***Rumsfield Stepping Down***

[georgesbluegirl]

I would probably agree if it was one soldier, out of line, a few times.

Anyway, it would have saved us a lot of face on the international stage. Plus the military has very little respect for him. Remember when he tried to explain away the lack of armor for vehicles? "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want." Blah. I'm glad he's going.

[JustinM]

Yeah, unfortunately the Army we had, didn't really have the funding to stockpile heavily armed humvees before the war. Equipping and arming a military takes more than a few months and billions of dollars over the span of many years.

It takes 2 days to build 1 M-16 and 1 Kevlar helmet. Put that in perspective, then think about how long it would take humvee to be assembled. 2 weeks, and that doesn't count the up-armor either.

I watched a special on TV that went through the manufacturing process of our humvees, helmets and guns. It takes a lot of time.

[georgesbluegirl]

not an excuse for sending troops into battle ill-equipped. when they have to strap scrap metal on their humvees, there's a problem.

[David H.]

your president has lost his smirk along with his dictatorship

this is good tv watching

america has a real chance for security liberty peace and vision

thank you father god thank you

Oh, I couldn't agree more!

The question "Have you no respect for God?" is worth considering, even though the writer was referring only to the spelling. But there has been a strong tendancy to equate God with Republicans or with George Bush just because he's a Christian.

We have to watch thinking of any political party as the party of God. That's Islamic stuff, but it's also been Christian stuff ... in Ireland in the Crusades, etc. AND IT ALWAYS GOES BAD. And that is exactly why this is a great outcome for this election.

I voted for George Bush the first time around, and I so greatly regret my vote, that I staid out of the election the second time around and this one. I consider it the WORST vote I've ever made. George Bush has done more than any other president to give our nation a reputation of supreme arrogance toward the rest of the world. But there is something even more important at stake, regarding U.S. integrity that has been lost:

You simply CANNOT, as president, break a military doctrine that has been a GOLD STANDARD of the United States for a long, long time by launching a first-strike war on false pretenses AND GET AWAY WITH IT. Good man, Godly man or NOT, you have to be held accountable. If our nation did not hold Bush accountable that would be morally sick. Christians ought to be more concerned about that than others. When a president puts multiple nations into a WAR that costs thousands of lives he has -- AND HE IS THE ONE STARTING THE WAR -- then he has an absolute moral imperative to be right in his reasons for going to war. That cannot simply be dismissed as a mistake.

George Bush said a first strike (a pre-emptive war) was necessary because Saddam had WMD, AND he said it was justified by the U.S. because Saddam was involved in giving harbor to the terrorists of 9/11. Both claims were demonstrably false -- probably by mistake, not intent, but hopefully we'll find out which now that there is a Democrat congress to investigate the matter. We cannot be a moral nation and allow our presidents to launch WARS on false pretenses. We cannot be so cavalier about war when we have the greatest military on earth. The country with the greatest military has the greatest moral imprative to make certain its leaders use that military responsibly -- OTHERWISE THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS AT MORAL FAULT, for this is a government by the people. Whether mistake or lie, Bush must be held accountable. It was his responsiblity to make certain he had accurate information before he began. He has not been held accountable by the present Congress. If he isn't, we'll go down a path of launching all kinds of first strikes under a new and morally perilous doctrine without feeling we have to be right about our justifications -- because "we are the nation of God" or "we are the party of God." Very dangerous.

That said, George Bush the First should have taken out Saddam the first time around because THEN there was a moral right to our involvement in war. Saddam was the one who launched that war, not us. I said then that, if we didn't take out Saddam, we'd be back to fighting a war to get rid of him ten years later, and it would be MUCH worse and less clear-cut morally. AND IT WAS.

DON'T EQUATE GOD WITH REPUBLICANS OR GEORGE BUSH! It's extremely dangerous to identify God with human politics. That's a loaded combination that causes death everywhere that it happens and has throughout history. George Bush made a GRAVE ERROR, and he must be held accountable, even if you like him. We, the voters, are morally responsible for our government if we do not correct it. One form of enforced accountability is stripping Bush of his power by diminishing his support until he leaves office. The American public did not vote FOR Democrats, so much as they voted to neuter Bush.

