Replies

I've never thougt too much of Rumsfeld, but for different reasons. His military service was perfectly engineered to avoid the combat in the Korean War. He was a half-assed Rockefeller-Republican congressman. He worked against Reagan in 1976 and in 1980. Reagan wisely decided not to minimize his part in his administration, oddly enough sending him as a "special envoy" to Saddam.

Since becoming SecDef, he's embraced and expanded all of the social experimentation of the Clinton era. Dick Danzig might as well still be running the Navy. Gals are in combat in the Army, and we are still lowering those standards and demanding those quota's.

Nope, I think former Senator Coats would have been a far wiser choice. But then again, Laxalt would have been a far wiser VP choice than Bush in 1980.

Nah, You are wrong on SecDef Rumsfeld. He has been a tremendous asset to this Nation during this WOT. Absolutely the best kind of SecDef we could have wished for. We should be thankful.

Those in the Armed forces by a large margin absolutely agree and support SecDef Rumsfeld. That is the reality. There is a small group of old Mil dinosaurs and old Big Green types who don't like the man because he is adjusting the military to be more effective (and they don't like change).

Within this segment of anti-Rumsfeld types are also a bunch of candyass$s who constantly like to come up with excuses for why this or that can't get accomplished....but on the other hand constantly demand the lions share of every budget.

SecDef Rumsfeld has done more for our actual warriors and shooters then any SecDef in the last 50 years. He continues to demand ways for our shooters to be less dependent and more autonomous in thier actions (shortening that cruical OODA loop in the process) by finding ways of cutting out the constant need of CIA spooks or OGAs.

Furthermore these ex-Gen's going out and talking to the MSM shows much more about themselves...then anything about our SecDef.