Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservative Va. GOP Congresswoman Davis Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation
Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star ^ | 8.13.06

Posted on 08/29/2006 11:29:58 AM PDT by meandog

HAMPTON--U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, a Republican, hasn't ever agreed with Sen. Hillary Clinton on anything. But she is siding with the New York Democrat in calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation.

"I've made no bones about it the last two years," the 1st District congresswoman told members of the Hampton Roads Chapter of the American Society of Military Comptrollers. "He's probably a nice guy, but I don't think he's a great secretary of defense."

Davis said she based her determination in part on Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq.

She pointed to his 2003 firing of Gen. Eric Shinseki. Before the war started, Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, publicly said he believed that hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops would be needed in Iraq during the postwar period.

(Excerpt) Read more at fredericksburg.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; US: Vermont; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 109th; davis; democratmouthpieces; dncstoodges; dummy; joanndavis; rummy; sillydems
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last
I did a search of key words and didn't see this posted before...
1 posted on 08/29/2006 11:29:59 AM PDT by meandog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: meandog

And what are Jo Ann Davis's qualifications as a military expert?


2 posted on 08/29/2006 11:31:34 AM PDT by Moral Hazard (The "missing links" in evolution are nothing compared to the extraneous links in intelligent design.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Another politician just can't help but sell her soul for more camera time. :-/


3 posted on 08/29/2006 11:31:47 AM PDT by TChris (Banning DDT wasn't about birds. It was about power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard

She stayed in a Holiday Inn Express?


4 posted on 08/29/2006 11:34:38 AM PDT by kempster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Which self-important, never-faced-combat general who either was fired, or had, or will have, his area of purview downsized, due to Rumsfield's policies, is she pals with?


5 posted on 08/29/2006 11:35:54 AM PDT by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard
And what are Jo Ann Davis's qualifications as a military expert?

I suppose she was impressed with Gen Shinseki's vindication on the matter (in following the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force vice Rumsfeld's "limited presence" of sending just enough troops to ensure victory defeat).

6 posted on 08/29/2006 11:37:17 AM PDT by meandog (While Clinton isn't fit even to scrape Reagan's shoes, Bush will never fill them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: meandog
She pointed to his 2003 firing of Gen. Eric Shinseki.

Well she is an utter idiot. Shinseki wasn't fired. More of the Neo Isolationists whining and stupidity.

7 posted on 08/29/2006 11:47:23 AM PDT by MNJohnnie ( Elections are more important then the feelings of the POS Cons (Perpetually Offended Syndrome))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog

"I suppose she was impressed with Gen Shinseki's vindication on the matter"

******Snip******

What the mattter MD, you one of the out of touch Pentagon dinasours Rummy booted to the curb?


I love the way Know Nothings just keep screaming their opinion as fact. Pity some Freepers still cannot grasp their feelings are not facts. Shinseki's retirement date was set in 2002. It had nothing to do with his postion on Iraq.


As for the "More boots on ground" dogma, We followed that dogma in Vietnam. We had 500,000 troops in country at one point. We lost.

We did NOT follow it in Iraq and we are wininning. The ONLY person vidicated here is Rumsfeild despite the fact the usual collections of Know Nothing STILL refuse to admit they were wrong about Iraq ALL along.

That data is available at the following links for anyone who actually wants to learn instead of blinding clinging to their failed know nothing dogmas.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Forces


8 posted on 08/29/2006 11:55:48 AM PDT by MNJohnnie ( Elections are more important then the feelings of the POS Cons (Perpetually Offended Syndrome))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: meandog

"I suppose she was impressed with Gen Shinseki's vindication on the matter"

What vindication? Shinseki thought the invasion itself would require more troops and Tommy Franks proved that thesis wrong with his 3 week Thunder Run.

That's a separate topic from occupying and peacekeeping.
If we got more help from int'l community like Scty Powell promised in 'peacekeeping' the point would have been moot.
As would have been the case also if Iraqi military hadnt melted away.

I dont see how he gets vindicated on a point he never made.


9 posted on 08/29/2006 11:57:10 AM PDT by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard
"And what are Jo Ann Davis's qualifications as a military expert?"

I clicked on this thread to make that point but you beat me to it.

