Replies

Agreed, Grampa. Rumsfeld is just doing the bidding of our President and what his Cabinet manages to gain consensus on doing. I don't really see a better way to do things than what we're doing. If we inserted a country full of troops, it would put the rest of our strategic interests in danger. If we killed a lot of innocent Iraqi people in retaliation for each terrorist attack (some of which are conducted by fanatics imported to Iraq) it would make us look like hypocrites. I think elections and minimal force protection is just the right path.

It should remind us all how brave and selfless our all-volunteer military is. They know they're at the edge of civilization and America is purposefully limiting their force protection. And they serve anyway. They're saving our lives, they're saving Iraqi lives, and they're protecting our honor. Would Kerry have appointed a Defense Secretary who could make these tough calls and face the media? Never. We'd either abandon the Iraqi people or we'd be killing many more of them -- either way something that we'd come to regret.

From what little I know about Rumsfeld via his press conferences and what we've learned about him here, I think he's a real keeper. Hats off to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld!

Merry Christmas, and thanks for this excellent summary:

"It should remind us all how brave and selfless our all-volunteer military is. They know they're at the edge of civilization and America is purposefully limiting their force protection. And they serve anyway. They're saving our lives, they're saving Iraqi lives, and they're protecting our honor. Would Kerry have appointed a Defense Secretary who could make these tough calls and face the media? Never. We'd either abandon the Iraqi people or we'd be killing many more of them -- either way something that we'd come to regret."

"From what little I know about Rumsfeld via his press conferences and what we've learned about him here, I think he's a real keeper. Hats off to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld!"