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

Skip to comments.

Rumsfeld Blasts Top Brass
ny daily news ^ | 3.29.2 | RICHARD SISK

Posted on 03/29/2002 10:27:59 AM PST by Pancho13

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last
To: DSHambone
Good point, the President wages war. The Congress does have the responsibility to raise and support Armies - of which part of their jurisdiction is to know the readiness of the forces at hand. The point I was trying to make is that these officers are before the duly elected representatives of the US Congress - are they supposed to lie about readiness levels? Would we not want Congress to know if our ammunition supplies were dangerously low?

As for the public/private issue, I sincerely wish Rummy had done this in private. Now the media will be ever more interested in covering this issue.

41 posted on 03/29/2002 10:57:20 AM PST by fogarty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Grut
With the quality of the French and British Armor and the professional level of the Brits, the French would be entirely wrong to say they were unprepared. They had the force in place to stop the Germans...but
The Germans weren't fighting the last war and they overcame superior weaponry with farsighted tactics and once you get into an enemies' rear....the fun begins
42 posted on 03/29/2002 10:57:31 AM PST by DSHambone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
I think an answer of ,"Sir/Ma'am I don't believe you have the security clearance for us to discuss this matter!" would have been great..
43 posted on 03/29/2002 10:59:52 AM PST by DSHambone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
You are missing the point. Sure the military has deteriorated. Sure there are shortages. But you don't spill the beans in the midst of a war.

And if congress asks the question, you tell them the truth in a closed session.

Even if clintoon is to blame (and he is at least partially), how is it a help to tell our enemies just what shorcommings we face ?

44 posted on 03/29/2002 11:02:51 AM PST by quimby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pancho13
DO IT PRIVATELY, NOT PUBLICLY!!!!! DO YOU THINK RUMMY TELLS THE PUBLIC EVERYTHING HE HAS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SAD STATE OF DEPLETED AFFAIRS CLINTON HAS LEFT OUR MILITARY IN?
45 posted on 03/29/2002 11:03:11 AM PST by nocommies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
The point I was trying to make is that these officers are before the duly elected representatives of the US Congress - are they supposed to lie about readiness levels? Would we not want Congress to know if our ammunition supplies were dangerously low?

Poor boobs probably thought now that Bush was president it was safe to tell the truth to congress and not risk their careers.
I guess they should have continued the lies like Sheldon did when he was telling congress every thing was rosey during Clinton's years
46 posted on 03/29/2002 11:04:03 AM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
They are not supposed to lie.....there is an option called *closed door session* so the media isn't informed, and assuming the Congresscritter can keep his/her mouth shut.......Rummy is right!
47 posted on 03/29/2002 11:04:36 AM PST by mystery-ak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
What should the officer do when asked?

Offer to answer in closed session because the information concerned our ability to hurt the people listening in for just the kind of information they heard.

Open and televised inquiries are for PR in any event - Congress does not typically expect to hear details about readiness when CSPAN is announcing each round to the world.

You are looking at, and participating in at our low and removed level, an internal left/right battle within the government.
You are looking at it because some of the participants are willing to announce their bias in public and because the media is starving for something to hang on GWB.
You are (probably) taking part in it because many at FR think that a Republican president is honor bound to agree with every one of their (Freepers) pet theories.
That, or you're still waiting for Buchanan.

48 posted on 03/29/2002 11:05:20 AM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Because one does NOT broadcast information like this to the enemy, that's why. Also, re US troops needing rest: I'm closer to the troops than Kernan is, and they're saying "LET'S ROLL," not "let's rest."

Agreed. I am actually confused by why Atlantic Command was testifying to the war in Afghanistan, its CentCom's war not Atlantic's. He does not seem to be the appropraite voice for this and certainly was not cleared to discuss this through SecDef. As to the army general, what a whiner. They just barely got in the fight a few weeks ago in force (special forces excepted).

The only legitimacy I can think of to his claim is the strain on reserve forces that this along with recalls from the Klintoon days is causing. In certain functions, like security and psyops for example, the army has moved almost all their capability to the reserves. Most reservist, though not all, have civilian careers to balance, and employers who understand the need to deploy maybe once every 10 years or so. Constant recalls every three years or so for one year or longer orders has reservists opting out when they get off active duty, and discourages new reserve entries.

49 posted on 03/29/2002 11:05:27 AM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
BTW
I think the public should be told how Clinton screwed up the military
50 posted on 03/29/2002 11:06:03 AM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Pancho13
Partial transcript from the DoD briefing ...... please note who raised the names of the "Top Brass" and how Secreatry Rumsfeld responded:

Q: General Myers, could I go back to this issue of "exhausted" and "extended" that Brett made -- asked? Isn't it true, though, that the U.S. is almost exhausted and overextended in the use of precision weapons over there? I mean, you've dropped like 5,000 of these satellite-guided bombs and the inventory is depleted. In that respect, isn't the --

Myers: That's not correct, Tony. The inventory is not depleted.

