Posted on 12/16/2004 7:43:25 PM PST by Ooh-Ah
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
The pile-on of Donald Rumsfeld continues. (story) "U.S. Senator Trent Lott does not believe that Rumsfeld should resign immediately, but he does think that Rumsfeld should be replaced sometime in the next year." What's the difference? Lott said, "I'm not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld." He mentioned this to the Biloxi Chamber of Commerce yesterday morning. "'I don't think he listens enough to his uniformed officers.' Rumsfeld has been criticized since a soldier asked him last week why the combat vehicles used in the war in Iraq don't have the proper armor. Both Rumsfeld and President Bush have said more vehicle armor will be shipped to Iraq. Lott said the United States needs more troops to help with the war. The country also needs a plan to leave Iraq once elections are over at the end of January. Lott doesn't think Rumsfeld is necessarily the person to carry out that plan. 'I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so,' Lott said. 'I'm not calling for his resignation, but I think we do need a change at some point.' On another military issue, Lott said he hopes the Base Realignment and Closure Commission will consider closing bases overseas rather than in the United States."
Well, Senator Lott why don't you take over that instead of farming this out to some blue-ribbon panel? You elected officials gutless wonders, when it comes to the tough decisions, there you go running for the tall grass. You don't want to be responsible to your constituents for closing military bases so you get a bunch of ex-congressmen and senators to come up there, chair a commission to decide which ones to do it, you pass the buck on all the heavy lifting and then you dare sit there and blow up at Donald Rumsfeld.
The fact of the matter is, Senator Lott, that Donald Rumsfeld is the first secretary of defense in a very long time to try to change the environment at the Pentagon, to retool, to shake up the bureaucracy, to build a military for future threats, et cetera, instead of relying on the same old military of the past. And this is very common, folks, when somebody comes in and starts shaking up the old guard -- and it's been that way for a long, long time -- the people getting shaken up don't like it, and they start leaking things, and they start trashing, and they start buzzing and whispering behind people's backs, and they get piled on. As a result of this, as a result of Rumsfeld's attempt to move forward and look forward he has offended many of the old bulls on Capitol Hill who claim he's not listening to people, he's not listening to his officers in the field. What Lott means is he's not listening to us in the Senate. He is listening, but he is a leader, he's not an order taker. Senators are not secretaries of defense and they are not secretaries of state and they are not presidents of the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rumsfeld is a leader. He understands that the enemy today is different and that the force structure must address it. I tell you what, it's some of these politicians who have been in Congress for decades who don't get it, if you ask me. Talk about an old boys club, the Senate. Any senator can't get anything out of that body, can't get any legislation out of there that makes any sense. A senator, to sit there and talk about anybody else not doing a good job, this is the place where half the decent legislation in this country gets bottled up. This is the place, Senator Lott, where three Democrat senators blew up and committed a potential criminal felony by releasing the details of a covert, super-secret satellite spy plan. This is a criminal felony. Criminal referrals have been handed out to these three, Jay Rockefeller, Durbin, and Ron Wyden. Now, if the Republicans in the Senate had any gonads they would be on the prowl here trying to get these guys strung up for what they did, because you want to talk about defense and you want to talk about security, take a look at what's coming out of the U.S. Senate on the Democrat side. Instead of piling on Rumsfeld, why don't you and the Senate leadership get together and realize it's the Democrats in the Senate who are the enemy, and not Rumsfeld. That it's Al-Qaeda who is the enemy, and not Rumsfeld. And just because McCain decides to fly off the cliff for personal reasons doesn't mean you have to follow him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The get-Rumsfeld crowd mostly Democrats, joined by the McCain-Hagel caucus and a few stray hawks takes great umbrage at Rumsfeld's answer to a National Guardsman's question about an insufficient number of up-armored Humvees. Hagel intoned, 'those men and women deserved a far better answer from their secretary of Defense than a flippant comment.' But Rumsfeld wasn't being flip. One wonders whether Hagel has even taken the time to read the full transcript of the secretary's remarks. The troops gave Rumsfeld a standing ovation at the end. Is it the position of the secretarys critics that the troops were too stupid to realize they had just been belittled?" And stood up and gave a standing O at the time they were flipped off? "The comment that has most angered Rumsfeld's detractors is his statement that you go to war with the Army you have. That may have been too frank in such a forum, but it was true. We went into Iraq with a military not yet fully transformed to adjust to 21st-century reality..." Because the bridge to the 21st century built by the Clinton administration did not include the military. So we had to end up facing "an insurgency launched in a harsh urban environment. If Rumsfeld's hawkish critics, some of whom were banging the drums for the Iraq war for years, thought that war could be responsibly fought only with an Army equipped with 8,000 up-armored Humvees, they had adequate time to make that known--" They had adequate time to make it happen because they control the budgets, and they control the troop levels.
|
bump for ref.
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm thankful that Rush has zeroed in on Lott and others for being soft.
FYI Ping
I will honor and respect McCain's service in our military and the years he spent as a POW
However, his years as a Senator suck ..
The others are thinking ahead to 2008 and not wanting to do anything to limit their opportunities (jumping on the 'popular' side of things).
Rats are corrupt and disabled to the point that pubbies figure they don't have to listen to the masses -- one more reason we need a strong third party.
OING..
That, I believe, is the point of all of this Rummy-bashing. I do not think the President will listen to any of this bunkum.
This was Rush at his absolute best. This was the best monologue I had heard in a long time.
My dad spent 3 years as a soldier overseas during WWII. I honor his service too.
And I'd much rather have my dad up in Washington voting on issues rather than McCain. I KNOW my dad would side with conservatives 100% of the time.
I still say McCain gets too much prominence in the GOP. Seems to me he is the one who causes a good deal of trouble for the GOP.
Anyone who saw McCain responding to questions on our countries security and defense during the 2000 Republican debates realizes he is a poor choice indeed for President of this great country. He is impulsive in his speech, rhetoric which is reckless and dangerous when it comes to foreign policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.