. There where troops who where not provided body armor or out dated body armor. There where Humvees being used on patrols that did not have the proper armor plating to protect our troops from RPGs or IADs. I can understand if there was some type of logistical problem with getting supplies over there, but for the secretary of Defense to simply shrug it off with his comment is unacceptable. In my brother-in-laws platoon there where 10 troops who had no body armor or out dated body armor, one had a Vietnam era flack jacket for body armor. That's one third of his platoon that was not provided with the necessary equipment and their stories where not the only ones.
Lastly this is not just about the battle, in case you haven't noticed our troops are still dying over there by the bunches and the battle has been over for years. The invasion phase may have gone off smoothly, but the occupation has been short of a complete failure.
C'mon man, use your brain.
Rummy, Wolfowitz, and Cheney were the figureheads for this war. They decided to go in when we weren't finished in Afghanistan and hadn't captured or killed Bin Laden yet, you know, the one responsible for 9/11, NOT Iraq.
He WAS the Secretary of Defense, he is responsible for all aspects of the armed forces.
Look, I for one support the war and always have supported the war. But Rumsfeld is the worst Defense Secretary since MacNamera. He did not use the lessons learned from the Vietnam war, that is the Powell Doctrine. You use overwhelming firepower and force to completely destroy your enemy and his will to fight.
We did not do that when we invaded Iraq. Sure, it was easy to topple the government, but there were not enough troops to secure the capital or the borders - which created the ensuring past three years of chaos. This was a mistake - a BIG mistake. He should be held accountable for those mistakes.
This is the best political news I have heard perhaps all year long!
....or what mammasan said.
He is the one to be held accountable. Thats his job. He is the CEO of the military basically, isnt he? Him and the P and VP. They all need to be held accountable for waging a shitty offense. Agree with the war or not isnt even the issue here. Its how it was handled. Now these people need to be held accounted for, rumsfeld is a start and a good sign. People who disagree with how it was handled, which seems to be 95% of the population now, are happy to see someone in that position, him especially, gone.
If you will it dude, there is no dream.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_resigns
Not likely. I am betting the reason he is stepping down is because the Dems won and he is trying to dodge the investigation probes that would be comming his way. He is running scared. He is a man with lots of things to hide and the Dems winning risked him being fully exposed. Run Rummy, run as fast as you can you prick.
Let's Just Pop a Few Yards of Bubble Wrap and Call It a Day!
Don't Die Wondering
Doubt it. Otherwise the timingn would be quite conincidental.
I didnt think anything good would come out of this election.....guess I was wrong. Today is a good day.
But...that...almost sounds...like...cutting and running...!?!?!?!
HOLY FUCK HOLY FUCK HOLY FUCK!!!!!!!!!
:: hell freezes over ::