PDA

View Full Version : Rumsfeld And Dubya Tell Everybody To Go To Hell



blueturk
04-18-2006, 09:56 PM
Rumsfeld takes on his critics

BY G. ROBERT HILLMAN AND RICHARD WHITTLE

The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mounted an all-out counterassault Tuesday against the retired generals demanding his dismissal as President Bush tried again to extinguish the firestorm.

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as secretary of defense," Bush told reporters at the White House in clipped, no-nonsense fashion, his right hand sometimes chopping the air.

Rumsfeld pressed his case later at a Pentagon news conference, then followed up with a hastily scheduled meeting with about 15 retired military commanders and others who are now military media analysts.

It was the latest round in what has evolved in the last week as another intense battle in the war in Iraq, this one over presidential policy and Rumsfeld's often blunt manner in carrying it out.

On Tuesday, Rumsfeld took on his critics directly, following some weekend help from retired Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, the recently departed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who appeared Sunday on ABC's "This Week." Four other retired military commanders wrote Monday in The Wall Street Journal that "we do not believe that it is appropriate for active duty, or retired senior military officers to publicly criticize" the defense secretary during war.

"In time, the electorate, and history, will grade their decisions," the retired military leaders said.

No stranger to controversy during his long career in government, politics and business, Rumsfeld has drawn steady fire since Bush chose him to run the Pentagon five years ago, particularly over his planning and management of the war in Iraq.

But the unusually harsh calls for his resignation by a succession of retired generals, including some who have served in Iraq, have raised the stakes. So both the defense secretary and the commander in chief are pushing back, against the gloomy backdrop of an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq and looming midterm elections this fall at home.

"I see a White House that has put itself in a corner and doesn't know how to get out," said retired Air Force Col. P.J. Crowley, a spokesman for the Pentagon and National Security Council during the Clinton administration.

"There certainly is a problem of optics for the White House if they are seen as caving in to the generals," he said. "That would set a very ugly precedent for our society."

With Bush's job approval rating at the lowest of his presidency, Crowley suggested Rumsfeld could be another drag on the Republican drive to retain control of Congress in this fall's midterm elections.

"I don't know that the president can afford to stay in this kind of defensive crouch forever," Crowley said. "At some point, something has to give."

On Tuesday, though, Bush gave not an inch.

Confronted in the Rose Garden by reporters' questions on the prospect of a major shakeup in his administration, he dug in.

The president said he'd tried to stay clear of the personnel speculation "because we got people's reputations at stake." But he said he "stood up" on Friday - in a statement from Camp David - to defend Rumsfeld because "he's doing a fine job."

Clearly, though, the administration is concerned that the collective criticism of the retired generals - unlike calls by prominent congressional Democrats for Rumsfeld to step down - may gather steam among a public that polls show is largely weary of the turmoil in Iraq.

"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores. But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq," retired Army Major Gen. Charles Swannack Jr., who commanded the 82nd Airborne in Iraq in 2004, told The New York Times last week.

At the same time, Democratic congressional critics are continuing their calls for change, with Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois even suggesting on Tuesday that Rumsfeld should face what would be a symbolic vote of confidence in the Senate. "Let the Senate go on record," he told reporters.

How such a vote might proceed however, was unclear, particularly since Republicans control the Senate.

And Rumsfeld, who twice offered the president his resignation in the wake of prisoner abuses in Iraq, shrugged off questions about whether he might offer it again. His work to transform the military into a more efficient, mobile force had "caused a lot of ruffles," he said, and he's willing to take the heat for it.

"The president knows, as I know, that there are no indispensable men. The graveyards of the world are filled with indispensable people," Rumsfeld said. "He knows that I serve at his pleasure, and that's that."

Still, the criticism of the retired generals has struck a public chord that could mean even more political headaches for the president, already struggling for some new footing in the sixth year of his presidency.

"This is serious stuff," said Washington political analyst Charles Cook, noting that people generally are much more likely to "give the benefit of the doubt' to the complaints of retired military leaders than to those of carping politicians.

"This is real," Cook said, making it clear that administration officials were "not paranoid" in their determined efforts to stamp out the firestorm.

At the meeting of military analysts, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd, a military analyst for CNN, said Rumsfeld didn't bring up the calls for his resignation by the retired generals, but was "clearly distracted by it, and worried about it and concerned about it."

