Posted on 12/21/2004 6:03:06 AM PST by OESY
...During difficult times he has led one of the largest bureaucracies in the world, helped plan the successful dispatch of two terrorist regimes, and worked to speed up long-overdue reforms....
He is tough, no doubt about it. But it takes a tough man to accomplish all this, especially when bureaucrats and special-interest groups are wedded to the status quo or Cold War-era programs no longer relevant....
Much of the current criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld is centered on troop levels and armor for the troops. Sen. John McCain, for example, has long believed that the Iraq conflict required more troops.... Reasonable people can disagree....
Now, Secretary Rumsfeld is being criticized for his honest response to a soldier in a town-hall meeting in Iraq regarding the shortage of armor for our troops in the field. The secretary responded that you go to war with what you've got.... The question is whether it is fair to heap all the blame on Secretary Rumsfeld for what is, after all, a procurement responsibility of the services. Ironically, another criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld is that he micromanages too much. Critics can't have it both ways.
And consider this: How many other cabinet secretaries go out and talk to people directly and take on all questions, even the tough ones? Secretary Rumsfeld has held dozens of these town-hall meetings with troops to hear from them and to listen to their opinions unvarnished. He should be commended for that and for his follow-up on the armor issue....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
We don't hire military leaders for their charming personalities.
Isn't it interesting that critics will cite an outgoing civilian Secretary of the Army who made an off-handed comment about needing "several hundred thousand" troops in Iraq when that view was not supported by the Joint Chiefs?
Or that those critics further ignored the Joint Chiefs when they gave their personal views that the intelligence reform legislation under consideration was misguided, yet claim to have our soldiers' best interests in mind?
When did Sens. McCain, Hagel, Lott or Collins tell us that the denial of a military advance from the North by Turkey would result in an incomplete victory over those Baathist forces that would later fuel the insurgency, and what did they do about it? Their political tactics are disgraceful.
If Norman Schwarzkopf thinks he is worthless, that's good enough for me. Rummy needs to go yesterday.
Woodrow Wilsons' signed 116,516 for those who defended America in WWI.
I'm told Harry Truman stepped up to the plate and personally signed 54,246 for those who fought in Korea, even though that was not "officially" a declaration of war.
Oh, wait, that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?
At any rate, Stormin' Norman didn't say he thinks Rummy is "worthless"...he took issue with the way Rummy reacted to a question. There is a HUGE, cavernous, yawning, gaping difference.
The entire thing has NOTHING to do with Rumsfield
It is the democrats way of getting to BUSH PERIOD
Democrats could care less about the troops or the country
They just want to neuter BUSH
You hit the nail on the head of this situation. Rummy should stay and the others should stay out of it. All of this is just to try to undermind Bush this term.
Any time all those people are against someone, that someone is doing a bang up good job or they wouldn't be in the line of fire.
All we have to do is look at the "results" of the DoD under Rummy, and ask what his detractors would have done differently to achieve the same, or better, results.
As for me, I want Rumsfeld to remain Secretary of Defense until doomsday.
Yes, I do. He knows what it takes to win a war, and he's been there with the soldiers. Rummy declined to accept the advice of his leadership when planning the invasion initially, and our troops have been hurt immensely by his arrogance. He should have listened to the people who knew better than he did. If you make a decision to ignore your military leadership and replace it with a "yes man", you'd better be right. Rummy wasn't.
I guess I'm in the minority here in the respect that I expect compotence to be a prerequisite for a Sec Def. I also expect the commander in chief to demand compotence of his cabinet. For the record, I was a Marine and Soldier for a combined 8 1/2 years and I thought Rummy's flippant response to the Soldier's question was shamelss.
I suppose that's why only AFTER the Soldier asked the question has the Army moved to increase the production of Armored Humvees for the troops, eh?
And, as someone else stated, how many letters of condolance did the Sec Defs in WWII sign?
Yeah, Rummy has done a fine job...right...
Rummy has shown me nothing to indicate that he cares 2 $hits about the soldiers he is supposed to be responsible for.
Bingo. As soon has Rummy leaves, there will be a constant din, "Bush failed! Bush failed!. The SecDef had to resign in disgrace"
Then they will go after Condi.
You are wrong friend, but only because you believe the crap spewed by the MSM. Read a little deeper and get ALL the facts and you will be a Rummy supporter too.
There is a big difference between criticism of one 30-second instance in a man's life and 40+ years of outstanding service.
So then you must believe that both Tommy Franks and President Bush are idiots since they can't see what is so apparent to you.
I was always upset at him for not listening to the Army leadership more with respect to troop levels. I never put the blame directly on him for the armor and equipment issue as Clinton's cuts bear a lot of the blame, but Rummy's response to that question made me furious. And the reaction to that question (only now increasing Armored Humvee production), has made me believe that Rummy was to blame, at least partially, for the lack of armor and equipment anyway.
Then there was the condolance letters incident. That was just the icing on the cake. He needs to go. I stand by that. Many people in the military agree, but are not at liberty to say. You can't just talk to the generals, you have to talk to the soldiers. Almost all of them support Bush and this war, but numerous things that have been handled directly by Mr. Rumsfeld has not made them believe that the SecDef cares about them.
Again, I don't understand. How come Bush can't see what you see. Doesn't the fact that Bush thinks Rumsfeld is doing a good job and agrees with Rumsfeld's efforts to transform the Army make you reconsider your pretty strong opinions about Rumsfeld.
Finally, as far as the armoring of the Humvees is concerned isn't it true that approximately 90% of the Humvees those soldiers in Kuwait were getting were already armored I read a Q & A from one of the generals in charge of the logistics for those soldiers who said something like 800 out of the 816 Humvees they were getting were already armored. Does that make you change your opinion of Rumsfeld.
President Bush and Rummy have always said that they will give whatever the generals in Iraq request. WWII generals made a lot of mistakes before they got it right. If there had been all this critiscm then we would never have won the war. I am getting really tired of Monday morning quarterbacking on the war and the criticsm of those running for president in 2008.
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.