Bush's party went down in flames, not God's party. And it went down when the economy is doing well, which is almost unheard of. That tells you how MUCH outrage exists over Bush's false pretenses for war and poor performance in war. And that is morally encouraging! That's why I say, "Hallelujah!" We expect better results in war and righteous reasons for going to war as a last resort. I'm glad to see the people of our country held him accountable. It speaks well of them. Democrats were simply the only other viable choice in order to accomplish that.

--David

Edited November 8, 2006 by David Haggith

[JustinM]

your president has lost his smirk along with his dictatorship

this is good tv watching

america has a real chance for security liberty peace and vision

thank you father god thank you

Oh, I couldn't agree more, whatever this person's agenda may or may not be.

And what kind of person writes "Have you no respect for God?"

Give me a break! Is George Bush your God? Have you so identified God as a Republican that you think dispatching the Republicans or being glad to see them go is an act against God? That's reprehensible.

Look, I voted for George Bush the first time around, and I so greatly regret my vote, that I staid out of the election the second time around and this one. I consider it the WORST vote I've ever made. You simply CANNOT as president break a military doctrine that has been a GOLD STANDARD of the United States for a long, long time by launching a first-strike war and then be wrong and get away with it. It is morally sick. When a president puts multiple nations into a war that costs thousands of lives he has -- AND HE IS THE ONE STARTING THE WAR -- then he has an absolute moral responsiblity to be right in his reasons for going to war.

George Bush said a first strike (a pre-emptive war) was necessary because Saddam had WMD, AND he said it was justified because Saddam was involved in giving harbor to the terrorist of 9/11. Both claims were blantantly false -- probably by mistake, not intent, but hopefully we'll find out which now that there is a Democrat congress to investigate the matter. We cannot be a moral nation and allow our presidents to launch WARS on false pretenses. Whether mistake or lie, he must be held accountable, or we'll go down a path of launching all kinds of first strikes without feeling we have to be right about our justifications.

That said, George Bush I should have taken out Saddam the first time around because THEN there was a moral right to the war. Saddam had launched the first strike. I said then that, if we didn't take out Saddam, we'd be back to fighting a war to get rid of him ten years later, and it would be MUCH worse. AND SO IT WAS.

DON'T EQUATE GOD WITH REPUBLICANS OR GEORGE BUSH! It's extremely dangerous to identify God with human politics. That's a loaded combination that causes death everywhere that it happens. George Bush made a GRAVE ERROR, and he must be held accountable. One form of accountability is stripping him of his power by diminishing his support.

Bush's party went down in flames, not God's party. And it went down when the economy is doing well, which is almost unheard of. That tells you how MUCH outrage exists over Bush's false pretenses for war and poor performance in war. We expect better results and righteous reasons for going to war as a last resort.

--David

It is difficult on chat forums to stay within the context of one post to another. If you had read the entire conversation before making this statement, you'd very well know that I was asking why he didn't capitalize "God" and "Him." To me, that shows a lack of reverence to our Lord. Especially when capitalizing a human's name over God's.

You are on the "Bush Lied, People Died" bandwagon and you just don't see why it was necessary to go to war with Iraq.

[ted]

I would probably agree if it was one soldier, out of line, a few times.

Anyway, it would have saved us a lot of face on the international stage. Plus the military has very little respect for him. Remember when he tried to explain away the lack of armor for vehicles? "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want." Blah. I'm glad he's going.

You have to remember that he cannot be everywhere. In fact, no one can. Knowing that, we have to trust that one in the military will act like an adult 100% of the time. Sadly, this is not always the case- that's when you have things like Abu Graib.

We set up training and make it simple and repetitive so that military members can act accordingly and within the lanes of what we are taught when in times where the time needed to think things out is not available.

Some of the people who were tasked to be prison guards failed to do the right thing when they had the chance.

Simply put- they messed up there, not Rumsfeld. It wouldn't have mattered who was the Sec Def at the time. Just like it won't matter who it is if someone else messes up next year.

Sometimes, people just act stupid. Simple as that.

Under your guidelines of leadership, a college Dean would have to step down if one of his/her students were caught drinking underage or committed a robbery.