Like Ms. BJ Clintooon, she must be pretty confident in her belief that her "constituents" are too dense to ask that question. LOL

10 posted on 08/29/2006 11:57:54 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ( Ignorance is correctable with education, but stupid is forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Ha, ha!

11 posted on 08/29/2006 12:05:31 PM PDT by GalaxieFiveHundred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
As for the "More boots on ground" dogma, We followed that dogma in Vietnam. We had 500,000 troops in country at one point. We lost...

Really? I don't recall us losing one battle, not one when we had more boots on the ground. It was in the aftermath of Nixon's "Vietnamization" and "Peace With Honor" drawdown and during his Watergate impeachment imbroglio when we lost...(due to the combined fact of the country's war fatigue (because Nixon, and LBJ before him, ascribed the same logic DUH-Bee-Yuh is using) and the results of handing our military operations off to the green, and poorly led RVN forces before they could handle the situation with the more determined NVA).

12 posted on 08/29/2006 12:06:31 PM PDT by meandog (While Clinton isn't fit even to scrape Reagan's shoes, Bush will never fill them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard

Good question!


13 posted on 08/29/2006 12:07:34 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Exactly. Shinseki retired as scheduled. He wasn't fired.


14 posted on 08/29/2006 12:07:44 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: meandog

I have long felt the whole issue of "overwhelming" force is a red herring, with many flaws.

It relies on some premises that look only at what happened and do not consider some negative possibilities that the imposition of that overwhelming force would have created, because it also makes the premise that the responses of Sadaam, Al Queda and any aspect of political opposition and support for "insurgency" would be only what we have observed under the conditions we did impose.

While the "order" and security that a massive, overwhelming force of occupation may have been able to achieve initially, that order would also have been very oppressive and only sustainable if it was oppressive. It also would have been harder for that level of occupation-imposed security to distinguish between common dissent over issues of justice and equity among the populace with an organized political movement to destabilize the occupation. That level of needed oppression would also have led otherwise more peaceful dissenters to question their cooperation with the occupation, on political grounds.

The fact is that in spite of the chronic security problems, the Iraqi people did become very organized, politically, not to dissolve the occupation prematurely or in support of the Baathists and the terrorists, but to build their own government.

In the shadow of an overwhelming, oppressive occupation you can bet the tactics of Al Queda, Saddam and others would not have been static, and would have been different and would have sought every means and manner to use the oppressive occupation of that overwhelming force to their political advantage.

As much as an overwhelming occupation force may have seemed more secure initially, it may have produced a less politically secure situation; one where the internal politically movements prevented the level of political cooperation we have been able to achieve.

To pretend that those opposed to the occupation were incapable of adpating their tactics and plans, no matter what we did and to do so with equal fervor and dedication that they have put in their present efforts, is nothing more than the arrogance of all monday morning quarterbacks.


15 posted on 08/29/2006 12:10:00 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Here are three pictures of the Congresswoman -


16 posted on 08/29/2006 12:11:12 PM PDT by 7thson (I've got a seat at the big conference table! I'm gonna paint my logo on it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog

So she is a rino?

Sounds like a number of female republican types. Is she siding with hitlary as a woman's club "thang"?


17 posted on 08/29/2006 12:16:52 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
...well, does this remind you of any current parallels? click here
18 posted on 08/29/2006 12:17:08 PM PDT by meandog (While Clinton isn't fit even to scrape Reagan's shoes, Bush will never fill them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Really? I don't recall us losing one battle, not one when we had more boots on the ground. It was in the aftermath of Nixon's "Vietnamization" and "Peace With Honor" drawdown and during his Watergate impeachment imbroglio when we lost...(due to the combined fact of the country's war fatigue (because Nixon, and LBJ before him, ascribed the same logic DUH-Bee-Yuh is using) and the results of handing our military operations off to the green, and poorly led RVN forces before they could handle the situation with the more determined NVA).

Don't blame it on Nixon. It was the Dem Congress that pulled the rug out from the ARVN by cutting off funding. The North Vietnamese invaded the South violating the Paris Peace Accords. The US left Vietnam in January 1973. The South hung on for almost two years until they lost our support.

19 posted on 08/29/2006 12:18:04 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
and, how about this? click here ...both led to disasterous results, IMHO!
20 posted on 08/29/2006 12:19:34 PM PDT by meandog (While Clinton isn't fit even to scrape Reagan's shoes, Bush will never fill them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson