Posted on 01/10/2005 4:54:32 PM PST by GoldenOrchid
Defense officials say that the Donald H. Rumsfeld-John McCain relationship, never the closest or friendliest, really soured at a private meeting the two had last summer. The strong-willed defense secretary and the equally hard-nosed Republican senator from Arizona, both ex-Navy pilots and hawks on Iraq, were supposed to make peace over two nagging issues. Mr. McCain did not believe Mr. Rumsfeld was adequately paying attention to, or disclosing information about, the Boeing tanker lease scandal Mr. McCain took to the Senate floor Nov. 19 and read e-mail excerpts and called the Boeing deal "a case of either a systemic failure in procurement oversight, willful blindness or rank corruption." Several defense officials now say that Mr. McCain has been correct to press the Pentagon on making more public disclosures on the Boeing deal. A Bush administration official said last week that the basic disagreement is that Mr. McCain believes the scandal is broader than the actions of Mrs. Druyun and that culpable Pentagon officials should be fired, while the Department of Defense does not at this point.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
i don't like mccain. i think he does interfere with the war effort.
i don't like boeing either, having worked with them in washington d.c. as a consultant, i can say this: they're crooked.
I remember reading about this a long time ago and I agree that leasing was a bad deal---
In that respect McCain was right to persue it and there is someone in prison because of it. My problem comes from McCain's need for publicity---
And in this case, as it is with so many retired military officers, he just feels the need to bad mouth the President, and Rummy about the war all of the time. He was a POW, which is horrible, but that doesn't make him an expert on running a war!!!
I'm not sure when this whole deal with Boeing was hatched or if it was even under the Bush administration. Anyway, I don't question McCain challenging excessive costs but that doesn't mean he needs to publicly challenge the entire Pentagon at a time of war.
That's my problem with McCain as well -- I can count on one hand and have fingers left over for the times I have agreed with McCain.
It was hatched under the Clinton regime. Our family knows someone that worked for Darleen and she was nothing but power hungry and a Clintonite!
Exactly! Because I dislike McCain, doesn't stop me from saying he was 100% correct in this instance. I was so glad when Darleen was sentenced to prison but two of her kids still worked for Boeing the last I heard.
I thought I remembered as much. Thanks for the confirmation.
>>>Or asked him what the payoff was for selling his fellow POW/MIAs down the river.
Wasn't there some company McCain was involved with that got a rebuilding contract in Nam?
We all have his number and while he may be a media darling, the true patriots in America have no use for McC at all.
OR, did he have to agree to be a player to COME out of prison?
McCain started out as a bad apple.....long before he was shot down in Viet Nam.
I wonder if something funny didn't happen...
I didn't know that...can you elaborate...for all of us.
What McCain wanted is more (possibly innocent) personnel scalped as a means of having Rumsfeld kiss the Royal Senatorial Arse.
Those 2 sentences effectively sum up this entire episode or heat between the two. There's nothing else there. This article was simply fluff.
You considering a job with the Washington Times?
Mcpain needs to retire, he is no longer effective. Rummy is a good man with intelligence far exceeding that of Mcpain's rino mind.
Wasn't Daschles' lobbiest wife involved in this one? Or am I thinking of another scandal.
There's so much corruption in Washington it is un-real. maybe we don't want to know the full extent of all of it...
Not if they pay me by the word :-).
In a more serious vein, this is not just McCain: one of the disdvantages of being in the legislature is that you get none of the glory when things go right, but plenty of blame when things go wrong (wasted money, improper procurement, lack of oversight).
Most of all, you lose even more of whatever limelight the Senate gets in comparison to the CINC.
One of the most effective ways to get it back is to scandal monger and attack the sittng administration. In this case, the press is just stroking the already inflamed egos of the Club of the 100 Elected Drunken Wankers and taking advantage of the institutional bias of the Senate to bash Bush.
Isn't he up for re-election in 2006?
http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/2002-05-22a.asp
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.