Your claim that the "military" has very little respect for him is wrong. He has the respect of most of the military, in fact. His ways rubbed some Generals the wrong way at times, and they are voicing that recently, but I would bet that you would be hard pressed to find a massive wave of discontent with him throughout the military.

His explanation in regards to when he was questioned about the lack of up-armored humvve's was dead on. It's a sad fact that no military has ever gone into war with everything they ever wanted or ever needed.

Never.

Not the Romans, not the Nazi's, not the British, and certainly not the Americans in any war which was ever fought.

There will always be shortfalls and the lack of what is needed to do the job correctly. What he was trying to do was to remind people that this has always been the case and to drive on regardless. Personally, I think it was the truth in it's most raw form, and I'm glad he said it.

For one, the money needed to get us everything we could want or need far exceeded any budget ever given to us.

Secondly, although there may have been shortfalls, we were to fight on regardless of them. Again, it has always been the case, and it always will be. People who do not think that we need a strong military prevent us from getting all that we need.

Blame them.

What I hear is a bunch of nonsense from people who are looking for ways to explain away their own failures in leadership, or from people who have no idea about the subject. One of the two is usually the case.

It would be cool if we could simply look up some cheat codes on the web and get unlimited health and armor before we went to the next level in the game.

In real life, the story is a whole different matter.

His words were dead on target, and should have served to remind us that the task at hand is going to need to be completed regardless of the situational readiness aspects.

Instead, people used them to show that, somehow, Rumsfeld didn't care about the troops.

What a bunch of hogwash.

not an excuse for sending troops into battle ill-equipped. when they have to strap scrap metal on their humvees, there's a problem.

Yes, there's a problem.

There's a problem when people use a lack of equipment for an excuse for failing to accomplish their missions.

Improvising for a lack time, equipment, and personnel is something we will have to do as long as war is a reality.

Sorry, but it's true. It's true because it's also true that our society simply will not approve the funds needed to fully equip, train, and sustain a military designed to remain at a level which could take care of all situations for which it may be needed.

It's simply not going to happen.

We tried to warn people in the late '80's and early to mid- 90's that there would be an adverse effect if we continued to draw the military down back then. Now, we get to reap the "rewards" of such a massive lack of insight.

In that one speech, Rumsfeld spoke the truth, and no one wanted to listen. Everyone just assumed he was being arrogant. The funniest part was when the Dems tried to pain him as not caring enough about the military! lol

Imagine that?

Now, does he rub people the wrong way? Probably. Does he listen to everything people are telling him? Probably not.

Do you?

I know I don't.

Personally, I think he was the perfect man to have the job during the combat action phase of the battle for Iraq (I say battle because it is only a piece of the entire war on terror). He was, however, not the right guy for the security and rebuilding phases.

I think he should have resigned a little earlier that today, but for different reasons that you do.

Simply put, he wasn't the right guy to lead our military through the 3-5th stages of the effort in Iraq. He was a genius as far as battlefield management goes, but not for the repair phase.

But now he's gone and the country will simply say that he was to blame for the results. We won't care to look back and fix the main problems, but will simply say that it's his fault.

Therefore, and for that reason only, we will be doomed to fall victim the same mistakes one day.

t.

PS-

Anyway, it would have saved us a lot of face on the international stage.

Who cares about the international stage? They failed us on this one, and now some of them are starting to feel the effects of this failure.

The streets of Paris no longer need electricity to light them due to the flames.

[other one]

Responsible, yes, but probably not to blame on that one. Remember, the CIA had a lot to do with the way those prisons were run at the time.

If a teacher hits a child do we fire the Education Secretary?

Thanks,

t.

Some people try....

[David H.]

It is difficult on chat forums to stay within the context of one post to another. If you had read the entire conversation before making this statement, you'd very well know that I was asking why he didn't capitalize "God" and "Him." To me, that shows a lack of reverence to our Lord. Especially when capitalizing a human's name over God's.

You are on the "Bush Lied, People Died" bandwagon and you just don't see why it was necessary to go to war with Iraq.

Justin, This forum is happening so fast, that I did not get my correction up before you posted this response. I think we were both writing at the same time. If you look back, though, you'll see that I was correcting my post even as you wrote, as I came to understand your statements.