"He listened to a lot of things from the group," Shepperd said, explaining that the session focused mainly on Iraq and what events might evolve there that would send encouraging signals back home.

Shepperd reported that Rumsfeld said the formation of a new Iraqi government, stalled for months, would be such a new milestone.

But Shepperd said on CNN that Rumsfeld had still predicted a "tough war" ahead.

"It's going to be a long war in many places, and it's not going to be something that's going to come out (wrapped) with a bow in the next year or two years," he said, paraphrasing Rumsfeld's comments.



http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14372123.htm

FORD
04-18-2006, 10:05 PM
"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as secretary of defense," Bush told reporters at the White House in clipped, no-nonsense fashion, his right hand sometimes chopping the air.

Warham
04-18-2006, 10:10 PM
Ridiculous.

FORD
04-18-2006, 10:12 PM
Interesting choice of words today from President Chucklenuts: “I hear the voices . . . but, I’m the decider.”

What?! Aside from the 10-year-old, elementary school sort of language in “I'm the decider . . .” his phrase “I hear the voices” is especially eerie.

The last time he admitted the existence of “the voices” it was to Abu Mazen, the then Palestinian Prime Minister and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister. Allow them to describe the conversation, their first meeting with President Bush in June, 2003. Nabil Shaath: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

So. Any questions? We are being led by a religious madman. Do you have a problem with that?
- Mike Malloy 4-18-06

blueturk
04-18-2006, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Ridiculous.

A very cryptic post. What's ridiculous? Rummy? Dubya? This whole administration?

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about weapons of mass destruction in an ABC News interview, March 30, 2003

Guitar Shark
04-19-2006, 11:59 AM
I love it when Bush creates new words. First "strategery," and now he says he is the "decider". You can't write better comedy.

Nitro Express
04-19-2006, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by FORD
"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as secretary of defense," Bush told reporters at the White House in clipped, no-nonsense fashion, his right hand sometimes chopping the air.

Yeah but Adolf Hitler had huge approval ratings in the 1930's. The German people loved Adolf because he created lots of jobs rebuilding the German war machine and they couldn't wait for that machine to grab some more "Living Space".

George W. Bush on the other hand is the most hated president I've ever seen. Not even the Nixon Republicans like Bush. We all know the man has skull fucked our country so terribly. When him and Rumsfeld yak in their egotistical tones, we thank God for term limits. Two more years of these assholes? God help us!

Warham
04-19-2006, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I love it when Bush creates new words. First "strategery," and now he says he is the "decider". You can't write better comedy.

Strategery is a classic.

ODShowtime
04-21-2006, 09:12 PM
This might be mildly amusing if not for all the dead US soldiers.

blueturk
04-21-2006, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
This might be mildly amusing if not for all the dead US soldiers.

From March 20, 2003:

Q: Mr. Secretary, at the White House last night, a senior White House official after the president spoke said that the decision to make the strike was made some time between 6:30 and 7:00 Eastern time. It's apparent that that decision to strike was not in line with what we have been led to believe about the war plan. Was the intelligence you got fragile enough where you felt you had to go at that moment and not start with, say, shock and awe or some other phase of the war?

Rumsfeld: Well, Dick, calibrate me, but the first thing I'd say is I don't believe you have the war plan -- (laughter) -- a fact which does not make me unhappy. (Laughter.)

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/t03202003_t0320sd.html

blueturk
04-21-2006, 11:30 PM
"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006

blueturk
04-21-2006, 11:32 PM
The following quote from 11/14/02 explains a lot about Bush's defense of Rummy. They both share the same lack of concern regarding bin Laden. Fuck both of them...

Q: Mr. Secretary, is bin Laden alive or dead apparently now? And if he is alive, is the United States winning the war on terrorism?

Rumsfeld: Charlie, the answer to the question "Is he alive or dead" -- the answer is yes, he is alive or dead. (Laughter)

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t11142002_t1114sd.html

stringfelowhawk
04-22-2006, 09:33 AM
Interesting choice of words today from President Chucklenuts: “I hear the voices . . . but, I’m the decider.”

What?! Aside from the 10-year-old, elementary school sort of language in “I'm the decider . . .” his phrase “I hear the voices” is especially eerie.

The last time he admitted the existence of “the voices” it was to Abu Mazen, the then Palestinian Prime Minister and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister. Allow them to describe the conversation, their first meeting with President Bush in June, 2003. Nabil Shaath: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

So. Any questions? We are being led by a religious madman. Do you have a problem with that?