[snip]

Myers: No, the issue is, are we going to stand up here and tell you how many JDAMs we have? No, we are not. But I just told you we are not exhausted -- what term did you use? -- depleted. We're not depleted.

And during Allied Force, there was a big listing of our munitions, some of our precision munitions, and it was Mary Jo who turned to me, my wife, and said, "Why are we telling the world what our -- the status of our munitions? Shouldn't that be classified information?" And it should have been, and for some reason we felt obligated to spit it out there. In this case, we are not depleted; let me just say that. It goes --

Rumsfeld: It also happens that the admiral, who was discussing this subject, was wrong. He -- maybe not wrong; he may have been speaking of something he knew something about but should not -- been speaking about, because the levels of munitions is not everybody in the world's business, to be perfectly honest, and he should have known better. But he may have been talking about what he did know about, in a narrower area, but not a worldwide area. And --

Q: The comments that the -- I think it was from Admiral Blair and General Ralston, as you said, talked about the fact that they were asked specifically, that they do not feel they have the forces and capabilities to conduct the missions that they have now, and that what that means is that, as General Ralston said, "I do not have the forces in EUCOM to carry out these missions."

But if asked to do something else, he would come back to you --

Rumsfeld: Exactly.

Q: -- and say, "I need more."

Rumsfeld: And they do all the time.

Q: And what that means is, then, there will have to be a decision made and a trade-off.

Myers: Right. We prioritize all the time. That's what we do. And --

Rumsfeld: Every day we're faced with those issues, and he's quite right. No one person is necessarily going to have every single thing they need at any given moment, unless they ask for it and then a judgment's made as to how you want to balance those risks and how -- what priorities you think are appropriate. And that's what General Myers and I do.

There is some back and forth on this issue at other places in the press conference. But it is important to note that the media brought up the names of the "top brass" and Rumsfeld and Myers answered their questions.

The entire transcript can be read here ..... and I recommend that all do so before jumping to too many conclusions.

DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers

51 posted on 03/29/2002 11:08:00 AM PST by kayak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pancho13
Why is it so wrong for these top officers, responsible for the lives of so many to tell the truth as they see it to Congress? Has the administration finally gone around the bend in its attempt to stifle any honest examination of their conduct? What do y'all think?

Oh please. It's clearly wrong for 'these top officers' to state these things in a public forum. They could have made the exact same statement in a closed-door session with Congress and/or voiced their concerns to the Secretary of Defense, first. For military 'leaders', no judgement was employed here.

I believe Secretary Rumsfeld was making an example of these two men to get the point across that you don't blab negative military information (the soldiers are tired, we're low on ammo) over television. That's plain foolish and makes one wonder how these guys got to be an Admiral and a General, respectively. Trying to turn it into a supposed coverup of an 'honest examination' of the conduct of the war is a hollow, baseless charge. If you truly believe that, you'll believe anything as long as it makes the Bush administration appear in a bad light.

52 posted on 03/29/2002 11:08:49 AM PST by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

To: uncbob
BIG GIANT AMEN to that!! charge him with treason!
54 posted on 03/29/2002 11:10:10 AM PST by nocommies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Freedom'sWorthIt
I think we are in a war.

Good, keep thinking that and remember that it is Congress who declares war, not the Sec. Of Defense and not the President. Congress has not declared war since 1941.

---max

55 posted on 03/29/2002 11:11:44 AM PST by max61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #56 Removed by Moderator

To: Grumpy925
it needed to be rebuked publicly, just as it was started, publicly. unfortunate, but true.
57 posted on 03/29/2002 11:14:02 AM PST by nocommies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Pancho13
what is wrong is that we are at war, and the enemy is listening.
58 posted on 03/29/2002 11:15:43 AM PST by veryconernedamerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #59 Removed by Moderator

To: Pancho13
Chief Petty Officer Matthew Bourgeois, 35, a Navy SEAL from Tallahassee, Fla., was killed when he stepped on a land mine during a training exercise near Kandahar.


Navy Seal Chief Petty Officer Matthew Bourgeois (left), of Tallahassee, Florida, was killed in an explosion during a training exercise near Qandahar, Afghanistan Thursday morning, according to the Department of Defense. His wife Michelle and baby son Matt, 7 months, are also shown in this undated family portrait. REUTERS/Handout

60 posted on 03/29/2002 11:17:50 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 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