As for your question of reverence, you will also note if you read carefully that the particular writer in question never capitalizes anything, even his own name. He writes on the fly in all lower case.

Edited November 8, 2006 by David Haggith

[ted]

Look, I voted for George Bush the first time around, and I so greatly regret my vote, that I staid out of the election the second time around and this one. I consider it the WORST vote I've ever made. You simply CANNOT as president break a military doctrine that has been a GOLD STANDARD of the United States for a long, long time by launching a first-strike war and then be wrong and get away with it. It is morally sick. When a president puts multiple nations into a war that costs thousands of lives he has -- AND HE IS THE ONE STARTING THE WAR -- then he has an absolute moral responsiblity to be right in his reasons for going to war.

David, in writing this, you are assuming that the US initiated a war in Iraq out of the blue.

But did we really?

Consider this:

I think that the conditions laid out, and agreed upon by Saddam, following the first Gulf War were never met in the first place. The only real victories in that war were that Saddam was driven out of Kuwait and the establishment of the Nothern and Southern No-fly zones.

Other than that, we left Saddam intact to continue as he pleased.

He bypassed UN mandates and ate them like candy.

He continued to deny UN Inspectors proper access to all sites.

He participated in a plan to skirt UN-imposed sanctions so that he could continue to get money for his military. In that, he is not totally to blame. He did, in fact, have the blessings and help from Koffi himself to do this.

He repeatedly continued to paint our aircraft with radar in the no-fly zones, yet another violation of the surrender agreements.

He planned the assasination of a former US President.

The list goes on and on.

Can we really say that the first Gulf War ever really ended in the first place? The time between the first and second invasion of Iraq was filled with hostile intent on the part of Saddam.

And, if you remember correctly, we went in this time as a result of his failures regarding the UN's mandates against him- not for any trumped up new stuff. All we did was follow through with the old mandates in the first place, which were put in place during the first surrender, and agreed upon by Saddam.

It was his failure, not ours, which caused this.

The problem this time was that the UN was not willing to be a part of enforcing it's own resolutions.

Who's fault is that, anyway?

Thanks,

t.

[David H.]

Sorry David, these claims are not false. Iraq is an integral part in the war on terror. It is a well known fact that Saddam had WMD and he refused to cooperate with UN inspectors regarding these WMD. Even Bill Clinton knew he had WMD, as stated in UN reports. And by the time the UN inspectors were able to get into Iraq to examine the sites, the WMD were moved to Syria with the help of the Russians. It is also well known that Saddam had been harboring terror groups, including those from AlQaida. Have you forgotten already why we involved ourselves in this war? Islamofacists declared war on us on 9/11 in our homeland, and this has been on-going many years prior to with attacks on American interests overseas.

My Web Blog

Where do you get your false information. No ties to Al Qaeda have been established. The most remote tie was that some Al Qaeda members (a very, very small number) seem to have been in the country while Saddam was leader; but there is no established connection at all between them and him, no indication he had any knowledge of their presence. To hold him accountable for that, even if he is a mean person, is morally wrong. I guarantee you that there are Al Qaeda people present in OUR country, too, right now while George Bush is president. Does that make George Bush a rightful target in our war on terror? You have to apply the same standard of justice to all, not one to our leader and another to Saddam. There is NO known Al Qaeda connection with Saddam. So, he is NOT a legitimate target in the war on terror. Your information about Al Qaeda is a gross exageration of what was truly found there.

As for WMD, a few rusty warheads were found lost behind some piles of junk. Do you think that, if George Bush were required to get rid of all chemical weapons, he could be sure of locating every single one. I think Saddam had no awareness of those weapons as they were considered barely usable, given their age, and hard for us to find (took over a year) even with full access to the country and total control of the government at that time.

If the war was about refusal to cooperate with inspectors, then that is the sole basis George Bush should have given; but he knew the majority of the country would not go to war for that reason, and he knew the world would not join him in any coalition for that reason; so, he either concocted or was far too quick to believe that there was a much graver danger that would justify war. HE WAS WRONG. And only morally iresponsible people do not hold their leader morally responsible on such grave errors.

--David