I don't know what scares me more! Whether he believes he hears voices or he's to fucking stupid to realize the voices sound a hellova lot like Rummy and his Corporate whore VP coming through his ear piece!

Either way he is the most incompetent baboons ass I've ever been privy to and I say that wearing my fucking uniform!

ODShowtime
04-22-2006, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by stringfelowhawk
I don't know what scares me more! Whether he believes he hears voices or he's to fucking stupid to realize the voices sound a hellova lot like Rummy and his Corporate whore VP coming through his ear piece!

Either way he is the most incompetent baboons ass I've ever been privy to and I say that wearing my fucking uniform!

I pity you guys. I don't know how you can devote your life to serving a cabal of such incompetent, greedy buffoons. More power to ya.

stringfelowhawk
04-23-2006, 09:27 AM
Don't be so quick to judge....
I was in uniform before this jackass was given his presidency and I sure as fuck will be outta uniform before he's outta office. I won't be a part of him and his corrupt policies or helping his demigod VP line his pockets any further than he already has.

ODShowtime
04-23-2006, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by stringfelowhawk
Don't be so quick to judge....
I was in uniform before this jackass was given his presidency and I sure as fuck will be outta uniform before he's outta office. I won't be a part of him and his corrupt policies or helping his demigod VP line his pockets any further than he already has.

Hey, I'm not judging you, it's not your fault!

stringfelowhawk
04-23-2006, 08:42 PM
I know man. It's just frustrating to have to listen to him because of an oath I didn't make to him that says, "I have to obey those appointed over me." Where as an officer swears to the Constitution and not an individual. Now you could talk semantics and say it realistically means the Constitution and rationalize it that way as I do but as it is worded it refers to "those appointed above me" so I'm stuck. It is disheartening to listen to retired Generals talk about how the civilian leadership in charge right now knows nothing about conducting war because none of them have ever fought one. It's something altogether different when you stop to realize they are all right. How do we have a career politician and two individuals that ducked a war because of connections leading a country at war with no idea of how to do that very thing? It keeps me up at night.

I have always maintained that I liked "Slick Willy" as a person but hated his foreign policy. Allowing Somalia to happen then pulling out of that could be used as a direct argument for what is happening in Iraq with the way they treat american troops. All they had to do was drag a few soldiers down the streets and we pulled out. At that point, the reason we originally went to Somalia became moot. When we left that made all these terror organizations realize how they could demoralize us without retribution. However, that being said, we did have a real reason to go into Somalia. We did not have a real reason to invade Iraq and Willy didn't lie about the intel that led to that operation.
So for as much as I disliked his policy I will gladly admit he was a great economical president and I would welcome him back if were allowed to run again. I'm not ashamed to say I'd take his presidency, impeachment and all, over this criminal empire the current "emperor" claimed to be saving us from as he ran his campaign.

ODShowtime
04-24-2006, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by stringfelowhawk
I know man. It's just frustrating to have to listen to him because of an oath I didn't make to him that says, "I have to obey those appointed over me." Where as an officer swears to the Constitution and not an individual. Now you could talk semantics and say it realistically means the Constitution and rationalize it that way as I do but as it is worded it refers to "those appointed above me" so I'm stuck. It is disheartening to listen to retired Generals talk about how the civilian leadership in charge right now knows nothing about conducting war because none of them have ever fought one. It's something altogether different when you stop to realize they are all right. How do we have a career politician and two individuals that ducked a war because of connections leading a country at war with no idea of how to do that very thing? It keeps me up at night.

You know, it's really just shocking to try to believe that Cheney, who was the secdef during the first gulf war, and heard all arguments back then about the Sunnis and the Shias and about how hard it would be to make a democratic Iraq and root out all the Baathists, still campaigned as hard as he did for this war, before and after it was launched.

None of the stuff that's happened in Iraq since the invasion is surprising. Well, the extent of the looting maybe, but that was strategically directed by Saddam.

I mean, sheeeit. I read a couple books and I know more about war than gw does! He's a fucknut!

blueturk
04-24-2006, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime


I mean, sheeeit. I read a couple books and I know more about war than gw does! He's a fucknut!

You've read one more book than Dubya has....

"Bill wrote a book at Yale. I read one." —George W. Bush, on William F. Buckley, Al Smith Dinner, New York City, Oct. 19, 2000